Talk:Argosy University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notable Alumni:[edit]

An anon seems to be adding Dr. Orlando Rivero to the notable alumni section after having him removed a few times (always with poorly formatted citations). I do not want to get into an editing war, but it does not seem like this person meets the criteria for being notable. Seems like if every director of university departments was listed as notable alumni on college pages, the notable alumni sections could get ridiculously long. Does anyone have anything to say in support of this person being added? EtanaLF (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism[edit]

I have on several occasions tried to remove the comment regarding one student's plagiarism and the school's response to it. The moderator then describes my removal of the comment as being unconstructive. I contend that its inclusion is unconstructive and non-value added. It is a single point in time issue relating to one ex-student and now it takes a prominent position in a description of the school itself - this is one more example of the wiki model protecting the salacious to the exclusion of balance and fair play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be mischaracterizing the incident by stating that the student plagiarized when it appears that he was wrongfully accused. The fact that the student was wrongfully accused and that the professor was subjected to rather harsh discipline is a commentary on the school and is relevant. I don't know what you mean by constructive. The articles are not supposed to be constructive or destructive just neutral. Also, we are also supposed to strive to find a consensus before repeatedly unilaterally making revisions which are disputed.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand what occurred. The instructor in question, when she was a student (1) working on her own dissertation, appears to have not used APA citation – or perhaps much citation at all in some instances and after the instructor had graduated with her doctorate, a different student (2), when reviewing the problematic dissertation saw citation inconsistencies.

This student (2) brought the question up to her faculty members who did not agree with her regarding her observation of plagiarism. The student (2) did not agree with their finding and continued to press the issue. Student (2) was then admonished and a note was added to her file. The issue continued to circulate and was brought to the attention of the press in Chicago – who asked for more detail.

The university first stood by the findings of the local faculty member who determined no plagiaristic foul on the part of the student (1). The university continued to evaluate the paper and then concluded that there was, intentional or not, substantial plagiarism on the part of the student (1) in her dissertation. Student (1) was removed from her teaching assignment, her dissertation voided and her degree rescinded. Student (2) was absolved of any wrongdoing and her file cleansed of related commentary. Student (1) was after a period of time, allowed to reapply, and then develop, complete and submit an entirely new dissertation. The entire event was handled consistent with policy and represented the most vigorous and meaningful approach to correcting a recent issue of plagiarism – review other occurrences and note the absence of corrective action on the part of whichever university was involved. No other recent plagiarist has been stripped of his or her awarded degree, removed form teaching and made to completely re-do and re-submit their dissertation.

Wrongs occurred which were corrected. They won’t happen again. They were, still, a point in time occurrence with one student plagiarist and one faculty member misevaluating the occurrence, all of which was corrected. The plagiarist, in trying to reestablish herself in academia, has pointed to other such occurrences of plagiarism at other universities claiming to have made a similar oversight and claiming much to do over little – no one is buying it, in particular student (2) and her substantially reformatted ex-faculty member.

But, it still is not other than a point in time occurrence on the part of a couple of people and does not represent the basis and work of the 13,000 students and faculty – it is exploitive commentary and needs to be removed from what should be a simple description of the university, devoid of salacious commentary.

In regard to your comment of unilateral activity – that’s exactly what happened to get this story included in the description of the university in the first place. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument appears to contain original research as defined by wikipedia, are you affiliated with Argosy University. You continue to characterize the student as a plagiarist though she was found not to be one and bring forth other allegations for which you have provided no reliable sources. The fact that this was a "moment in time" and "will not happen again" are not relevant to removing this article. If a murder takes place in a moment and time and will not take place again, that does not make it irrelevant.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have either missed the point or have chosen to misread the facts. An instructor was found to have plagiarized when she was a student. A different student discovered it. The discoverer was initially not believed and was disciplined. It was later determined that the discoverer was indeed correct and she was absolved of error. The plagiarist was indeed and deemed a plagarist, when she was a student, and she was disciplined via the rescinding of her degree. It is still, however, the actions of one student, which was addressed, and is not worthy of tainting the school, other students, or alumni. The only original research on my part was to read the media articles referenced in the wiki by either the journalist himself or the student initially pointing out the non-cited material of the plagiarist. Either way you are supporting a self-serving entry as though it has relevance - which it does not.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mysteryquest. The entry stands. Your edit-warring and stubbornness doesn't win you any points, either.Helixweb (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is your logic? Other than you don't award me any points due to stubbornness? I certainly don't have a lock on that. You and your buddies have been nothing but non-reasoning in this. Simply responsive and reactive not thoughtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If they are being stubborn, it is them being stubborn about enforcing the rules. Maybe you should read them sometime, particularily WP:3RR. Helixweb (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that you feel it is irrelevant because you do not agree with it and want to censor it. The actions of the university in originally disciplining the student who accused the doctoral candidate of plagiarism are remarkable and relevant. This is only a neutral report on a relevant well sourced story. The readers can read the article and the sources just as you did and come to their own conclusion even it is the one you have come to. There is no reason to deprive them of that opportunity.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the plagiarism incident. I'm aware of plagiarism incidents similar to this at non-profit State Universities, but they do not appear on their Wikipedia entry. Is there a reason why a single plagiarism incident should be included in every university entry? This is a problem not isolated to this university. I agree with the initial move to remove this section, since the omission of such incidents on other university pages makes this reference seem intended to create bias against this institution. RichardHansen (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of sources: if there is significant coverage in reliable sources, then it probably belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nomoskedasticity. Based on that consideration, I would say perhaps it doesn't belong. There is more significant coverage of plagiarism incidents in major universities, yet the Wiki entries don't mention them. One example (quickly found in a Google search just now) is an incident at Purdue, somewhat like this one--also involving a doctoral dissertation: No mention of this appears in the Wiki page for Purdue University. Also, this one seems quite newsworthy with some very unusual features but it also does not appear on the relevant university's wikipage. RichardHansen (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It also seems that almost all major incidents of plagiarism are "hushed up" by schools, which makes the incident quoted in the current wiki-article rather unremarkable--the prevalence of such incidents is very high. For instance, one investigation notes that most incidents go undetected or unreported. "Julie Ryan, an instructor at George Washington University, found that '7 of 42 students plagiarized most or all of their papers' in a class during the Fall 1997 semester. She says that, in the Spring 1998 semester, again 17 % of the students "plagiarized their entire papers." But wait! That 17 % only represents the plagiarists that she caught by using the AltaVista search engine on the Internet, a method that will not find students who plagiarized from books, scholarly journals, old term papers by other students, material sold by term paper mills, .... So the true incidence of plagiarism among students is higher than one in six." (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to post this example because it has a humorous side to it: two students from U of VA actually plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. :) RichardHansen (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What a tragedy you've done to the Argosy article. A complete white-washing. Of course plagiarism occurs at both for and non-profit schools, as you've shown. What was notable in this case was Argosy's response, which is unusual and speaks to the intellectual integrity of the school. Will re-add content later, taking notice of your helpful critique, unless you do it sooner. JamaUtil (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Cats[edit]

I would favor listing only the location cats where this institution has a main branch. Thoughts?RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this page is turning into a brochure for Argosy University. It almost hits my annoyance limit. If there are others who care, I'd like to put in a vote to remove the list of locations. They can easily be referred to, if necessary, with a single link to the Argosy U. site. Ccady (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of removing the list of locations, or at least reducing it to a summary statement. Of course, I should have read this before I went in and fixed the multiple bare urls in the location list! That took a while, and now I'm not sure I have the motivation to go in and figure out how best to reduce the list. I'll check in again in a couple of days if no one else has gotten to it by then. DaisySaunders (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. First time using a Talk page. The assertion that Argosy is "16th in Online Educational Database's list of `The Best Online Universities'" seems to be inaccurate. The site referenced in footnote 15 is actually called the Open Education Database, and I could not find Argosy ranked on any of their lists nor do they have a general "best online universities" category. Perhaps that information was accurate in 2011.


RicochetRabbit (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello RicochetRabbit, welcome to Wikipedia! I have not seen the website in question but if it is presently inaccurate the best course of action would be to replace the citation with an archived one and adjust the text so that it indicates the 2011 nature of the award. Juno (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed updated and revision[edit]

Greetings, anyone watching this page. This article has been edited only sporadically over the last few years and as a result it is out-of-date and in need of some upkeep. Relatedly, many references are now dead links and the article has always relied very heavily on primary sources. To address these issues and other problems, I've researched and written a draft I think should replace it, but before I explain my intended improvements, I would like to make clear that I am a consultant to Education Management Corporation (EDMC), Argosy University's parent company. For this reason, I will not make any edits to the article myself, but am looking instead for editors to review what I have prepared and make the updates as they see fit.

For easy comparison, here are links to the current version of the article, and my proposed draft:

To assist potential reviewers, I've put together detailed notes explaining my intentions and the differences between the current article and my draft. The section headings below correlate with the current article so editors can easily follow how I've handled the existing article text. You will notice however that my draft is restructured and uses some slightly different section headings.

Introduction + infobox
  • I've removed the promotional, or brochure-like, language from the introduction and have updated the infobox to include the most current information available.
  • I rewrote this section based on what I was able to find in sources and to remove existing plagiarism (see similar langague on the website). I've also have updated this section to include information about EDMC's acquisition of Argosy University in 2001, as well as the school's 2012 acquisition of Western State College of Law.
Note: I have taken this current section and combined it with the current Rankings section and have made this the third section of the article. To me it made more sense to first present the information about the various campuses and programs offered at Argosy University before getting into the details of accreditation.
  • I've removed unsourced information and have updated dead or misdirected links in this section. I've also moved the information about Argosy University's various colleges to my draft's Programs and campuses section, where I felt it was a better fit.
Note: In my draft, this section has been retitled Programs and campuses and moved up so it follows the History section. This section now includes the information about Argosy University's colleges, which was previously in the Accreditation section.
  • From this section I've trimmed the historical details about the Illinois School of Professional Psychology, as the school's history is already covered above, and the information about the foundation of Argosy University, Seattle which really belongs in the Argosy University, Seattle article.
Learning environment
Note: I've removed this section from my draft and have added a revised summary of this information into the Programs and campuses section as the small section for this information is unnecessary. I also felt that this section was very promotional-sounding so have used the same source but have revised the text.
Note: I have merged this section in with the Accreditation section where I've retained what was verifiable and presented the information in prose form, as opposed to a list.
Notable alumni
Note: Because this section is so short, I've opted to merge it with the Programs and campuses section.
  • I've removed the inclusion of "Supreme Understanding", because no source is provided and I have not been able to locate one, and "Christian Gostečnik", because I don't see evidence of notability. If other editors determine he should stay I am OK with that, but for now I have left him out of my draft. To this section I have added George Gascon, who is an alumni of Western State College of Law, and a source from the Los Angeles Times to support this addition.
Note: In keeping with Wikipedia guidelines I believe this section should be retitled something more specific. In my draft I have used Legal issues and enrollment allegations but am open to other descriptive headings if a reviewing editor has a suggestion. You will also see that my revision has removed the subsection headings and reduced the length of the section overall. Though I understand that this information is important to include I believe the length of the current section gives undue weight to these events. Much of what I have trimmed from this section was extraneous information about other for-profit schools, i.e. Kaplan University, University of Phoenix, etc., that doesn't belong in this section anyhow. Here are the other changes I've made:
  • From the Fraud allegations subsection I've removed the majority of the second paragraph as it simply provides a list of Argosy University programs that are APA accredited. This information is already covered in the Accreditation section. Additionally, the information about the lawsuit against the Argosy University, Dallas has been revised based on what I was able to find in news sources. Not only is the current reference in this section no longer available online, but it also appears to have been published by a law firm. Based on my understanding of WP:RS, a primary source is not an appropriate source of information for such a contentious topic.
  • As for the information under the Florida Attorney General investigation subsection, this too seems to have been based on a primary source which is no longer available. I have added news sources that discuss this event and provide a more appropriate summary of the investigation. This information has also been moved further down in the section so that it fits chronologically.
  • The existing Enrollment Adviser controversy subsection has been revised slightly, and moved up in the section, because it took place prior to the Florida Attorney General investigation. I've also added a new source here that better explains the allegations made against Argosy University. For clarity I have used a direct quote from the source.
  • The information about the Frontline program has been retained, but now appears as its own paragraph at the very end of the section because it is not related to the Government Accountability Office report. I've also replaced "an expose" with "a program" because I feel that exposé is a POV word. Additionally, the programs official website does not describe the episode as an exposé. I've also removed the quote from the Director of Admissions at Argosy because it's inclusion here seems to be editorializing.

I understand that this is a significant amount of information to process. I have tried to be as detailed as possible in my notes, while trying to keep this readable. If you have any questions about changes I have made, please leave me a message here. Likewise, please feel free to make any changes you feel are needed directly to the draft in my user space. If you review my draft and have no concerns I would really appreciate it if you could replace the current version with what I have prepared. One last comment: the image and categories have been disable in my draft so they will need to be fixed when grabbing the markup from my user space. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too much of a white-wash when it comes to the bad press that Argosy has generated. I'd be more inclined to revert the article back a couple months than to accept this draft. You need to clarify the accreditation situation as well. The regional accreditation only is for the undergraduate programs, correct? Please leave a message on my talk when you have a new draft. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gigs. I'm sorry to hear that; it certainly is not my intention to "whitewash" anything, but to see that the controversies are covered more appropriately. No question, my draft's Legal issues and enrollment allegations section is shorter than the current article's Controversies section, though I think if you read the current section closely you'll see that there is a significant amount of unrelated, or repeated, information. To that end, and I hope you will explain what you think has been left out or inappropriately removed from the draft.
I'd also like to understand better what you think should be clarified in regards to accreditation. When you say "regional accreditation" are you referring to the school's accreditation with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges? From looking at the WASC website I see nothing to indicate that only the undergraduate programs are accredited.
I have made one slight edit to my draft, inserting the phrase "the Doctor of Psychology" into the third sentence of the Accreditation and rankings section. This is supported by the source currently in use, and I've added it to clarify that the APA accreditation only applies to these programs. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to begin with.
For now, I've reopened the {{request edit}} tag at the top of this discussion. I'd like to leave it open while we're discussing these potential changes, as well because other editors may join the discussion. Let me know what you think, I hope we can find common ground here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's fine to leave the tag open. I don't have time to do a detailed re-review over the next several days. I will give you the go-ahead to replace the lede with your lede, since the current one is bad. Please hold off for more feedback on the rest of the changes. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Gigs. Thanks for your reply. I've received some feedback from User:Ɱ on their Talk page and I'll copy that over below in just a moment so that the full discussion of the draft is here. I've also reached out to another editor about reviewing this draft, so hopefully they'll be able to review this request and join the discussion.
I'm happy to hear that you agree my introduction is an improvement, however I won't add it to the article myself. I strictly follow Jimbo's advisory to editors with a financial COI, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ, so I will avoid any edits here myself. If you don't have the time to update the introduction, I'm fine waiting until another editor is able to help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion beginning from User talk:Ɱ[edit]

I have two comments on your draft article - I don't know why you call Argosy a system of universities, it appears to be a system of colleges (i.e. a single university). As well, there are some punctuation errors and inconsistencies that I'd like to fix on your draft article. I suppose that otherwise your changes are satisfactory and beneficial, and I will implement them as soon as the above comments are settled. Cheers.--ɱ (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Ɱ, sorry for the slow response. I just noticed this feedback. I've gone ahead and updated my draft to note that Argosy University is a system of colleges, not a system of universities. Sorry about that. However, I'm not sure what punctuation errors and inconsistencies you'd like to fix so please feel free to jump into my draft and make the changes yourself.
Also, if you haven't reviewed the discussion on the Argosy Talk page recently you might want to see the feedback I received from User:Gigs, so that you're aware of the full discussion. I also plan to copy and paste your feedback over to the Talk page so that the full discussion of the draft is easily accessible to Gigs and any editors who might join the discussion. (Done, as you can see.) Thanks for your help so far. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. I'll wait on Gigs' review, but I do not see any further significant issues. Go ahead as Gigs said with moving the lead paragraph for now, if you want. I'll also note that I think your changes to the 'Controversies' section are fine.--ɱ (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool. As I explained above, I will personally refrain from making direct edits to the article, staying in line with Jimbo's view that paid advocates should never edit the mainspace, but if you (or Gigs) want to move the lede over, great. Looking forward to your further feedback. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to your draft article, and will transfer that lead paragraph shortly. I have to say that your 'Programs and campuses' section seems a tad redundant, with only two sentences from it being unique to that section. Perhaps you could think of more to add to make it seem less like a rehash of the lead paragraph? As well, are you sure that the 'The's in The American School of Psych and The Art Institute of CA are supposed to be always capitalized at the first letter? Your citations don't seem to have the answer.--ɱ (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. So it appears I was wrong to capitalize the "The" in the American School of Psychology. Page 2 of the Chicago Tribune source by Steve Stanek (currently reference #6 in my draft) does not capitalize "The", so I've updated my draft accordingly. However, "The" should be capitalized in The Art Institutes of California. You can see on the school's about page that it is capitalized, even when it does not appear at the beginning of the sentence.
I follow your concern about the Programs and campuses section being somewhat redundant, though the information in the lede does need to be covered in the article as well. I'm also not sure what else could be added there to differentiate it. I think it is worth noting that it is in fact worded differently, however the information is (necessarily) repeated from above.
Thanks for your continued help with this. I looked at the other changes you made to my draft and they all look good to me. Also, no need to update the introduction, Gigs has returned and made that change already. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks Ɱ for making the remaining updates to this article. This concludes my request for review of the new draft for this article.

Before I close my edit request, there is a new edit to the article that was made over the weekend and I'd like to ask for editors to take a look at. The following sentence was added to the end of the Legal issues and enrollment allegations section:

Argosy University in Dallas eventually gave up attempts at securing APA accreditation and discontinued their PsyD program; they do not offer any degrees in clinical psychology[28] and are no longer part of the College of Clinical Psychology at Argosy University (formerly the American School of Professional Psychology).[29]

Both sources given are pages on the Argosy University website (a page detailing the Applied Psychology programs at the campus, and the page listing campuses which offer Clinical Psychology degrees), which do not fully support the details added. In particular, that the campus "gave up" on pursuing APA accreditation is not supported at all by the links. If editors think that it would be helpful, I feel that the links could be used to state that, as of the current date, the Dallas campus does not offer any degrees in clinical psychology and is not listed as part of the university's College of Clinical Psychology. Otherwise, I feel that the above unsupported information should be removed. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your amended wording. I will make the change to your proposed text shortly.--ɱ (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Terrific. All done here, then! I've marked the request as completed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for help with recent edit[edit]

Hello, again. I've been monitoring this article since last year when I proposed improvements and worked with other editors to implement a new draft. Recently, an IP editor added an update to the article's lede about Argosy's civil suit. As this case is discussed in detail in the Legal issues and enrollment allegations section, I'd like to suggest moving it down to follow the first paragraph under that heading. I'd appreciate it if any editors here could take a look at the change and make the edit if they agree with my suggestion. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ɱ (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, ɱ! If you have time, this same editor has also made edits on both the Education Management Corporation and Art Institutes articles. I've left notes about the changes and my suggestions on each of those articles' talk pages, here and here. If you're busy I'll understand, but if you're able, I'd appreciate the heck out of it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for Legal issues section[edit]

Hello to anyone who may be watching this page. I've been taking a look at the Legal issues section and I'd like to propose some new wording for the final topic covered, the recent investigation by the Colorado attorney general. Below is some updated language:

I believe this new wording is both a more accurate representation of the events and provides clearer details in a more neutral manner. I'd also like to suggest removing or replacing the press release that is currently cited as a source. If other editors agree, I'd appreciate if someone could move this new version over to the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done -- there's nothing "more accurate" or "clearer" about it, instead the proposed version provides less information, indeed it seems designed precisely to provide less information. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this for me, Nomo. I think you make a fair point, although I'd like to try coming at this again a bit differently, so I'm re-activating the {[request edit}} template with this message. What I meant by clearer and more accurate is that the wording I suggested addresses the following issues:
  • The current wording mentions "restitution and fines"; my wording clarifies that the settlement is for reimbursement of students enrolled in the specific program concerned and to pay civil fines.
  • The current wording states "settle charges with the Colorado attorney general", which is not very clear on what happened and whether this is a civil or criminal case. It is important to note that this is a civil settlement that was reached after an investigation by the Attorney General of Colorado. Neither source used mentions "charges".
  • The statement "Argosy led students to believe" is taken almost verbatim from the Colorado Attorney General's press release, and presents this as a statement of fact, where it might be more appropriate to say "According to the findings of…" or as I had suggested "claims that…"
To address your concern that there is less detail in my suggestion, how about the following compromise:
  • X mark.svg Not done Agreed with Nomo. --JustBerry (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
JustBerry, thanks for taking a look at this. Just to check, since Nomo's reply was based on my initial attempt at an alternative wording, do you feel like my second attempt is also not detailed enough? If so, I'm very much open to adjusting the wording further to including anything you think is crucial from the wording currently used in the article. As explained above, there are specific points in the current wording that are somewhat ambiguous or misleading, and that's what I want to address here. Is there anything in particular that's missing from my proposed version, compared with the wording that's in the Legal issues section? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded by the claim that there is any significant problem with the current wording. My guess is that your real goal is to get rid of the word "deceptive". I think it would be inappropriate to do this -- the word is clearly supported by the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Nomo, if it is your concern that the "deceptive marketing practices" phrasing is not included in my wording, then I understand. How about I come at this from a different angle and suggest some edits to the existing wording to address the issues that I've raised above? Although you might not feel that these are significant issues, I believe my suggestions will make it clearer to readers as to what happened.
Below, I've proposed some edits to the current wording that address the three items I mentioned above, and also fix a typo (degree, not degrees) and provide fully formatted references:
Do you feel more comfortable with these changes? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WWB Too asked me to take a look here based on a lack of response to his latest attempt at wording. I do actually see a problem with the current wording. We should not say "Argosy led students to believe..." in Wikipedia's voice. We don't know if that was the case. We do know that the Colorado AG's investigation claimed it was the case, but I'm assuming that the settlement precluded a trial, so we don't have a judicial finding of fault, only charges (in the non-legal sense of the word, at least) that the Colorado AG believed were substantiated. I think that's reason enough to adopt wording similar to what WWB Too has proposed, making it clear that these were the result of the AG's investigation, not a legal finding of fact or fault. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, look to the source [1]. Which in this case says (inter alia): "Although students were told they would be eligible to become licensed psychologists, the program's curriculum and requirements were deficient and left them unlikely to be licensed in Colorado." That is reported as fact in the source. I'd suggest caution in taking WWB-Too's assertions at face value -- they'll need some investigation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking at that source, which I admittedly did not and should have, I think we should use an abundance of caution as to what we state as fact and what we cite to claims of students or the AG. The Post reports that students were told "that graduates would be eligible to be licensed psychologists in Colorado" as fact. They report that "Argosy led students to believe that the school was working to get its doctorate of education in counseling psychology degrees accredited by the American Psychological Association" as student claims. The sentence as presently structured reports both as fact. I think we should separate the two claims, reporting the one as fact and the other as claim.
BTW, I will probably be offline from just a few minutes from now until sometime Monday. I apologize if this holds up the resolution of this issue, but I'll try to check in on progress when I get back. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look this over, Acdixon. It is the part that says "Argosy led students to believe that the school was working to get its doctorate of education in counseling psychology degree accredited by the American Psychological Association" that particularly concerned me, considering that (per my above notes), this wording is taken almost word-for-word from the Attorney General's press release, and in the secondary sources is not stated as fact but attributed to student claims (reported as part of the AG's findings). I see what Nomo says about the secondary source seeming to report the other statement as fact, but from context I concluded that this too came from the AG's investigation, rather than an independent assessment by the secondary source that this is true. To err on the side of caution here, I am happy for the wording in the article to be restructured as Acdixon suggests.
Would either of you be willing to make that update? Also, what do you think about including the clarification I've suggested to replace the current wording re: "restitution and fines"? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)