Talk:Warren National University/Archive 3

New Approach to the WNU page

When I arrived on this WNU page it was totally out of balance as the discussions indicated on archive-1 as well as a perusal of the article content, that is to say the article was in serious violation of at least WP:NPOV policy.

So here is what I think we should do for this WNU article in order to make progress. We should get this article to a neutral stance in accordance with WP:UNI. That is take everything out that does not fit WP:UNI's general format. That way we have a format that has been developed with Wikipedia project consensus and we baseline that format in the discussion page and we place a header up at the top of the WNU article page and talk discussion page to reflect that baseline of consensus from which we will progress. After completing the baseline, which should be filled with information that all acknowledge is basic fact such as the university has 120 faculty, was established in 1984, is non-accredited, is licensed, and is a member of the BBB for example. We should all be happy with the "baseline", remembering it is only a baseline with its presentation of those facts. Then we take a look at the overall article and make determinations as to what needs to go in to the WNU article page to provide balance - giving due consideration of neutrality to the pro's and con's of anyone's input.

I think if we tackle it that way we will be able to move forward towards reaching a concensus on this article's content.

What does everyone think of that?
Rkowalke 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)




Potential baseline of WNU article page. .............................

{{Infobox University

|name = Warren National University

|established = 1984

|faculty = 120

|students = Nearly 10,000 enrolled (2004)

|city = Cheyenne

|state = Wyoming

|address = 200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82001-4412

|telephone = (307)638-6114

|campus = No campus

|type = Non-Accredited Private

|website = http://www.wnuedu.com/default.asp

}}

Warren National University is an American post-secondary distance learning private university offering undergraduate and graduate degrees. It was established in 1984 and was formerly known as Kennedy-Western University.

The institution has administrative offices in Agoura Hills, California, and corporate offices in Cheyenne, Wyoming. It is named for Francis E. Warren, the first governor of the state of Wyoming.

==Academic programs==

Warren National University offers bachelor's and master's degree programs in business administration, computer science, management information systems, and health administration, as well as a doctoral degree in business administration.

==Faculty==

There are over 120 faculty at Warren National.

==Campus==

Warren National does not have a campus. The university operates primarily out of offices in Agoura Hills, California, while retaining a corporate office in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

==Accreditation==

Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States.

===Licensing===

Warren National is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education.

===Better Business Bureau===

Warren National has been a member of the Mountain States Better Business Bureau since 1996.

== See also ==

• List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning
• School accreditation

==References==

(will be filled in with the article)

== External links ==

• Warren National University, official website

Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning

Category:Distance education institutions

..........................................

Rkowalke 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rkowalke, Wiping out the whole article is not necessary and unacceptable. The article is currently in mediation. Please let the mediation process take its course. TallMagic 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... from your comment above you clearly misunderstood what I wrote in this section. In any case, we're not in active mediation yet until there is a verifiable veteran mediator present. We're still waiting for one.

Rkowalke 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Please reference the mediation page, a new mediator has been assigned. TallMagic 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That person is still too new. Looking for a veteran Wikipedian for this mediation cabal effort.

Rkowalke 23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Above you said, "That is take everything out that does not fit WP:UNI's general format." It appears that you are saying that you are going to implement exactly what you want to implement which is to use WP:UNI as a censor and get rid of all negative information about WNU except that you're willing to admit that WNU is unaccredited. This will then make the article "balanced" in your opinion. Isn't that what the mediation is supposed to be about? Please explain what I misunderstood. Thank you, TallMagic 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nahhhhhh, not what I'm saying TM - WP:NPOV is one of the three keys to Wikipedia and that would not be fair or balanced. And I've been saying balanced in my conversation ever since I got here on WP. Balanced means neutrality insofar as WP:NPOV is concerned. I'm not here to imbalance the article towards a one-way view of WNU.

The key in my paragraph at the start of this section is the word "baseline."

In other words, what you see above that I put in was my first attempt at a "baseline."

This is the framework that is the beginning.

From there we proceed to build each section and baseline each section as we're going along.

It's a methodical way of rebuilding the website or climbing the ladder towards finality of this article.

That way we're not changing sections all the time, or when we disagree with changes in different sections we start all over again.

Here, we baseline first a whole generic framework that all agree on from the start - first step.

Then we focus on the article's introduction keeping WP:UNI in mind and WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV in mind along the way. Once we're through with the introduction, we baseline the whole page again and move forward. Idea is to prevent going back all the time. Does not mean we can't go back, rather it means we went through discussions and agreed on that section so any further interaction must ensure WP:UNI, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV within that section as well as within the overall article.

Since you're way on the one side and I'm way on the other, we balance each other out and where we do not, we go to mediation, but continue with building the article in other sections.

We both seem pretty interested in this article, but we need to complete it and move on. So we tighten it down to the most recent baseline and ensure future conversation is relegated to discussion before changes for consensus or mediation due to the extensive amount of effort in building the article.

That's what I'm saying. And of course my paragaph at the start of this section above my first draft at a "baseline" should help to understand my intent as well.

By the way, the baseline should be something anyone coming by can agree on, which is why it looks stark. Then we begin to build. Shouldn't take too long, but we need time to find positive information that balances negative information to maintain WP:NPOV. So we just do the easy stuff first and move on from there to the more difficult and complex. Eventually we reach the end of major changes because we have run out of information that keeps neutrality and balance in the article. Then we move on to other articles in Wiki world. Wooo hooooo!

Rkowalke 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, I don't have a problem adding in sections that you want to add to conform with WP:UNI. In my view the section titles are not a big issue. So what is really new about your new proposed approach? I see absolutely nothing new. You mention deleting everything, your proposal above has almost everything deleted yet you say I misunderstand. You don't explain better except to say you want it balanced and tell me to reread stuff that I've already reread and reread and reread again. Properly sourced, verifiable, germane information that belongs in the article, IMHO, are items in the article that you have contested in the past, e.g., GAO investigation, the states where WNU degree use is illegal or restricted, Diploma mill article link, or any quote that might refer to WNU as a diploma mill. All of that is deleted in your proposal above. The more positive things you can find the better, IMHO. It is important though that proper policy is followed. For example, the plagiarism of WNU advertising hype information that you put in the article is totally unacceptable. So what exactly does balance mean to you? Exactly what are you now willing to allow in the article and what is not allowed, at least not in your mind? According to your previous statements, you've stated that all mention of the GAO investigation should be deleted. I would appreciate a better explanation than just saying reread what I already read multiple times. What is new? Thanks, TallMagic 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice TM that when I talk to others in Wiki space it turns into a normal conversation, but my observations and experience with you is constant misunderstanding no matter how clear I try to be, which is part of the problem with getting this WNU page to some finality. There is only so much I need to write before what is said has been said in this section. So here's what ya do. Read my remarks in this section again and break them out by numbers in the order they were mentioned and let's see if we can move beyond your confusion to what it is I'm saying because your remarks again don't indicate you understand what I've written. Once you do that then I can understand what it is you're missing and fill it in.

Rkowalke 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, I'm sorry that I don't understand you. It really doesn't help to tell me to reread what you already wrote. I don't understand but that is okay as long as you don't replace anything in the article with the working template above. (Which is what you seemed to say above.) So my first question about your template is why have you added a BBB section? I thought that a point of this exercise was to use the WP:UNI outline? I notice that BBB is not in the WP:UNI outline. Perhaps because being a member of the BBB is a rather irrelevant thing for a school? Making that section rather silly, IMHO. So go ahead and add stuff to the template outline on this page, if you want to and also please explain why there's a BBB section which disagrees with the WP:UNI outline. TallMagic 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... we can discuss the BBB piece once we get to the section where it may fit. May be needed because the institution is licensed and thus applicable from a balance standpoint to maintain neutrality should the need arise. It's certainly open in my view. Well, since you did not want to break out what I wrote so I could see what it was you were misunderstanding, perhaps the below would be easier for you to comprehend.

A rewrite guide for better clarity in order to complete the WNU article:

1. Develop strawman template from WP:UNI and WP:GTL to develop basic overall format

2. Complete and baseline basic format; replace current article with baseline

3. Place at the top of the talk page

4. Create/edit infobox to ensure maximum information is filled in as known following WP:UNI

5. Baseline

6. Rewrite section 1 of the article, which will be the Introduction following Wiki standards as noted in WP:UNI and WP:GTL, etc.

7. Baseline

8. Rewrite section 2 of the article, which will be the Lead section following Wiki standards as noted in WP:UNI and WP:GTL, etc.

9. Baseline

10. Rewrite section 3 of the article, which will be the History section following Wiki standards as noted in WP:UNI and WP:GTL, etc. Possibly add below tempate to seek assistance developing this section, which we all agree is somewhat lacking

Add ideas on specific areas here at the time if we need it for the WNU page.)

11. Baseline

12. Rewrite section 4 of the article, which will be the Campus section following Wiki standards as noted in WP:UNI and WP:GTL, etc.

13. Baseline

...and so forth and so on until we get to the end. Idea is to get a complete overall article written that ensures WP:UNI, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and any other relevant Wikipedia requirements.
Rkowalke 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, my perspective is that you frequently contradict yourself. This makes it extremely difficult to understand what it is that you're suggesting. For example, first you seem to say that you want to replace the current article with a stripped down baseline version. When I say no to that you say I misunderstood. In your last post you seem to repeat that same thing in step 2. If interested, I can give you more examples. You also frequently don't answer my questions. For example, I ask you to explain why you have added the BBB (amongst others) section when your stated purpose for this whole thing is to make the article follow the WP:UNI outline. When people contradict themselves and don't answer questions when directly asked it can mean many things but clear communication is not one of them. TallMagic 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Righttttttt...

Soooo what I'm reading is you don't have a comprehensional-clue what I just put into sequential steps to make clear what I meant and what I tried to explain previously in paragraph format.

Is that about right?

Rkowalke 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that once again you didn't answer my question regarding the addition of the BBB section. TallMagic 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really learn to re-read TM - it gets annoying playing simplistic games with you when I'm trying to get the article completed here.

As you can see by the edit above that I made --> Rkowalke 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I said the following regarding your BBB question, which is an answer, unless you now what to discuss the semantic meaning of the word "answer." Copied again for your ease in re-reading:

Hmmm... we can discuss the BBB piece once we get to the section where it may fit. May be needed because the institution is licensed and thus applicable from a balance standpoint to maintain neutrality should the need arise. It's certainly open in my view.

Rkowalke 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're stated purpose for this rewrite is to get the article in compliance with WP:UNI. Yet your proposed outline above does not even follow the WP:UNI outline. For example, the BBB section is not in the WP:UNI yet it is included by you above. Please explain this descrepency in your stated objective. Your continued ignoring of this question could lead one to doubt the sincerity of your words. TallMagic 02:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. My comment above that strawman was:

"Potential baseline of WNU article page."

In other words, I did a quick customization to simply show what I was talking about. Of course, we need to modify it to agree on an overall format and what not. I did not do that for that one - it was just an example of where I was going with my logic.
So what is your recommendation and let's proceed from there. Rkowalke 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is the fifth time that I've asked this question. You stated at the beginning of this section and elsewhere that your purpose for this rewrite was to follow the outline for WP:UNI. You are not following the WP:UNI format in your own outline that you propose above. This discrepency appears inconsistent with your stated goal. Please explain this apparent inconsistency. TallMagic 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and while it's fun copying and pasting the same answer - one does have to wonder why you're having such a problem understanding what I'm writing, but here we go again...

My comment above the "proposed" strawman was:

"Potential baseline of WNU article page."

In other words, I did a quick customization to simply show what I was talking about.

What that means is this was not the final one or even "the" actual proposed one - it was the "potential" one.

It's like a child has potential, but is not there yet - work still has to be done. Get it?

We need to modify the "potential" one in order to come to agreement with the strawman format to achieve a baseline.

So what is your recommendation for the WP:UNI format?

Rkowalke 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I don't see anything new in your "new approach". Your stated purpose in the "new approach" is the same goal that you've repeated many times including the mediation. That stated purpose was getting the article to comply with the suggested outline in WP:UNI. When you present your proposed outline, it does not follow the WP:UNI outline. When I ask you to explain this you refuse after six requests (counting this one). My guess is that you are not really interested in the suggested WP:UNI outline. There is some ulterior motive. Please explain what that motive is so that we can better understand one another. Until I can better understand, I see no reason for your "new approach" that doesn't look new to me and doesn't look like it would accomplish anything. Perhaps if you can explain what is going on then it would turn out to be a great idea. TallMagic 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Rkowalke 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you got tired of reading the same answer to your question. Then I see you accuse me of refusing to answer your same question repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered by me. And then you berate me for some alleged ulterior motive concocted in your mind as a result of your refusal to understand my answer. Wow. How very interesting TM.

Please see baseline section below this section for initial baseline for comments.

Rkowalke 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You never answered my question about the apparent contradiction in needing to drop the GAO Investigation section because it doesn't fit into the WP:UNI suggested format and yet you added sections in your proposed outline that aren't in WP:UNI? This seems totally contradictory. I would like you to please explain that apparent contradiction. If you can't then at least address the issue. Pretending to have answered the question when you haven't seems insincere. TallMagic 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is ample evidence, in Senate hearings and in other sources, that Warren National University is of so poor quality that it should not be considered in the same class as those universities that strive to actually teach their students something. A neutral point of view is not appropriate in this case. If you have any doubts about that, you should read the report of the General Accounting Office and the comments of Senator Susan Collins of Maine, with regard to this mail order diploma house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marktwain, I welcome you to Wikipedia and thank you for your concern about the factual accuracy of Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia rules, policies, and guidelines that must be followed when editting. A neutral point of view is always appropriate and always required when editting any Wikipedia article. This is the case no matter how disgusting and vile the article topic may be. Please note though that an encyclopedia neutral tone does not mean that the negative things can't be said. Please reference WP:NPOV and WP:V. One thing that I ask is that before you delete properly sourced information from an article that you please discuss it first on this talk page. Thank you again,TallMagic 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic and others: The information given in regard to Warren National "University" in many cases implies that it is a normal, traditional university that should be given the respect due to the typical university in this country. Much of the information seen here is flattering to the organization. Notice I use the word "organization" rather than school or university. I don't believe it is a normal or even a good organization. This impression is gained partly from hearings in the U.S. Senate about the problems caused by diploma mills. The inclusion of flattering or misleading information about the business (not university) is not in the best interests of the readers and the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Plagiarism cannot be allowed. Editors of this article please review WP:CITE in particular the following has been violated multiple times WP:CITE#When_you_quote_someone. It is not the responsibility of your fellow editors to clean up one's edits. Those edits that you make must follow Wikipedia policy and that is your responsibility. Thank you, TallMagic 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... perhaps you should list one of the problems so people know what you're talking about. Otherwise the above just looks like pompous grandstanding.

Rkowalke 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The following was added to the article. If you look in the accreditation section prior to today [1]

A significant purpose of accreditation is to enable students to transfer from one accredited institution to another. However, accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers.

The exact same sentences are found here, fourth paragraph from the bottom [2] TallMagic 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW Rkowalke, your indentation is not satisfactory. Phoenix15 suggested[3] that you read Wikipedia:Guide_to_good_indentation and I have to concur.TallMagic 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide reasons why my indentation is not satisfactory. According to the WP:INDENT, "This page is not a policy or guideline itself..."

Additionally, regarding your inflammatory plagiarism comments, the following is from the Wiki page on plagiarism , "Plagiarism (from the Latin plagiare, "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement."

As you can see the reference is provided for the paragraph. Thus, your inflammatory comments and your gross bias in removing the information and instead doing the right thing and putting in the quotation marks, simply reflect the problem you have with bias, which is a WP:NPOV violation in that you removed something referenced on a "technicality" instead of taking the upper hand and simply adding in quotation marks on your cleanup campaign and therefore reflected bias and violated WP:NPOV. You have now made the topic non-neutral and have contributed unnecessarily to disorder.

Rkowalke 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote is misleading in that it has been taken out of context. It implies that the purpose of accreditation is for transfer of classes and then belittles that very purpose. It is not showing neutrality to belittle and demean accreditation in that manner. If anything it is a violation of WP:NPOV to have that misleading quote in there. TallMagic 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time that you have plagiarized material. I was hoping to somehow warn you without making it publically obvious that you were the editor that I was referring to. Please be more careful in the future. Plagiarism makes Wikipedia legally vulnerable, it makes Wikipedia look dishonest and unprofessional. It is strictly against Wikipedia policy and cannot be tolerated. TallMagic 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, plagiarism is literary theft. Is that what you are insinuation that your competitor is doing? I do not see him as a literary thief. He has not taken the words of other authors and presented them as his own work. I think you are not very well versed in the copyright laws. A person can use a quote of less than 50 words as long as the author or source is carefully identified in a reference. This is known as fair use. Your competitor did identify the source of his quote just as you have identified yours. You and your competitor both seem to be doing the same thing, that is, taking the significant part of articles that support your beliefs and using them in the WNU article. If one is plagiarizing so is the other, since you both are using the words of other authors to enforce your beliefs or agendas. If you want your competitor to remove the quote on grounds of plagiarism, you had better carefully review what you have written in the quotes you have used in your edits.Taylor W. 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who my competitor is? When the text is not enclosed in quotes then it means that it is original text. This is the third time that Rkowalke has copied a quote and claimed ownership for Wikipedia. The first time he didn't even provide the source. The last two times he provided a source but didn't enclose the copied text in quotes. Each time it was brought to his attention he dismissed it as an unimportant thing. This last time he even blamed me for not fixing his edit. Sure I could have fixed his edit but I shouldn't have to check all of his edits for plagiarism and he should take plagiarism seriously and stop doing it. TallMagic 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, please look at this very pleasant exchange with Taylor and please note how much easier it is to read and follow when indented properly. TallMagic 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, when I seen the quote in the Accreditation Section it was enclosed in quotes. I guess that was my mistake. Ok, now don't try and snow me over about your competitor! Taylor W. 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Now there are quotes. Before there were not quotes. [4] The quotes were added with this edit,[5]TallMagic 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor TMmmmm. Quotes were inserted by me way back on September 20th. You go back and find out why they were removed and oh - have funnnnn.

Oh and you were saying what about plagiarism again?

(cur) (last) 2007-09-20T02:08:05 Rkowalke m (14,841 bytes) (→Accreditation - ooops quotes...)

Rkowalke 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WNU Baseline Initial Proposal

Below is an actual initial baseline for use at the WNU site to proceed with the start of baselining this WNU article for WP:UNI format, and in order to accomplish completion of most of the WNU Wikipedia article.
Intent is to take steps, achieve consensus along the way; document that consensus to a specific baseline at the time of that consensus step, and move on similarily until the main article is completed.
Of course, as more information is obtained, it is expected to be entered into the article under established Wikipedia policy.
Below is rkowalke's initial attempt at a WP:UNI format. Please feel free to comment and modify the initial baseline. Thank you.

{{Infobox University

|name = Warren National University

|established = 1984

|faculty = 120

|students = Nearly 10,000 enrolled (2004)

|city = Cheyenne

|state = Wyoming

|address = 200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82001-4412

|telephone = (307)638-6114

|campus = No campus

|type = Non-Accredited Private

|website = http://www.wnuedu.com/default.asp

}}

LEAD section

Warren National University is a post-secondary, distance learning, private university offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in the United States . It was established in 1984, and was formerly known as Kennedy-Western University. Warren National has administrative offices in Agoura Hills, California, and corporate offices in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Warren National is named for the Honorable Francis E. Warren who was the first governor of the state of Wyoming.

==History==

(We're looking for specificity regarding the history of WNU. The story behind how it got started, significant milestones, and perhaps some statiscs on overall students and degrees awarded and so forth. All help is appreciated. Thank you.)

==Campus==

As a distance learning virtual institution for the mid-career adult learner, Warren National does not have a physical "bricks and mortar" campus. The university operates primarily out of offices in Agoura Hills, California, and it maintains a corporate headquarters office in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

==Organization==

We're looking for specificity on the organization of WNU such as information about the administration to include the president. Thank you.

===Accreditation===

Warren National is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. The university has applied for accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the recognized regional accreditation agency serving Wyoming. "A significant purpose of accreditation is to enable students to transfer from one accredited institution to another. However, accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers."

===Licensing===

Warren National is licensed by the Wyoming Department of Education.

==Academics==

Warren National University offers bachelor's and master's degree programs in business administration, computer science, management information systems, and health administration, as well as a doctoral degree in business administration.

===Faculty===

There are over 120 faculty at Warren National.

== See also ==

• Distance education
• Virtual learning environment
• Online learning
• Virtual university
• List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning
• School accreditation

==References==

(will be filled in with the article)

== External links ==

• Warren National University, official website

Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning

Category:Distance education institutions

Rkowalke 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, your stated purpose for this is to bring the article in compliance with the WP:UNI format. Yet the accreditation and licensing sections are not in the WP:UNI suggested outline. You are free to add new sections to the existing article. I see no purpose in what you're trying to do here. Your actions seem to contradict your stated goal. I've asked seven times now to please explain this apparent contradiction. If you want to add sections to fit into the WP:UNI format then do it. As is exemplified by your own proposed outline, there's no need to delete sections in order to represent all the sections in WP:UNI suggested outline. These extra sections that you added seems contrary to your statements that you want to delete the GAO Investigation information to comply with WP:UNI suggested outline. Yet you have sections in your proposed outline that are not in WP:UNI. I do not agree that adding some sections requires a complete rewrite of the article. It would appear that this is simply a plan of yours to once again censor material that you feel is negative towards WNU, like the GAO Investigation. If that is your true motive then I disagree. TallMagic 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"an undercover student who lied on her resume provided to then KWU"

The following statement was asserted, "an undercover student who lied on her resume provided to then KWU". This same accusation has been made a number of times previously on this talk page, IIRC. This is apparently a false statement that the Lt Cmdr lied on her resume (but I think the person meant KWU application). Where did that accusation come from? I've watched the whole Senate hearing and don't remember that. Is that a fabricated fact? Please someone show me the source. What lie was she supposed to have told? How does this alledged lie impact the investigation? TallMagic 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lt Cmdr Gelzer testified that she “provided a current resume, deleting only the reference to my master’s degree in environmental public policy. My resume listed my bachelor’s degree in journalism and my 12 years of work experience in the Coast Guard. They also asked for any seminars, workshops or on-the-job training I had completed. I listed six seminars and four training courses I had attended related to oil spill response and boat accident investigation.” In fact, she lied on the resume she submitted to KWU about her CV by not including her Master's degree in environmental public policy.Taylor W. 02:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Taylor, thank you so much for the response. Correction to your statement, she stated that she had no experience in environmental public policy. Her master was in an unrelated area. Not disclosing her Master's degree to KWU is not lying and it has no bearing that I can see on the investigation. She also explicitly stated that she was completely unfamilar with the subject that she enrolled in and had never taken an engineering course in her life. She said she didn't already know the material. She passed the two courses with 16 hours of effort and said that she learned very little. Thank you again for the response, I really appreciate it. TallMagic 03:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, in her testimony she said she had a master's in environmental public policy. It is in the reference you furnished about the Senate Committee Hearings.Taylor W. 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very excellent Taylor, thanks to your dilligence we've corrected an error in the article. She was taking environmental engineering from KWU not environmental public policy as previously stated. Here's some quotes from the testimony. "I first called Kennedy-Western in July of 2003. I introduced myself as a Coast Guard officer looking to earn a master's degree in environmental engineering." "I listed six seminars and four training courses I had attended related to oil spill response and boat accident investigation. This information was accepted at face value by Kennedy-Western. They asked for no proof or documentation. As a note, I have no formal engineering training." This following passage seems to indicate to me that the apparent lack of academic rigor at KWU extended beyond just the environmental engineering program. "The chat room included regular exchanges about how to prepare for Kennedy-Western exams. It was openly acknowledged that test answers could often be found directly in the textbook glossaries. This chart shows some actual quotes from the chat room. One student wrote, I'd like to share general advice that helped me score [an] A on 4 of my courses! I highly recommend that you be familiar with the Glossary and the Index of the textbook. Some of the questions were copied from the glossary! Another student echoed that sentiment, I took the test this morning, an[d] got a 91%. I [was] surprised myself on how many answers were straight from the glossary. There were multiple postings like this." TallMagic 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TM, you mentioned, "Not disclosing her Master's degree to KWU is not lying and it has no bearing that I can see on the investigation." Ahhh what you have here is a failure to provide the truth. In other words, in our legal system you may have heard the following phrase, "The truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth." I certainly don't want to waste too much of my typing time explaining to you what that means. However, the "whole truth" is there for a reason in the phrase because by not providing the whole truth you are in fact lying by omission. Go check it out at your favorite and reliable source. Woooo hoooo.

Soooo to wrap it all up regarding the illustrious testimony to which you negate the entire 23 year operation of WNU: Your basis is on a three month employee who obviously had full understanding of the operations of the then 20 year old institution since that person was employed for gosh - three months. And on another testimony of a person who lied by omission in her resume and was trying to see how much she could get away with, which by the way I could have applied in my distance learning with UVA if that was my intent. And oh yeah, all that in a report that has nothing to do with proving then KWU was a diploma mill, because the institution did not even have a chance to defend themselves and prove quite the opposite occurring. And from this you make one of your conclusions? Hmmm...

Rkowalke 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've been lurking to follow the progress of this article. I think that this article may be headed for arbitration following the failure of 3rd opinion, RfC and MedCab mediation. Given that, you may want to moderate your actions to lessen the likelihood that you receive a permanent ban on editing this article.

• Comments such as "Learn to read" and "You don't have a comprehensional clue" are not conducive to a productive discussion.
• Keep in mind that this talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, not for debating the subject of the article itself.

My opinion on the GAO investigation and its credibility: It is acceptable, in my view, to include the results of this investigation. It would also be acceptable to include any response issued by KWU to the findings of the Coast Guard officer. I don't think the fact that she omitted her masters degree in an unrelated field is relevant to the investigation or its credibility. Government agents are typically allowed and even required to lie or omit facts in order to facilitate an investigation. I think that the GAO investigation is relevant to the KWU article and should remain.

What I don't understand is why so much of the debate revolves around accreditation and the GAO report. Its enough to state that the institution does not believe in accreditation and therefore is not accredited, and that the GAO report is a government report presented in Senate proceedings that portrays KWU/WNU as having low academic standards. If you want to improve the article, find out more information about WNU! If the information does not exist, then perhaps WNU is not truly notable and the article should be run through the AfD process.

Avruch 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, my personal conclusions on WNU are NOT relevant to the article. My goal is simply to produce the best article that I can within the constraints of my available time, the reliable sources available, and my fellow editors. You seem stuck on this view that somehow you need to be the savior of WNU's reputation, or something. All we can do is produce the best article that we can based on the reliable sources available to us. Please focus on reliable sources that can be used instead of focusing on creative ways to argue that the reliable sources should be censored and arguing against reliable sources themselves by calling them witch hunts and slander, etc. In other words look for reliable sources that support the view that you wish to push. This is the way that it is supposed to work. If someone came into the article and made a blatant statement that WNU was a diploma mill or something like that, I would be the first one in line to revert that because it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. TallMagic 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making it personal. I admit I took your three threats to reveal personal information about me as vicious personal threats. I admit that I did not "feel" WP:AGF towards you because of those uncalled for personal attacks you made. I guessed that you made them in an apparent attempt to try and intimidate me into allowing you free reign on the article. This is what happens when you get personal. Your edits today have caused me to reconsider and I feel that I can perhaps once again embrace WP:AGF towards you, although I will be more weary. Please try harder to assume good faith on your own part. I apologize for failing to assume good faith towards you, Rkowalke, not because you deserve an apology but because I respect Wikipedia and Wikipedia's policies. TallMagic 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Avruch. So sorry to hear your one-sided commentary regarding me without any comments regarding TM. It just shows where your thinking is at and it is pretty much unfair. In fact, it may be wise and appropriate to follow through on your threat for arbitration - I'm not worried. My conduct has been fine. The obtuse insults and accusations tossed around by TM are more than enough to warrant concern by anyone passing through and I certainly am not impressed by your comments above. In fact, I think it would be great to hear third party commentary by veteran Wikipedian's regarding this whole talk page flow to include your imbalanced commentary. The only reason I'm getting dirty here is because dealing with TM is like rolling around in a mud pit. I don't have problems elsewhere because I run into more civility.

Regarding the GAO report I think it should be tossed from this WNU page - there is already a fine writeup on a distance learning Wikipage that even there should be corrected properly based on the report's intent. What is not important to this WNU article is taking commentary out of context relative to the subject matter of the report - that is, the intent of the investigation in the first place, which was not to determine if WNU is a diploma mill. The two testimonies are laughably ridiculous to anyone with a neutral mind and the whole Senate committee sham does not even follow a healthy view of the issue where folks hear both sides of the story before making judgment. Even Wikipedia has balance figured out in their WP:NPOV. That you consider the two testimonies stellar testimony because it was presented before a Senate committee is also amusing.

There is no issue of accreditation with me - the institution is nonaccredited and I have no problem with that. In order for accreditation to continue its power it has to go after nonaccredited institutions, but I'm not going to get into all that - it would be too long.

Your comment that WNU is not truly notable because information does not exist in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia is not the best logic mind you. Information is out there, but it requires people to search for it. So do take some time to search for information and let's get this article cleaned up to some semblance of a finished product. Those edits you made were actually not bad.

Rkowalke 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, thanks for your views on improving the KWU/WNU article. I noticed your edits in the main article and you have improved the article emensly. I certainly agree with your statement, ” Its enough to state that the institution does not believe in accreditation and therefore is not accredited, and that the GAO report is a government report presented in Senate proceedings that portrays KWU/WNU as having low academic standards.” This in its self would be a solution to the controversy, but the article, in my opinion, is to heavy in dialogue. The GAO report and the statement by the WNU/KWU offical are referenced. Why does the article need the recap like the news media after a Presidential Address where the reporter has to explain what the President said? The references point the reader to the source where the information can be obtained. Now, be it known to you, I have edited the article in the past, but I have a conflict of interest since I am a graduate of the university; therefore, I do not edit the article because of that fact. Taylor W. 00:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TM, your remarks are noted and understood. I'm not making anything personal and I'm tired of your accusations to the contrary as if by making them you somehow legitimize their actuality when in fact they are of your own making. I've made no threats on WP:SOCK, I called what I saw based on initial fact and noted on the WP:SOCK page and if I do recall you did the same in your user RfC regarding my conduct. I'm trying to fix up the article as this page shows, you're the primary reason why I can't get to any semblance of normal editing. Hopefully, if you stop accusing me of all manner of conduct and start responding to my recommendations we can get this page going. Like I said, I'm not going away. My conduct is not such that I believe I would even be in the ballpark of getting banned and I would be happy to have third party veteran validation of that with Wiki policy. As I said the good part is I'm getting a great education in Wiki policy so you can be thankful for that education in this page of hard knocks.

I haven't been the kindest soul towards you so I can certainly improve and even have a third party request in regarding my conduct seeking comments from veteran Wikipedian's to assist me. So I would be happy to start anew with you as I would expect the same for me were I in the same shoes. So let's move on and proceed with completing this article and finishing up our debates and moving to whatever mediation/arbitration we need to in order to obtain requisite policy support with our disagreements. Perhaps there is hope for completion of this page sooner than a year from now. Thank you for your comments...

Rkowalke 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To TaylorW, actually graduating from WNU does not in itself make a conflict of interest. I would recommend you get back into editing and help get this article finished up. We can use all the help anyone is willing to provide to find sources of information and get this article built better.

Rkowalke 01:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is making progress

Good edits lately I think to this article, at least insofar as they haven't been reverted yet! Re: the tinyurl link, it seemed like a good quick fix to the fact that a couple of the most recent edits by Rkowalke had resulted in ugliness in the reflist. Avruch^Talk 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had a syntax error in a reference and fixed that. Please explain the tinyurl quick fix, which activated a spam filter problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs)

It didn't cause any spam filter issues for me. Avruch^Talk 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... what was the purpose of that url? Is there a Wiki page that discusses long URL's and how to shorten?

Rkowalke 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. TinyURL just provides short URLs that are permanent and redirect to pages with long addresses. It looked like the super long reference URL was partly to blame for the ugliness, so I substituted the TinyURL. It seemed to fix it, but perhaps because you fixed the real problem at the same time. Avruch^Talk 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism Checker

I left out the quote from the turnitin.com guy because clearly he has a stake in the perception of these programs, since he sells one. Do you think its a good idea to include this guys statement as relevant to KWU when its clear that he stands to profit from acceptance of this practice, whereas the critical speaker doesn't get anything either way? Avruch^Talk 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seemed logical to add in the comments from the turnitin.com developer given the writeup in the section. Without it, the appearance was that WNU was doing something that was potentially maligning the trust of the entire postsecondary, higher education faculty community, and that would be misleading. The balance arrives by including the turnitin.com guy's info. Ultimately, neither should go in as the relevance is towards the WNU faculty doing this (a tidbit showing responsibility by the faculty, especially given the nature of the controversy section in this article. One really does not need to explain the pro's and con's of the software since it is a faculty section, but if one argues against it then the balance of one being for it is applicable. It's essentially what the article did, and we should keep that balance here as well.

Rkowalke 02:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

accreditation

There was a paragraph on accreditation added to the article. It's a large quote. I think the article is better with a few short sentences on accreditation. I think that a paragraph is too much. It is also the type thing that should not be a quote. TallMagic 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The specific section, which includes the comment by TM above reads:

Warren National University is currently not accredited by any higher education accreditation body recognized in the United States. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions. For example, Warren National University graduates are not qualified for faculty positions at Warren National University, at least not based on their Warren National University degree.[5]

"Accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance by an institution of credit earned at another institution, nor does it give assurance of acceptance of graduates by employers. Acceptance of students or graduates is always the prerogative of the receiving institution or employer. For these reasons, besides ascertaining the accredited status of a school or program, students should take additional measures to determine, prior to enrollment, whether or not their educational goals will be met through attendance at a particular institution. These measures should include inquiries to institutions to which transfer might be desired or to prospective employers and, if possible, personal inspection of the institution at which enrollment is contemplated." [6]

In the Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning, Dr. Kjell Erik Rudestam writes, "There are some unaccredited, profit-making online universities that have achieved reported economic success. One example is Kennedy-Western University, which has significant history in serving the corporate education markets." [7]

By removing the accreditation blockquote, the first paragraph suggests that being non-accredited results in WNU's degrees and credits not being acceptable to some employers or other institutions when in fact the same logic applies even with accreditation of which this author has experienced first hand with an accredited community college in the same locale as an accredited four-year/graduate/& doctoral university... a real hoot!

In any case, balance means having to show that even with accreditation, the same applies so as not to confuse the reader into believing that somehow accreditation is some cure all for credit transfer and acceptance in the community.

To remove only the blockquote would unfairly penalize WNU in the readers mind and cause a violation of WP:NPOV for this section.

Rkowalke 04:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is a matter of degree. Studies have shown that the acceptance of unaccredited degrees is due primarily by uninformed ignorance. That when the person learns what accreditation is then the acceptance of an unaccredited degree drops off significantly. So your statement is true primarily for those uninformed individuals. The purpose of Wikipedia should be to inform not to keep people ignorant. Therefore it is very important to be clear and to stop trying to mislead people that the main disadvantage of an unaccredited degree is that the credits won't transfer. This is just being silly to the point of ridiculous. Also, it is poor form to use a quote to make such a simple factual statement. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not just a collection of quotes. TallMagic 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keeping to the reason for the blockquote in the first place on this WNU Wikipedia section; folks are pretty adamant about noting that WNU is unaccredited and associating that with all manner of commentary; mostly negative. Thus, it stands to reason one should provide some brief explanation of accreditation to balance people's understanding on this section. WNU has been clear they are targeting the mid-career professional whose work experience does play a part in the depth of their knowledge inasmuch as a company stating that every four years of experience is worth one year of college when they're searching for job candidates. That accreditation bodies cling to their logic regarding life experience while universities award honorary doctorates for life credit/work is absurd. Readers may proceed further with their accreditation research, and there are numerous opportunities on this WNU page to click on accreditation links such as Oregon's ODA page.

In any case, my logic is the same as that being applied by the GAO report section in proceeding to place actual testimony from the report and the hearings associated with that report in the section when the report speaks for itself.

The idea on this section of the WNU Wikipedia page is to provide balance so that a reader will not simply assume something of accreditation that is not valid, but often presumed to the detriment of the unaccredited. Journalists will many times show alternate thinking and let the reader decide what opinion they wish to form from the balance provided. Wikipedia desires that same balance, hence my succinct accreditation block quote, which is brief and helpful to the reader to ensure they take responsibility for their decisions. You don't agree with my logic from what I've read of your commentary since I started here, and I don't agree with your logic either. So our interaction on this page is actually good in providing balance to the reader as they get to see two opposing views in order to formulate their opinion about WNU and possibly set them afoot to study up more on accreditation itself and the issues associated with that topic.

By the way, as an example of additional accreditation issues beyond my own experience and that of others I've personally heard from over the years as they're especially reflected in transfer credits, and for which the blockquote references is the University of Phoenix. Even when accredited by a recognized agency, some businesses and such still refuse to accept UOP credentials - see UOP's Wikipedia page for further understanding. I believe California Coast University is another example where they finally obtained accreditation, yet while being accredited, they remain rejected by the state of Texas.

The good part of what we're seeing is a breakdown in accreditation that will cause an entire look at the issue from a nationwide level rather than simply a private and fractured level. The free ride that regional accreditation bodies have had for the past 100+ years is on its way to being over and they're going to have to compete with each other in the marketplace because people are getting tired of the games, such as when transferring credits among them and what not.

Rkowalke 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke states above, "Keeping to the reason for the blockquote in the first place on this WNU Wikipedia section; folks are pretty adamant about noting that WNU is unaccredited and associating that with all manner of commentary; mostly negative." I disagree that it is stated as negative. I agree with you that it is a negative thing about WNU but disagree that it is stated with a negative point of view in the article. Rkowalke continues, "Thus, it stands to reason one should provide some brief explanation of accreditation to balance people's understanding on this section." A couple of sentences explaining accreditation is plenty in my opinion. Rkowalke continues, "WNU has been clear they are targeting the mid-career professional whose work experience does play a part in the depth of their knowledge inasmuch as a company stating that every four years of experience is worth one year of college when they're searching for job candidates." Perhaps you missed the Lt Cmdr's testimony that WNU did not verify her claimed experience? That means to me that WNU is really targeting mid-career professionals because they are more likely going to fall for the classical diploma mill appeal to life experience scheme. Rkowalke continues, "That accreditation bodies cling to their logic regarding life experience while universities award honorary doctorates for life credit/work is absurd." It would seem that you lack real world knowledge in how credit works for life experience in the legitimate academic world. The way that WNU does it is the classical diploma mill style. For a description of how you can earn a full RA degree from just previous learning read the "Prove What You Know" articles here, http://www.degreeinfo.com/articles.html. This documents the way that legitimate RA institutions work in this regard. Please stop repeating the false marketing bravado that is propogated by WNU. Thank you, TallMagic 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic says, "Perhaps you missed the Lt Cmdr's testimony that WNU did not verify her claimed experience? That means to me that WNU is really targeting mid-career professionals because they are more likely going to fall for the classical diploma mill appeal to life experience scheme."

Hmmm... soooooo one kinda/sorta undercover student working in the Senator's office that initiated the investigation (gross conflict of interest) against tens of thousands over then 20 years who applied themselves to obtaining their degree from then KWU is all you cling to that supports your rationale? Oh and they did not invite KWU there, so that made it all the more fair. Rightttt... As the song goes, "Don't stop believing; hold on to that feeeeeeling."

TallMagic says, "It would seem that you lack real world knowledge in how credit works for life experience in the legitimate academic world. The way that WNU does it is the classical diploma mill style."

Hmmm... from what I've read on diploma mills, WNU is not a classical diploma mill style, but hey, keep on repeating something long enough and you'll believe it. It seems you should have joined in when the Oregon attorney general worked a class in for ODA on defamation as a result of the lawsuit by KWU against them. Think you could've learned something there. When KWU shows up to defend itself, it kicks butt. Probably why KWU was not invited to the Senate hearings. In any event, it seems you are short on sincerity given your comments above and what you stated earlier on this discussion page as follows:

TallMagic 00:30, 4 October 2007. "Rkowalke, my personal conclusions on WNU are NOT relevant to the article. My goal is simply to produce the best article that I can within the constraints of my available time, the reliable sources available, and my fellow editors." "If someone came into the article and made a blatant statement that WNU was a diploma mill or something like that, I would be the first one in line to revert that because it would be a violation of WP:NPOV."

I'm going to keep searching for information on WNU - it's out there for those who give their time. And I'm working on that table for the states. Hmmm - it seems we can drop California off the list of states as of July 1, 2007. And the world keeps going 'round and 'round...

Rkowalke 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments on the talk page here are not productive. Just be civil and brief if you can't engage in a full discussion without slinging mud or misrepresenting facts in a misguided effort to 'win' the argument. To wit: Clearly Rkowalke is familiar with all of the elements of this article, and it is unfair and unproductive to accuse him of repeating 'false marketing bravado' whatever that actually means. Additionally, a Coast Guard lieutenant commander investigating on behalf of the Government Accountability Office is not 'working in the office of a Senator.' Investigative reports represent the findings of investigators, and in the absence of a legal accusation there is no right or privilege in any venue to respond. Avruch^Talk 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke was repeating the WNU marketing story that WNU has some kind of magical crystal ball that can convert years of work experience into college credits. They don't even need to check on the claimed work experience because the crystal ball doesn't need to be verified. This make WNU more advanced than accredited universities in the minds of some. This is the same silliness that I referred to as marketing bravado. It is ridiculous because there are academically rigorous ways to convert already acquired knowledge into college credits, read the "Prove What You Know" articles here, http://www.degreeinfo.com/articles.html. It doesn't involve years work to credit equations or crystal balls. Rkowalke also can't seem to grasp the fact that this is a talk page where personal points of view may be voiced on occasion especially when it is countering diploma mill marketing hype being spread on this same page. Have fun, TallMagic 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's always interesting how much you seem to know about what I'm doing TallMagic. Thrill a minute. I guess it's a good time to review some of your commentary in the past directed to others that should be helpful to you.

I sincerely suggest that snide comments be avoided, they are likely a violation of WP:AGF and potentially a violation of WP:NPA. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a team process and these things that you seem to be frustrated/bothered by are really examples of the team process actually working to produce a better Wikipedia article.

TallMagic 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

...it would also be appreciated if you tried harder to assume good faith. That is an important Wikipedia guideline.

TallMagic 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather strange to me how some people would rather post irrelevancies, make snide comments, and be insulting instead of trying to contribute something positive. I guess to-each-his-own?

TallMagic 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange indeed TallMagic...

Rkowalke 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... According to Claudia Gelzer, LCDR in the United States Coast Guard, she joined the staff of the Committee on Governmental Affairs a year ago (from May, 12 2004) as a detailee. It stands to reason if she is a staffer that she is employed by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Since Senator Collins is the ranking Republican Senator on the committee she is in effect working for the Senator and her office while working on the committee as well as all the other Senators on the committee to include the Chair, Senator Lieberman. Therein lies the conflict of interest with the "investigation." That's like all those vaccine manufacturers investigating their vaccines themselves and of course approving them for use. Another support of the conflict of interest is in not inviting the very university that provided you with all its support to defend itself from your accusations. In fact, in the hearings, they even acknowledged the support of KWU as it was unusual. It's easy to accuse someone when they're not there, but it is much more difficult when they are in attendance and they have other facts to back up the opposite of what is being commented upon. If KWU was clearly in error, then they would have invited them because any excuse they had would have been ludicrous. That the committee chose not to invite KWU, even though KWU sent two spokespersons, speaks well for KWU and ill for the committee's alleged findings and anti-KWU commentary.

Rkowalke 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you post the link to that? Avruch^Talk 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found it. It looks like I drew the wrong conclusion from my first reading of the Gelzer testimoy. She was not, in fact, investigating on behalf of the GAO. She is, as you said, a TDY staffer for the committee. Since she is Coast Guard, and military are traditionally regarded as nonpartisan, I'd hesitate to say she 'works for' any particular Senator, but even so, it would be misleading to include her testimony as part of the GAO report. It also changes the logic on preventing KWU from responding. People aren't typically afforded the opportunity to respond to an investigative report, but a non-investigative witness statement read into the record in a Congressional hearing is a little different. I can see why the Committee wouldn't allow opposing statements on the record, but I don't happen to agree that its a good idea. Avruch^Talk 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the nonpartisan logic for the military and Coast Guard. Remember, if as an officer you say or do the wrong thing you're career can be killed and you won't have a clue, or you might have a clue but oh wellll. They're under to gun to conform; it's the military mindset. Military is not interested much in autonomy and independent thought. You follow orders and ask how high to jump when given those orders if you want to be highly successful. So her being a Coast Guard officer and working for a high level Senate committee means the whole situation was fraught with conflict of interest problems. If she did not agree with those she worked for then what? Probably wouldn't have been a good situation for her or her career or her as a representative of the Coast Guard. We're talking Washington DC here where politics is supreme. Let's just say I'm not impressed.

Rkowalke 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Off topic obviously, but I think in some respects you're correct - officers follow orders as a matter of course, and watch what they say based on how it will be viewed by superiors. Superiors, in this case, are superior officers in the chain of command. I'm sure Commander Gelzer was under orders to provide material assistance to the committee, which in this case would entail working directly for the Chairwoman, but I don't think it necessarily follows that she herself or her testimony would be partisan. To be technically correct, Committee aides are generally described as working for a specific committee and not any individual member of Congress (who all have their own staff). Avruch^Talk 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, You could not be a better advocate of diploma mills and substandard degrees if you were paid to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs)

Hahahahahahahaaa Marktwain403. I am no advocate of diploma mills. I believe WNU is being raked through the coals because it is successful and WNU does have a legitimate program to a specific targeted group, and it is unfortunate others are upset that they don't adhere to the power base - time for the power base to change. Also, I do not agree it is substandard; I do agree it operates outside the current model for accreditation standards and I have no problem with that given its targeted grouping. Nevertheless, the whole view of education is changing dramatically as a result of today's world and clinging to education models centuries old and using accreditation to hammer that home is pretty arrogant. So I like those who take on the establishment with a good cause. In the next ten years we are going to see some dramatic changes and I'm loving it. Accuse me all you want; we shall see who gets the last laugh...

As I recall, the U.S. founders had some problems with the establishment and welllll, you know the ending for that. Of course many along the way paid the ultimate price for our freedom today.

Rkowalke 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marktwain403, Rkowalke is a graduate of WNU and therefore concentrates on improving the public image of only his alma mater. It also seems that he somehow fancies this activity as being similar somehow to war heroes that have lost their life in defending their country. TallMagic 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor TallMagic - having a bad day?

Rkowalke 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)