Talk:Warnborough College

Separate articles

Seems like we should have separate articles for Warnborough UK and Warnborough Ireland. (They can prominently point to each other.) The rationale: the two institutions are distinct corporate entities, are in different countries, are separately accredited (or lack thereof), have different offerings, etc. What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the single article still makes sense, since it's clear that all of the schools called "Warnborough", now and in the past, are closely intertwined.
In that connection, this 2003 legislative transcript from New South Wales indicates that "Warnborough University" was operating at that time out of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. The previous year there were indications in an Australian national government source[1] that "Warnborough" was operating in Malaysia (also that Brendan Tempest-Mogg was in Australia and offering unaccredited educational programs through a company in New South Wales). It appears to me that the Malaysian and Australian operations should be included in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like original research to mush everything together. I think the article is very confusing as it is. Now that Warnborough UK is accredited we really need to talk about the two schools separately, rather than intertwine them. It has its own legitimate identity -- even being granted accreditation at the premier level. Maybe a first step would be to change the organization of the article away from its current chronological approach and have clearly separate sections for each of the schools. For one thing, we don't want to give the impression that the Warnborough UK accreditation somehow legitimizes Warnborough Ireland. TimidGuy (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, now that Warnborough UK is accredited, we ought to give the same sort of detail regarding their offerings as every other Wikipedia article about a college. TimidGuy (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC) And the focus of the article is exclusively on distance ed, but Warnborough UK also offers in-residence education. TimidGuy (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is confusing because its topic is confusing. The various Warnborough institutions have a very sketchy and confusing history. It would become even more confusing if an attempt were made to write separate articles about each of the different apparitions of "Warnborough" institutions over the decades. Moreover, the notability of this topic derives primarily from the history -- particularly the notoriety received in the 1990s. I think, for example, that Warnborough UK in its present manifestation (i.e., as a school in Canterbury that offers local and distance education courses in topics such as bookkeeping and hotel management) would not be sufficiently notable by itself to have an encyclopedia article.

I would not place much significance on the "premier level" of the school's ASIC accreditation. It appears to me that ASIC accreditation at the premier level affirms that this is a legitimate educational institution (a very important affirmation not to be trivialized), but it does not indicate that the school is authorized to grant academic degrees or that its coursework meets any particular quality criteria. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like any accredited school is notable in its own right. The process is very rigorous, involving a thorough audit onsite that I believe is done over a period of days. All of the school's processes are looked at, faculty and students are interviewed. The premier level is an indication of quality. "Colleges which are deemed by the Accreditation Committee to have satisfied a number of indicators of commendable provision in identified sub-areas in each Area of Operation will be awarded a commendable grade for that Area and those colleges which are awarded commendable grades in at least six Areas, normally including Areas B,C,D and E, will be awarded Commendable overall. These colleges will have ASIC Premier College status."[2] TimidGuy (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady 100%. Other than their long history of controversies, I seriously doubt that any of the various incarnations of Warnborough would be notable enough for an article here. Further, it is hardly "original research" to treat the various incarnations of Warnborough together. Both Warnborough (IE) and Warnborough (UK) claim to have their origins in Warnborough (Oxford); Warnborough (IE) characterizes them as "independent colleges under the Warnborough brand" Fladrif (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding OR, I was referring to Malaysia and Australia. But once I looked at Orlady's source, I don't see that it meets WP:V. In my experience, educational institutions are generally considered inherently notable from the secondary level on up. Many podunk high schools have Wikipedia articles, and most of them aren't notable. TimidGuy (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We all have a sense of what is and isn't "inherently" notable, but in the end notability is still based on third-party reliably sourced coverage. For most individual incarnations of Warnborough, that coverage is very thin. As for the Australian Government sources I mentioned, they are not sources of information on what Warnborough was or wasn't actually doing, but they are very reliable sources on what certain Australian Government officials reported regarding Warnborough. For schools with many incarnations, it's not uncommon for articles to mention "sighting reports" such as those. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good point that Warnborough is marketing the two institutions under the "Warnborough brand" as Warnborough Worldwide. TimidGuy (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think that separate articles are appropriate, I do think that the article might make a little more sense if it was reordered a little bit. I'm thinking that it might make more sense to use the one existiing subheading for Warnborough (Oxford) as-is, and then, instead of the "Distance Learning" and "Accreditation" captions, reorganize that material into two new headings: "Warnborough(IE") and "Warnborough (UK)", with each separately treating their respective histories, offerings and accreditations or lack therof. Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. I think this is a good idea. I had been thinking of suggesting something similar. TimidGuy (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppose we do something like this:

Warnborough University

In 1997, following the closure of Warnborough College in Oxford, Warnborough University registered as a limited company in Ireland, directed by Brenden Tempest-Mogg and Kee Guan Ng, a Malaysian national[1], and registered a branch office in the UK. It initially operateding out an office in London, and later moved to Canterbury. It offered graduate and undergraduate residential and nonresidential degrees in liberal arts, scientific and professional studies. In November 2005, the Department of Education and Science said that Warnborough University was in breach of the Universities Act 1997 by calling itself a university, and requested that they not use the word "university" to describe themselves.[21] In January 2006 two separate companies were established in Ireland and the UK, respectively, under the Warnborough College brand.

Warnborough College (UK)

Warnborough College (UK) is located in Canterbury, Kent. Warnborough College (UK) issues certificates and diplomas in a number of short-course vocational and personal-enrichment subjects.[17] It does not offer degrees, as it does not have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in the U.K.[16], which is a requirement to offer recognized British degrees.[18] Warnborough's distance-education bookkeeping courses lead to Level 1 and Level 2 certification from the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers.[19] Warnborough College (UK) is a member of the Association of Business Executives (ABE) and offers tuition services for students sitting for the ABE short courses, covering business management and tourism and hospitality. [20]

Warnborough College (UK) was accredited in December 2008 by the Accreditation Service for International Colleges and is designated a "Premier College." [22]

Warnborough College (IE)

Warnborough College (IE) currently has offices in Dublin, and offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of disciplines.

Warnborough College (IE) rented offices from All Hallows College in Drumcondra for two years from 2006 to 2008. In February 2008, the Irish Independent reported that All Hallows officials were concerned that Warnborough had falsely represented itself as linked to All Hallows, which had no involvement in Warnborough's academic programs or arrangements. At All Hallow's request, Warnborough removed photographs of All Hallows from its website. All Hallows said that it would not renew Warnborough's lease after August 2008.[1]

Warnborough College (IE) courses are not recognized by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI). In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent that because Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body, the qualifications are "effectively worthless." [1]

In July 2008, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), an accrediting body for Ireland's third-level educational institutions, denied Warnborough College (IE)'s application for accreditation because Warnborough failed to agree to quality-control procedures, which was the first step in the accreditation process.[23] Warnborough College (IE) sought leave to take judicial review of the denial, [24]but withdrew its appeal in November 2008 after HETAC agreed to permit Warnborough to submit a new accreditation application.[25],

Warnborough College and Warnborough University degrees are not accepted in Texas,[26] Oregon,[27] by Michigan civil service,[28] Maine [29]. A Warnborough College degree is not accepted in South Korea for purposes of obtaining an E-2 Visa.[30][31]

Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In terns of the writing and clarity, I think it's intelligent and well written. I guess ultimately I'd like to see a different order for the sections: put the current Warnborough iterations and their offerings first, followed by a history section. Especially now that Warnborough UK is accredited. I think that most other college and university articles are organized this way. I'd like to put in more information about Warnborough UK's offerings. It's much richer than the article would suggest. TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC) But overall, nicely done. I'm an experienced writer, and have an appreciation for good writing. TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. But, I have to disagree about the order of the article. My entirely unscientific survey of Wikepedia college and university articles give me the impression that most open with a short intro, followed by a history, and then with more detail on the current offerings, progams, etc... I'm sure that this "rule" is observed most often in the breach. But in this case I think that having the article in this basic order makes the relationships between the various Warnborough incarnations much easier to follow than if the order was reversed. But, I'm willing to be proven wrong. Fladrif (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. How about emulating the structure of such articles, putting the history in a History section, so that the current offerings are clearly distinct? See UCLA as a random example. TimidGuy (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll add a "History" heading, and make the Warnborough(Oxford) and Warnborough University entries as second-level headings under that. If I can figure out how one does that. Fladrif (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The new layout for the article looks great. Good and factual too. Well doneDegreemill (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. It's amazing how much these recent changes have improved the article. And even helped move it in the direction of NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There must be two seperate articles, one on WCUK and one on WC Ireland, since they are two seperate legal entities. We have looked at other wikipedia articicles on colleges and not one of them notes anything negative - for instance have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_College,_Kent

These articles are all promotional with colleges advertising themselves and no references are cited at all. Yet the focus here has been a campaign to discredit Warnborough, and limit anything that is positive, or play it down. We are requesting that we be given the same rights as other colleges to promote ourselves devoid of gossip, hearsay, negatives and bias. Otherwise, we suggest that negatives be put up about other colleges - rapes on campus, founders ex-cons, student violence, faculty and staff complaints, etc. etc. The list goes on and one. Why should we be victimised? Warnborough (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if we seem hot under the collar, but we feel strongly that Warnborough be given the same treatment that is being allowed other colleges on Wikipedia.Warnborough (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regardless, few universities and colleges have the complex institutional history that the Warnboroughs have had. However, there's plenty of precedent for covering multiple incarnations of one institution in a single article. See University of Phoenix, Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Bryant & Stratton College, and Warren National University, to name just a few. Also, although there are continuing problems with affiliated persons (not unlike yourself) who attempt to eliminate all negative content from university articles so that the articles can serve as student-recruitment brochures, Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view, which often means including negative information that is supported by reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption. I agree with Orlady that there is plenty of precedent for treating all of the various incarnations of Warnborough together, particularly where, as here, there have been a dizzying array of Warnborough legal entities over the past 35 years, incorporated in multiple jurisdictions around the world, but all with common and overlapping owners, officers and directors. Even Warnborough's own promotional materials characterize the two current incarnations of Warnborough as part of the same "brand" and with a common history going back to the original Warnborough House College.

To suggest that the Warnborough page, or any page, should be "promotional" or "advertising" is contrary to the Wikipedia policies prohibiting exactly that. See WP:PROMOTION WP:NOTADVERTISING And, it is factually inaccurate to claim that negative information is not included in articles for other schools. See, for example United_States_Air_Force_Academy#Controversies, Southern_Methodist_University#Athletics, or Virginia_Polytechnic_Institute_and_State_University#Massacre

The complaint about "hearsay" is misplaced. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. It generally doesn't permit reliance on primary sources, but requires reliable secondary and tertiary sources. WP:PRIMARY Thus, any properly-sourced information in a Wikipedia article is necessarily "hearsay". What I have yet to see here is a convincing complaint that any the cited sources are unreliable per Wikipedia policy. Fladrif (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ASIC accreditation for Warnborough UK

It looks like Warnborough UK has achieved accreditation with the Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC). Congratulations to Warnborough; this is a significant indication of legitimacy, although it is not the kind of "accreditation" that indicates a school can award academic degrees. Someone has added the fact of this accreditation to the article, but the article also needs to say when the accreditation process was completed (apparently this was very recent). One would expect a press release or news story announcing this, but I can't find any online sources for the accreditation other than the list on the ASIC website. Can anyone supply this information and a source? --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation was awarded in late December 2008, and is for 4 years, and Warnborough College (UK) achieved Premier College status. A Press Release will be out in due course. Remember, Warnborough College (UK) does NOT award degrees. All degrees are awarded by Warnborough College (Ireland) a sister college that is undergoing HETAC accreditation. WarnboroughWarnborough (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links

It seems to me that the external links cited in the article should be changed. I would delete the link to the Warnborough (IE) FAQ page on the basis that it is an internal page on the main site already listed. I would delete the link to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization page, on the basis that the page is already referenced as a footnote to the article. I would consider adding a link to the Warnborough Alumni Association website. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good ideas. TimidGuy (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian Recognition or Lack Thereof

We went around about two months ago about the deletion of the statement that "Warnborough degrees are not accepted in ....Australia." I don't know who originally listed Australia or what the original supporting citation was for that statement; I did find a citation for it not being on the NSW list of approved institutions, but that cite is now a dead link. Brown, George, "Protecting Australia’s Higher Education System: A Proactive Versus Reactive Approach in Review" Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004 There is, however, a cached version in HTML via Google: Cached Version

But, here are two additional sources that support the statement:

Questions on Notice (April 3 2001), a report from the Austrailian Education Minister to the Australian Parlaiment that neither Warnborough University nor any of its consortium members were accredited in Australia.

Submission 96 (September 9, 2005) A letter from the President of Warnborough College/Warnborough University to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration complaining that Warnborough graduates were being denied employment in Australia because it wasn't on the list of recognized institutions.

I should think that the part about Warnborough degrees not being recognized in Australia ought to go back in, with these citations. The first is a reliable secondary source, and the other two are reliable primary sources which confirm the accuracy of the secondary source information. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have originally added that, based on a news report in The Australian, which I believe I found using Lexis/Nexis. I'd have to search my computer to find it again. The citation seems to have been lost. One problem with using cached web pages as a source is that maybe a web page has been deliberately deleted because the information is no longer current. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough still does not appear on the AQF Registerso it would appear that the information about lack of recognition continues to be current. Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the article need not be written solely in the present tense. For example, information from 2005 could be presented in wording like this: "As of 2005, Warnborough graduates were ..." That does not say anything that is not supported by the source, because it does not indicate whether or not the situation has changed since 2005. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article from The Australian that TimidGuy cited is referenced Here It looks like, at the time NSW put together the list based on the unauthorized use of "University" in the name. Now, it doesn't appear to have a list of banned schools, but rather a list of recognized schools (a much easier list to maintain, I would think). Warnborough isn't on the current list of recognized schools. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Seeing that Warnborough DOES NOT offer programmes in Australia why would it be on any list? Also, we noted that Oxford is not listed, nor is Yale, Harvard, Princeton and thousands of other 'recognised schools'!!! Warnborough (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason this information is relevant is because in 2003 it was reported in the New South Wales Parliament that Warnborough was operating in New South Wales.[3] There I go again, relying on published sources instead of personal knowledge! --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And another reason would be that Warnborough does in fact purport to offer programs in Australia through a half-dozen Australian "consortium partners" listed on its website, one of whom - Health Schools Australia - actually claims on its website that its "Bachelor of Neuropathy" degree is being issued by and is accredited by Warnborough!!! [4] Fladrif (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough, please review the warnings on your User page. I reverted your most recent edit because your changes lacked Reliable sources. They could also have been reverted because of your apparent conflict of interest. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the result of a search for "Warnborough" in "The Australian's" archives. The full text of the articles require a subscription or a paid service like Lexis. Warnborough's and other similar institutions' lack of accreditation was a huge issue in Australia in the 2000-2003 timeframe, garnering much press attention and resulting in a crackdown from NSW and Australian national authorities. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough, I would like to reiterate and amplify TallMagic's comment. Since you have an apparent conflict of interest, although you are allowed to edit the article, the policy advises that you are very careful to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That includes Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability, which says that all information that's added must be sourced. While many college and university Wikipedia articles don't source much of their content, it's important in this article because the topic is somewhat controversial and because the article is receiving much scrutiny. According to the policy on verifiability, which states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves," your website could be used as a source for information about Warnborough UK's academic offerings. But claims you inserted, such as being the first in the UK to receive a particular ISO certification, would probably need a third-party source. Some of the information, such as ISO certification, falls into a gray area between the extremes of straightforward info and claiming to be the first. We can use the Reliable Sources noticeboard to get feedback on this. But for now, a first step would be for us to add some basic detail about Warnborough UK's offerings. TimidGuy (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead/Intro

I'm not thrilled with the changes here. I think that what was here before was clearer, and did conform to the Wiki guidelines on lead sentence. But, I don't care about it enough to play with alternative language myself. Others may be sufficiently interested to do so.

One thought to consider in revising the lead-in (and this has implications for the body of the the article): The description of Warnborough (IE) gives the impression that there is a physical presence in Dublin more substantial than a tiny office suite in a highrise. And, subject of course to the constraints of [WP:RS] and [WP:NPOV], it would appear from its website and from those of its "partners" that Warnborough(IE) not only offers distance learning, but also on-site tuition at "learning centers" run by its various "consortium members" around the world, an ever-changing list of institutions of questionable provenance. This is a pattern and business plan that the various prior incarnations of Warnborough followed once it got away from the semester abroad model and into the degree-granting racket. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in Higher Education and the history of universties we suggest looking at the history and founding of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and other top universties. It was not easy going for them, and the founder of Harvard was in prison twice! Even my college at Oxford went bust a few times over the ages - but all these institutions perservered because they had dedicated and committed leadership, faculty and alumni. Warnborough (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We are requesting that other relevant information about WCUK not be deleted as this information is sourced and is part of what we do and who we are. Warnborough (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I found sources on your website for the first two sections, but I can't find anything about community outreach. I do think that the first two sections can be included per WP:V, and I've added links to the relevant pages of your website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough, I removed the section called Community Outreach for lack of verifiability. Please note that if TimidGuy hadn't found references for the other two items then they too would have been removed. It is the responsibility of the editor adding information to also add the references. You need to thank TimidGuy for doing your job for you. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Subheadings

Further to TimidGuy's idea that the article might be made more fulsome with respect to offerings, etc, I added some subheadings for Warnborough UK and Warnborough IE, and made a couple of very minor edits to move a sentence or two to better fit the headings. At this juncture, the headings make the article look a bit skeletal, but I thought it would be a useful thing to do assuming this will get fleshed out at some point.Fladrif (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards, Memberships, etc

I was about to revert these deletions, because it looked to me like they were properly sourced. That they were originally self-sourced was problematic, but later links were provided to the various organizations mentioned, which I believe everyone participating in the discussion agreed was appropriate sourcing. If the subject of an article has a web page or a press release that says "We got award X", or "We are a member of Y organization", and the folks issuing the award have a web page or press release that says "We gave this award", and the organization lists them as a member, I think that is appropriate sourcing.

What brought me short was double-checking back. For example, Warnborough says that it is an ETS approved testing center for GRE, SAT, etc... but when I looked at the ETS web site, Warnborough isn't listed for either GRE or SAT at this time. I'm pretty sure that it used to be listed. So, until somebody double-checks all those third-party sources, I'm inclined to let the deletions stand, at least for now. Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

wp:SELFPUB says that self published information can be used in the article under the follow conditions.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
   2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
   3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

My opinion is that it was unduly self-serving. Without the interpretation of a secondary source author, it is highly questionable what value these awards actually hold. I would argue that it is also involving claims about third parties. If Warnborough won an award it needs to be linked to from the site that bestowed the award, at least that is my interpretation. Other wise it's a claim involving a third party on the Warnborough website. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I could go either way on the unduly self-serving issue. The main thing with the Warnborugh gang is to actually verify anything they claim. So, I agree with you that, if the awarding entity says "We gave X award to WC in 2008" or an organization's membership list includes WC as a member, I think that's sufficient sourcing. I thought that the links that had been inserted to various third party sites served that purpose. But, I'd want to go back to each of them individually to confirm all over again before I'd consider putting any of this back in. Fladrif (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue I have with "awards & certificates" from unaccredited institutions is that these institutions typically try to sell them as substitutes for accreditation. Which can sometimes work for students but doesn't usually work with employers. So making too much of a thing out of non-notable awards & certificates turns out to really be misleading in these kind of articles, IMHO. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Office of Degree Authorization

The following was deleted from the article.

<quote>The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization mentions that this accreditation for training provider does not apply to academic degrees.</quote>

The ODA actual quote is

<quote>Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees' - British Higher Education Governance office.</quote>[5]

The edit comment was that the text wasn't supported by the source. Plese explain what about the assertion is not supported by the source. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The OOAC is quoting the BHEG. BHEG isn't saying anything about accreditation. BHEG says that being listed on the registry of training providers does not mean that a school can issue degrees. The ASIC, ICB and ABE accreditations have nothing whatsoever to do with being on the registry of training providers that BHEG is talking about. Warnborough UK can't issue degrees of any kind. Period. It doesn't make any sense to talk about its degrees being unaccredited when it can't issue degrees.

If you'll look back at the editing history on this article, I think you'll see that I can hardly be accused of being a fan of the Warnborough gang's myriad misrepresentations in any of their many incarnations, past, present and future. (FYI 216.etc are my edits also before I got a username, and occasionally when I forget to log in) I knew these frauds 35 years ago when they were just getting this scam started. But, I am getting concerned that the level of repetition that you've added to the article in recent months in an attempt to clarify the lack of accreditation may be adding to the confusion rather than adding clarity. I would be happy to discuss how to make improvements to the article in that regard or any other. Fladrif (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'm only interested in an accurate article myself. I really only assumed that you felt the same. I understand the point about them not being authorized to issue degrees. Although the obvious fact is that they are issuing degrees and to me that means that they're unaccredited. Perhaps the best way to deal with this particular issue is to simply put this quote "Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees' - British Higher Education Governance office" in that spot? Regarding repeating the accreditation information, I agree that the accreditation information should best be in one spot. Although the counter argument is that the affiliated organizations suffer slightly different problems in different jurisdictional areas so it is going to have to be a bit messy. When the original info about accreditation for being a training provider was added I remember looking at it. I verified to myself that it was true but never got back to trying to clarify the difference between some training classes being accredited and academic degrees still being unaccredited. So that is all I was trying to accomplish with the edit. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It doesn't appear to me that Warnborough (UK) is issuing degrees of any kind. Warnborough (IE) is issuing degrees, but those are unaccredited. Reading Warnborough (UK)'s materials, I can see how some of the things they say about their "diplomas" and "qualifications" etc.. could well be misinterpreted by someone either not all that fluent in English or not all that familar with the UK higher education system (which would be square in Warnborough's current target demographic - third world students from Africa and Asia) as being the same thing as a degree. So, I agree that the important thing is to emphasize in the article that Warnborough UK doesnt and cant issue degrees of any kind. Fladrif (talk) (weird - this page won't let me log in)216.157.197.218 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

January 2 Edits

Some of these are ok. But (i) why delete the schools' logos? and (iii) why delete the identification of the different Warnborough entities in the history? (iii) and why use the ambiguous term "Warnborough" when writing about a specific entity? The earlier editors went to a lot of trouble to straighten this all out specifically because of the confusion created by a proliferation of entities bearing the Warnborough name. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jon-mingle, 10 January 2011

I'm an employee for Warnborough College, and I'd like to request a slanted point of view to be removed. The incriminating comment is the following:

Alan Contreras, administrator of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, characterizes Warnborough College as "a diploma mill that has managed to move back and forth between Britain and Ireland for decades without either government's [sic.] being able to put an end to it".

This is currently a part of the introduction, and is no longer ratified by a verifiable source. Therefore it is libellous, and should be removed.

All courses from Warnborough College deliver a comprehensive programme. No awards are conferred through little or no study, as is implied by the denigrating term "diploma mill". We are a legitimately accredited organisation, recognised as a "Premier College" by the Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC). - Listed here

Jon-mingle (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I don't understand what you mean by 'no longer ratified by a verifiable source.' What sources are not verifiable or have I misunderstood your meaning? It's still on the Oregon list [6] where it is called a 'degree mill'. Contreras still lists it in his top 10 [7] (see his comment just under the article, it was left out of the original list). The state of Maine says "Not an Irish degree-granter. Not a UK degree-granting entity. Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees. May also have issued degrees from Washington D.C. [8]. Here is a 2008 article from the Irish Independent, [9] which besides discussing its status in Ireland says it is not "recognised by the UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills as an institution with the power to award its own degrees." (which I believe hasn't changed). I can confirm of course what you say about ACIS although that's a different type of accredidation. I'll raise this issue elsewhere and return here shortly to give you a link to that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the page is unprotected. What I've done is raised the issue at WP:NPOVN#Warnborough College - libellous lead? asking others to look at it to make sure it follows our policy at WP:NPOV. As an employee you should probably not be editing the page directly (see WP:COI but discussing it here or at the link I've given. The problem is that I don't see any issues with the current sources and as you can see there are other sources (including Contreras from Oregon) that are more recent. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The aforementioned "degree mill" comment is still cited by this link [10] which reverts back to the Boston College Center homepage. We strongly feel this accusation doesn't give the college a fair reflection of the services we provide, as all of the courses are comprehensive and accredited. The college does not misrepresent itself, and does not claim authorisation in issuing degrees, but we do provide official and valuable qualifications. [11] Therefore the misconception of us being a "diploma mill" is fallacious. Just because we do not confer degrees isn't tantamount to us being a "diploma mill". This is just one person's unsubstantiated remark, and it's utterly libellous. I will heed your advice for now, and not edit the page myself, but I hope an administrator can look into this further and take prompt action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon-mingle (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A principal problem seems to be the confusion between the Warnborough institution in the United Kingdom and the one in Ireland. This article is about both and their complex history. Warnborough UK appears to now be legitmately accredited but doesn't award its own degrees and Warnborough in Ireland does not appear to have any recognised acceditation status and awards degress which may be legal but aren't considered legitimately "accredited". The other principal problem seems to be the less than reputable history of the various "Warnborough" entities. Even if these problems have largely now been fixed it is difficult to erase its past reputation. From what I can tell Warnborough doesn't appear to be a "diploma mill" - at least not now - although it has been considerably less than honest in the past about its status. In order to give the article more balance perhaps it can be edited to reflect the more recent attempts of Warnborough to be honest and factual about its status. Afterwriting (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I still have is the sources I've listed above which shows that it is still - 2010- considered a 'degree mill' in the US at least. The article still needs to reflect that IMHO. I'm not sure what you mean by 'legitimately accredited'. And so far as I can see, it doesn't legitimately award any degrees (at some colleges you get degrees which are actually awarded by other institutions, I didn't think this was the case here). Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments seem to perfectly highlight the confusion that I am commenting on. There are *two* partly separate bodies being discussed in this article - Warnborough College UK and Warnborough College Ireland. The UK college does not claim to issue degrees and its certificate and diploma courses appear to have some kind of recognised accreditation (but I could be wrong on this). The Irish college, however, claims to issue its own degrees which it claim are legal and legitimate even though they are not accredited by the relevant Irish education authority. Neither body - at least these days - appears to a "diploma mill" in the ways this term is usually used (little or no actual coursework, "life experience" degrees and so on). Not being accredited doesn't equate to being a diploma mill as such. I don't object in principle to includng comments and references that suggest that the Warnborough bodies are diploma mills but these should be balanced, if possible, by factual information on their current status. Afterwriting (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your efforts in dealing with this so far. Please let me stress, an official that has no acute connection with Warnborough College has made this unfounded, fabricated claim. We pride ourselves on our transparency, and we are a fully authorised organisation. We do not claim to offer degrees, but we provide ABE [12] qualifications that are of an equivalent standing to a degree level. All ABE qualifications are accredited by Ofqual, the UK qualifications regulatory authority. [13]

The distinctions for "diploma mill" and "degree mill", are displayed here on this Wikipedia article. [14] - We do not issue counterfeit diplomas, nor do we award qualifications without recognition from official educational accrediting bodies. Therefore this is a false allegation from an official that is evidently unfamiliar the UK educational system, as we are authentically accredited by the ASIC. [15][16] (Please note, this was written prior to Afterwriting's post, and is in response to Dougweller) Jon-mingle (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your comments is that it's not clear which Warnborough College you are talking about. I can only assume that you are restricting your comments to the UK college as the Irish college does in fact issue degrees and - as its own website makes clear - these degrees are issued without recognition or accreditation from the relevant Irish education authority. It isn't surprising, therefore, that some would claim that it is a diploma or degree mill. And, as the convoluted history of the various Warnborough bodies clearly indicates, its history in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere has not always demonstrated a reputation for "transparency" - but I'm pleased that you now appear to have started becoming so. Afterwriting (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of critical points need to be addressed. Firstly, let me comment on our history, and strongly refute these claims. Our reputation for transparency came into question from disgruntled students that were naive in thinking we were affiliated with Oxford University. However, there is no evidence for this from our publications, and it was a fatuous oversight from the students who made these damaging reports. Where is the evidence and citations from our publications to verify these claims? We were located in the Oxford area, alongside many other academic institutions. But the misapprehension was that we were associated with Oxford University, although we have always clearly stated that we are an independent organisation.

Now to clarify on the issue of accreditation. You are right, the UK college is accredited by the ASIC, yet the Irish college currently remains unaccredited. However, this does not indicate illegitimacy, or that we are a "degree mill". A degree mill would be fraudulently trying to issue counterfeit degrees, which as you can see, is categorically not the case! [17] This allegation from the OODA official is taken from unattached secondary source. It's hearsay, it's unsubstantiated, and it's a libellous prejudiced view. Unfortunately it has spiralled and escalated, in a malicious attempt to tarnish our reputation. But all misconceptions have been given from unaffiliated secondary sources in the US. How can they fairly cast a judgement on our operations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon-mingle (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the OODA appears to meet our criteria as a reliable source, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. As do the other US sources. The article seems to have considerable detail about the qualifications it does offer that are in some way certified/accredited, although I'm not clear where OFQUAL comes in. Precisely what changes do you want made? Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We would like the maliciously defamatory "diploma mill" comment removed primarily. It may be a good idea to investigate further into our history as well. It seems that many of the citations for those claims are now dead links? Also mentioning that the UK college is now an accredited institution (recognised as a Premier College from the ASIC since 2008) would be fair. I would just like to add, that we wouldn't have been accredited with such a high status, if we didn't operate competently. Perhaps you should take that into context.Jon-mingle (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I also mentioned Ofqual, as they are a UK regulatory authority, verifying that qualifications meet a high standard. They regulate the ABE qualifications that we provide. I added this to emphasise that although the UK Warnborough College does not issue degrees, we do in fact provide valuable, reputable, regulated ABE diplomas. Therefore the "diploma mill" comment is undeserving. Jon-mingle (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a link may be dead doesn't necessarily make it no longer a reliable sources, as sources don't need to be accessible on the web. What I am wondering if whether the lead should mention that there has been considerable controversy over its status but the quote should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Moving the quote from the lede to the body of the article (Section 1.3 perhaps) would seem to be an appropriate solution to address concerns that undue weight is being accorded to Contreras' reliably-sourced and clearly-attributed opinion. Fladrif (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this and would ask - for balance - that some of Warnborough's response to this criticism also be included. Afterwriting (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this thoroughly yet, but I'm very hesitant to change the article. Here are some of my observations:

• I note that the "diploma mill" statement is part of a quotation, not a statement by Wikipedia, so Wikipedians do not need to provide irrefutable evidence that it is 100% true.
• Not only do the US sources still list Warnborough as unaccredited, but I recently ran across a recently-published Italian government document on diploma mills that discusses Warnborough as an example of such.
• I see that Accreditation Service for International Colleges, which Warnborough describes as its accreditor, is described in its Wikipedia article thusly: "Accreditation by ASIC is primarily a border control mechanism should not be confused with formal educational accreditation." Notice the word "not." --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to emphasise that, even though an institution is not accredited, it does not mean they are a "diploma mill" or that their qualifications are effectively worthless. This is a major misconception, as we have had numerous students that have gone on to great success, plus the vast majority of our students are delighted with our services. The accreditation system is by no means infallible, and this is highlighted by an examination of the US system. [18]Jon-mingle (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the one making that "diploma mill" statement. Wikipedia is quoting a recognized authority who made that statement. The encyclopedia does not need to prove the accuracy of what a person said in order to report the quotation. We do need to document that he said it, but that's been done in this instance. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever since that was added to the lead I felt that it was inappropriate and a violation of NPOV. Warnborough has had problems, but there's no evidence that they've ever sold degrees. Indeed, almost all of the evidence in sources suggests otherwise. And give them credit for getting official recognition for their short courses. It really skews the POV by having that in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed TimidGuy, and action needs to be made to remove this subjective, vitriolic remark. We have never claimed to sell accredited degrees, yet we are legal and licensed to educate. Wikipedia prides itself on being neutral and objective, therefore this unsubstantiated accusation shouldn't be featured on our article. It's unfair, as it's relying on suspicion and conjecture, rather than facts. Jon-mingle (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And also, quoting this from Wikipedia's stance on neutral point of view. - Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".[19] - So why is one man's viewpoint featured so prominently in our introduction, plus portrayed in a manner that seems like it is the truth? This shouldn't define us, and it's glaringly unbalanced. Jon-mingle (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to understand that this negative comment doesn't require removal because it may be factually incorrect - or due to any perceived motives on the part of the person who made it. However, verifiable and reliable sources - preferably third-party - that contradict this comment ought to be included, if possible, in order to provide balance. One of the problems with Wikipedia at times is that information or opinions are included in articles on the basis of being verifiable even when experts on the topic actually know that the information or opinions are incorrect. Try to find some reliable and verifiable non-Warborough sources that support your claims about its authenticity etc Afterwriting (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is senseless to me personally. What if an upstanding organisation kept a relatively low profile in the media? They can be subjected to abuse, victimisation and libels, yet not be able to amply defend themselves because there are insufficient "third-party" reports (generally taken from the media) to validate their status? We have shown you that we are accredited by ASIC as a "Premier College". [20] You cannot dismiss that offhand. This goes a long way in proving we are an academic institution with very high standards. Apologies for my frustration, but there has been some remarks undermining the significance of this accreditation. Plus we are licensed as an educational sponsor by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). [21] - None of this is fairly reflected in the article, so it remains grossly unbalanced. Alan Contreras' allegation is presented in such a way, featured so prominently in the introduction, that it appears to be true (Or the best view). Contradicting one of your primary principles for Neutral Point of View, [22] as this matter is being highly contested, and the OODA's opinion has been given undue weight.

Also, the "diploma mill" implies misrepresentation, distortion, and counterfeit qualifications; which is absolutely farcical. As you can clearly see on our website, we do not promote the selling of accredited "degrees". [23] However I must emphasise that we do issue "unaccredited" degrees from our Ireland College that are still highly reputable and comprehensive. Jon-mingle (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved Contreras's comments

I have moved Contreras' comments to after the other OODA comments and slightly rephrased both. I would appreciate discussion about this before anyone feels the urge to revert. This seems a much better placement of the comments and is in a more balanced context. Adding some of Warnborough's response to these claims would seem appropriate. Afterwriting (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps Warnborough would like to formulate something (although some of this is in the article already, isn't it?) Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you this development. We would ideally like the libellous comment to be removed entirely, but I appreciate the difficulty in doing so. As a counter argument, perhaps mention our current accredited status for the UK College? Or link down to "Accreditation Issues" [24] - On a side note, the citation for the ASIC listing no longer works. The working link is here. [25]

I would also like to address what is written about us in our history section. A report was cited from The New York Times [26], with claims that we misrepresented ourselves. According to the report, students were "duped" into thinking that we were affiliated with Oxford University. This was inaccurate and unsubstantiated. In the very same article, the dean of Warnborough at the time, Joseph Mansonberger, contested that we hadn't misled anyone. Any misconception, he said, was due to the students' own inexperience, ignorance and wishful thinking.

"As far as some of these students are concerned, they're very naive," he said in an interview. "When they thought of Oxford, they thought of one university, Oxford University. But there are hundreds of other institutions here. They probably got caught up in the image of Oxford. But it was their misapprehension. They were going for the brand name."

Perhaps you could highlight that in some way, to repudiate the accusations from our side of the argument?Jon-mingle (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added some comments and references to help balance the conflicting claims. Afterwriting (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for these changes. It's great to see this consideration regarding NPOV. One of the problems of Wikipedia is the damning comment that gets highlighted. The argument is always that it's sourced, so it's good to go. Making a counterargument regarding weight almost never succeeds. As one who put in a lot of work on this article, and who has no connection with Warnborough, I'm very pleased to see these changes. TimidGuy (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon-mingle, please keep in mind that your assertions that reliable sources and authorities are defaming and lying about Warnborough is not really relevent to the discussion. I don't have a problem with moving the Contreras quote out of the lead. However, as Orlady points out the "accreditation" that Warnborough currently has is not educational accreditation. It would be misleading in my opinion to overly emphasize this accreditation because that could easily confuse it with educational accreditation. Also, not to be disrespectful but your assertions that Warnborough has not been misleading or deceptive is simply an unsupported assertion that is not really relevent to Wikipedia. Although I do agree with your suggestion that some of Joseph Mansonberger's response would be a fine addition to the article since it is documented in a reliable source. Zugman (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alan Contreras and the ODA were sued in 2004 and the Judge ordered the Attorney General to provide 'a training session on defamation law to the ODA personnel(http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/12/20/daily26.html), and in another case against the ODA and Contreras the Judge ruled that 'a students constitutional rights had been violated by the activities of the ODA and Contreras' (http://www.expertwitness-on-education.com/benton.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didoes (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And the same article says that things improved after that -- and the cites to Contreras are after that. Which is hopefully your point, his comments were made after those cases and in the light of those cases. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Oxford University threatened Warnborough College "

An editor has questioned whether the above statement is accurate. [27] A quick google news search wasnt able to find the article cited. Can someone who has access to Times archives verify the content? Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. He gave the link [28] which works for me. I see "Officials at Oxford University say that Warnborough is only the latest and most shameless in a string of institutions that unfairly trade on Oxford's name and reputation abroad. "We do take a serious view of this, and feel very seriously for the students who have been misled," said Paul Flather, a university spokesman. "We plan to take steps to dissuadearnborough and other colleges from doing this." "Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should point out that that is not a threat of a lawsuit. But it's pretty clear Warnborough was trading on Oxford's reputation. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article linked above is NYT and not London Times - maybe the London Times has different/additional content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this: [29], [30] and [31] but those are from the Times Higher Education Supplement. --Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the editor who initially voiced concern but was unable to actually make the edit as a non-confirmed user.Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the term "threatened" is far stronger than "dissuade". That is only one quotation taken from a verifiable source, given by an Oxford University official. The other sources you have provided Dougweller make no mention of Oxford University "threatening" Warnborough College. Also within the context of the Wikipedia article, it is misleading, and seems like Oxford University threatened Warnborough College with a lawsuit.Jon-mingle (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering if you are suggesting that anything not available on the Internet is not verifiable, because if you are, that is not the case. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will overlook the somewhat patronising nature of that comment, and attempt to elucidate on the point I was trying to make. There is no source that states Oxford University "threatened" Warnborough College, nor did they mention a lawsuit. This is not mentioned anywhere, even in the verifiable sources (The Times) you presented, and therefore it is false. Only one spokesperson for Oxford University was quoted, from a detached US newspaper, where he stressed that the University would dissuade local institutions from being misleading. But that was rejected by Warnborough in the same report! So, you need to add that for balance. Or are you suggesting a Oxford University official deserves more weight than an official from Warnborough College? And your remark, "But it's pretty clear Warnborough was trading on Oxford's reputation." indicates bias. It's not clear at all, otherwise I wouldn't be disputing it, or it wouldn't have been rejected by a Warnborough official in the same report. But no lawsuits were mentioned anywhere, therefore it's an unverified assumption, and needs to be removed. I don't have a problem with the source itself being used for verifiability (even if it is disconnected), but there is no evidence "within" the source that Oxford University threatened Warnborough College with a lawsuit. It merely suggests that Oxford University were discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon-mingle (talk • contribs) 09:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The source for the threat of a lawsuit by Oxford University against Warnborough College is O'Leary, John and Charter, David, "US students say college misled them over link with Oxford", The Times (London) (3 October 1995). References do not need to be available online for them to be verifiable. Is the editor claiming that this Oct 1995 article in The Times does not say that, or merely that he can't access it online? Fladrif (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I check the verifiability of the article, if it is no longer in publication and inaccessible then? I don't understand how a source can be considered verifiable if it's no longer available to purchase, or access online. The college strongly refutes this claim, as we believe Oxford University never threatened Warnborough College with a lawsuit. This claim requires substantial evidence.Jon-mingle (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Libraries will have it, the Times itself will have it. " The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. " Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I cant remember where/its name, but there is a Wikipedia project that has people who have access to lots of sources and will attempt to verify content that is not freely avaiable on the web. Sorry I cant be more help and actually link to it. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Times through 1985 is available online on its own archive, and from 1986-present on Lexis-Nexis. Numerous public and university libraries all around the world have it on microfilm as well. Fladrif (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is in NexisLexis Academic. I just pulled it down if anyone wants a copy or wants something specific verified. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of copying it on here (or at least the more relevant parts) for us to take a look at it? Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the very first sentence of the story: "OXFORD University is threatening legal action against a private college based just outside the city where 15 American students have walked out claiming they were misled into believing they were joining the ancient seat of learning." Further, the story notes that "[Oxford] university has written to Warnborough demanding its prospectus is withdrawn. Administrators are also planning to issue a warning on the Internet where a number of students appear to have learnt of the college." The article also notes that Washington's Attorney General was suing Warnborough's recruitment office in Seattle for "relying on the worldwide reputation of Oxford University to engage in acts and practices that have a tendency and capacity to deceive potential students into believing that Warnborough is an Oxford University college, when in truth and in fact it is not."

I've uploaded the entire article to my website so you can read it and come to your own conclusions. ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you EIKevbo, for putting the article up for clarification. However, please note, Warnborough's financial director at the time (Jason Cronshaw) had "strongly denied any American students had been told they were coming to Oxford University". I spoke to my advisor at Warnborough College, and he is adamant that we were never subjected to a lawsuit from Oxford University. We will try to provide evidence, although it will be difficult to show you something that never actually happened. Unfortunately, we feel The Times has somewhat sensationalised this report. But in order to restore the balance, could you highlight our denial? Jon-mingle (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see how this article currently reads but I think it's fair to mention that the institution denied wrongdoing as stated in this article. I don't think we should go much deeper than that, at least without another reliable source discussing the college defending itself, lest we run into undue weight and OR issues. ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere in this article and extensively and reliably sourced, the US Dept of Education and the Courts in Washington State found that Warnborough mispreresented itself to prospective students as (i) being part of Oxford University, although it was not and (ii) having degree-granting authority, although it did not. Those courts and tribunals conclusively rejected Warnborugh's claims that it had made no such mispresentations. Fladrif (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. But it still seems important to mention that the institution denied the claims, just as we would want to note that a court defendant pleaded "innocent" before being found guilty to fully (but briefly) tell the whole story. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of sourced material

New editor User:Didoes inappropriately deleted material sourced to the Daily Telegraph and other sources on May 29. This users earlier deletions seemed appropriate, but in this case the material was properly sourced. I've posted on his talk page asking him to restore. If he or no one else can explain these deletions, and if he doesn't respond, I will go ahead and restore the information that was properly sourced. TimidGuy (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Hello there. Sorry about that.

I am still learning the procedures. Can you please restore the deleted sourced information? Thanks! Didoes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll restore it, hopefully later today. TimidGuy (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I checked the recent edits, and in those instances where material was deleted the source was no longer available. In those instances in which information was added, it was sourced. I do think this editor should have proceeded more cautiously, but I also do think that the editor who reverted all of these edits claiming COI should also have proceeded more cautiously. This editor restored material that's not sourced and removed material that's sourced. I imagine that new sources could be found for some of the deleted material, but that step should have been taken by both editors -- rather than facile deletion and facile restoration. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually contacted the Oregon Department 4 times about the alleged link between Warnborough and St Theresa's. They acknolwedged my email but did not provide any response. I can find no evidence of this through my own research. All the other links that I added can be sourced or traced to the various awarding bodies (e.g. British Council). I do not know why these were deleted. However, as I am a relative newbie to editing, I would like to know what other reasons another editor would have for reverting ALL of my edits. Blackorchidguy