Talk:Louisiana Baptist University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] LBU States they are Not Accredited and Limitations

Limited life credit is in line with practices at Regionally Accredited schools. See Excelsior (http://www.excelsior.edu) as an example. LBU does not offer entire degrees by Life Credit (allegation under diploma mill section of article). The BBFI approval is factual and they do not represent it as accreditation. They are blatant about their lack of accreditation (mentioning that they are NOT accredited several times and LIMITATIONS of their degrees). Your statement that the degrees are not valid is inaccurate. They have approval to issue degrees. Now, utility is another matter and they are open about limited utility. Statements that they have accreditation by fake accrediting agencies (allegation under diploma mill section) are blatantly false and that is why NO ONE can provide a reference from their site or catalogue to support the claim. They do not offer degrees by Life Credit. NO ONE can support that claim from LBU's web site or catalogue as it is FALSE.

Nordundsud 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

You have violated WP:3RR, but since nobody warned you, you have not been blocked this time. Any further reversions (at all) will lead to a block for disruption. see your talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning. I realize that there must be an arbitration or complaint process. I find the bullying tactics rather interesting. If I post factual information and ask others to support their assertions and they cannot BUT yet we leave the inaccurate material because it suits a preconceived agenda....that is bullying. Then in spite of repeated requests for people to support their assertions with references (they did not because they cannot) I am threatened. Rather distasteful situation and accused of being a "socket puppet".

On another note, I looked over your edits this last time and at that point found them fair. Thank you! Nordundsud 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

[edit] Golbu.com is a website owned by banned user Jason Gastrich

A "new user" Boggs_B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) inserted a worthless and poorly designed website www.golbu.com [1] After removing this shameless attempt to add something to make his worthless LBU "degrees" seem less like ink-jet paper, he added it again.[2] A quick domain search shows Jason Gastrich registered it and its servers are from the main Gastrich webpage. This is another violation of his lifetime ban. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. --Jasonwatch 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Diploma mill: An institution of higher education operating without supervision of a state or professional agency and granting diplomas which are either fraudulent or because of the lack of proper standards worthless" — Webster’s Third New International Dictionary


First, LBU clearly does not fit the definition for reasons listed above. You have to separate peronal opinions about unaccredited fundie schools from facts. Second is ACCTS even still in existence?? Cannot find the web site. These references may need to be removed from the LBU article. Third, you folks are obsessed with this Jason dude (fetish level). Enough already, the guy is errr....ummm..self explanatory. Not necessarily LBU's best grad but as someone on another board said "every school has one." Nordundsud 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)NordundsudNordundsud 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

These are weasel words: "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." - JD — Possible single purpose account: Jack Delay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

No, they are not. Those are clear cut facts that NON-accredited degrees may be illegal in certain places, and wikipedia does not play lawyer. Do not remove that again. Arbusto 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
First, don't tell me what to do. This isn't your encyclopedia. This is a group effort that will reach consensus on every issue. Next, if it's such a clear cut fact, then why don't you give a citation for it? Until you cite this "clear cut fact", I'm adding the weasel word header. The verbiage clearly falls under weasel words, as it uses examples from the very weasel word entry. - JD — Possible single purpose account: Jack Delay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
OK, than, I will tell you what to do, and it's this: don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and don't go slapping tags on articles which contain a neutral and factual statement which has been agreed as a standard disclaimer in articles on unaccredited schools, the {{unaccredited}} template. Guy 08:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it rather amusing that anyone (without an agenda) would question that a degree from an unaccredited institution might not be good enough to get someone employed or admitted to another institution of higher learning, just as it might not be good enough to allow the legal use of titles. With respect to LBU, in particular, we have an institution with a somewhat less than desirable reputation, unaccredited, and does not seek accreditation, and that engages in other uncommon practices (e.g., it does not provide the results of graduate "research" through conventional means). I'd be curious to see if there are any statistics available with respect to placement of graduate students in jobs in government or the private sector (other than the very narrow area of "ministry"). How many LBU grads are employed, in areas associated with their "degrees," at, oh, Lockheed-Martin? CitiBank? The United States government? May one with a master's or doctorate from LBU serve in the military as a chaplain (the answer to that one is "no"). These are all valid points to consider when one is trying to evaluate the value of an education obtained from any institution, let alone one that is not accredited. In the end, it isn't the invocation of "weasel words" (a phrase commonly used by Gastrich, by the way, and this is only one factor that exposes "Jack" as a Gastrich sock) to declare that a degree from an institution such as LBU may not be enough to get someone a job or into another educational institution. It's common sense. Meanwhile, here's a bit of commentary on the use of "weasel words" by Gastrich, himself, and how and why he uses them. - WarriorScribe 09:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation and "degrees"

Below are some of states that have laws on the subject (taken from school accreditation talk page). Arbusto 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Dakota does not accept unaccredited degrees

Source: [3] (section 15-20.4-15.)

Although the following states refer to the illegal use of false degrees, all allow for universities that are "exempt." LBU is exempt, as are MANY other religious institutions of higher learning (under separation of church and state). LBU is, in fact, licensed by the State of Louisiana and was even awarded a commendation by the governor.

15-20.4-15. Unlawful to issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees - Penalty. 1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly issue or manufacture a false academic degree. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a class C felony. 2. a. It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly use or claim to have a false academic degree: (1) To obtain employment; (2) To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment; (3) To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or (4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation. b. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. 3. As used in this section, "false academic degree" means a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, coursework, or degree credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or coursework that results in the attainment of a rank or level of associate or higher which is issued by a person that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning. 4. As used in this section, "duly authorized institution of higher learning" means an institution that: a. Has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; b. Has an authorization to operate under this chapter; c. Operates in this state and is exempt from this chapter under section 15-20.4-02; d. Does not operate in this state and is: (1) Licensed by the appropriate state agency; and (2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States secretary of education; or e. Has been found by the state board for career and technical education to meet standards of academic quality comparable to those of an institution located in Page No. 6 the United States that has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education to offer degrees of the type and level claimed. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey does not accept unaccredited degrees

New Jersey basically has the same law as North Dakota. New Jersey Statutes & Regulations Regarding Academic Degrees [4]

A person shall not append to his name any letters in the same form designated by the Commission on Higher Education as entitled to the protection accorded to an academic degree unless the person has received from a duly authorized institution of higher education the degree or certificate for which the letters are registered. For the purposes of this section, a duly authorized institution of higher education means an in-State institution licensed by the Commission on Higher Education or an out-of-State institution licensed by the appropriate state agency and regionally accredited or seeking accreditation by the appropriate accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Education or the United States Department of Education.

It is sections: L.1986,c.87,s.3; amended 1994,c.48,s.36. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington does not accept unaccredited degrees

Washington State: "State senators unanimously amended and approved a bill that would make giving or using a fake or otherwise unaccredited degree a class C felony, a crime of fraud that could warrant five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."[5]

Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[6] (top of page three)

False academic credential" means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree.

"Board" of course refers to the Washington Board of education. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees

Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees, unless it is approved by Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. [7]

583-050-0014

Unaccredited Degrees

(1) Users of unaccredited degrees may use the degrees in the following ways.

(a) Unaccredited degrees that have achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can be used without a disclaimer.

(b) Unaccredited degrees that have not achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can only be used with a disclaimer.

(c) Degrees issued by degree mills are invalid for use, with or without a disclaimer.

(2) Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030.

(a) A reasonable possibility of approval can be demonstrated by submitting to ODA the appropriate review fee and sufficient evidence that the unaccredited institution could meet ODA academic standards under OAR 583-030 for authorization to operate in Oregon if it chose to make such an application.

(b) ODA may, upon its own motion, evaluate an unaccredited institution and determine whether it has a reasonable chance to meet Oregon authorization standards without a degree user making such a request.

(c) If a request for evaluation under this section is not made to ODA within 30 days of notification that an unaccredited degree is being used contrary to Oregon law, the degree user's right to such a review is waived and ODA may pursue appropriate enforcement action. Degree users may, within the first 30 days, request up to 30 additional days for the purpose of gathering material necessary to apply for an evaluation.

(3) A claimant of a non-U.S. degree issued by a degree supplier not accredited by a U.S. accreditor may submit to the Office information proving that the supplier issuing the degree has the following characteristics.

(a) The supplier is operating legally as a degree-granting institution in its host country.

(b) The host country has a postsecondary approval system equivalent to U.S. accreditation in that it applies qualitative measures by a neutral external party recognized in that role by the government.

(c) The supplier has been approved through the demonstrable application of appropriate standards by the host country's accreditor equivalent.

(d) All degrees issued by the supplier are legally valid for use and professional licensure within the host country.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 348.609 Stats. Implemented: ORS 348.603, 348.609, 348.992 & SB 1039 (2005 OL, Ch. 546) Hist.: ODA 2-1998, f. & cert. ef. 8-12-98; ODA 1-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-27-01; ODA 3-2003, f. 10-29-03, cert. ef. 11-1-03; ODA 4-2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-14-04; ODA 3-2005, f. 9-27-05, cert. ef. 9-30-05; Renumbered from 583-050-0031, ODA 4-2005, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-05

Thus, if you have an unaccredited degree it must be approved by the ODA. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates

Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program." [8]

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 12. (a) It is an incurable deceptive act for an individual, while soliciting or performing a consumer transaction, to claim, either orally or in writing, to possess a doctorate degree or use a title, a word, letters, an insignia, or an abbreviation associated with a doctorate degree, unless the individual: (1) has been awarded a doctorate degree from an institution that is: (A) accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation; (B) a religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious character of the educational program; or (C) operated and supported by a governmental agency

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS

[edit] Honorary degrees

Should the honorary degrees be mentioned at all? Many colleges award these for publicity purposes or to award someone speaking at a particular ceremony. While many of these now listed come from dubious sources do they even merit inclusion with other people who did work at this school. It seems as if the honorary list is longer than the list of notable graduates, and the honorary people are listed, sadly, to give legitimacy to this unaccredited "school".

Unless the honorary degree received media attention or is notable in some way it should not be included. Arbusto 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have them. -- — Possible single purpose account: Shog5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 12:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Arbusto. There presence just gives an erroneous impression of legitimacy and honorary degrees aren't notable in general anyways JoshuaZ 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As with the link Shog5 just added there are some WP:V issues with this that don't do any of the parties any favors. Arbusto 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section since so much of it isn't verified. If those can meet WP:V and show to be notable they should be readded. As JoshuaZ, notes now honorary awards looks like an attempt to add legitimacy by associating more people with this. The graduates are indicative of what the school offers, and it should be left at that. Honorary and people who once spoke at the school and got an award don't need to be included in the same manner as graduates. Arbusto 05:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gastrich at the AN/I board

There was an discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive58#Jason_Gastrich on Gastrich's behavior and permanent block. Arbusto 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree mill

There if is a difference between "diploma mill" and "degree mill." This "seminary" was referred to as a degree mill in Name It and Frame It? on pages 133, 113, and 107. On page 107 Steve Levicoff wrote about the "National Association of Marriage and Family Counselors" which "sponsored by Baptist Christian University, a degree mill listed in Chapter 12, this credential mill advertises, 'Each member receives a beautiful Councilors Certificate imprinted with your name and suitable for framing. This certificate enables you to display your credential as a Certified Christian Counselor..." Levicoff concluded, "their certification, which is worthless, should not be confused with that of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy." See archive.org's link here that LBU says "Louisiana Baptist University (LBU) is an outgrowth of Baptist Christian University (BCU). That University was founded over 22 years ago in 1973 by the Baptist Tabernacle in Shreveport, Louisiana under the leadership of its pastor, Dr. J. G. Tharpe." I'll be adding more to this wiki history shortly.

[edit] Alumnus Yow

Could someone go over the specifics of why this Yow addition doesn't meet WP:BIO? The academics section lists criterion #6 as "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." and it seems that she has a few of those. What I don't see is solid confirmation that she is an LBU alum. I think that her PhD appears to be in "Christian counseling" (whatever the hell that is) and that the anon editor who keeps inserting his/her argument against Arbustoo in the main article space are clouding/prejudicing the inclusion. dfg 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of past sock puppets creating large alumni lists to give creedence to this place it was decided that only people with wikipedia articles (which is defined by the community through afds) should been listed.
For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) was created by an LBU alumnus to add a whole wide range of unnotables not to mention many individual articles that were deleted (for an example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Moseley).
So if Deborah A. Yow is going to be added to this list there should be an article first. I do not think her article will past an afd. However, if you feel otherwise start an article about her and add her name. I don't think her "awards" fit the criteria for BIO. At best she coauthored three books with the most recent being 7 years ago, and of those books she is listed among other authors for works less than 200 pages and only one is in print. Arbustoo 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making that clearer. dfg 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone created the article, but it was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah A. Yow. Arbustoo 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accreditation paragraph

A couple of problems from article:

uncited possible POV or OR: "This may mislead some to think the school has some standing with US government approval."(uncited)

cited, possible synthesis OR: However, the US Department of Education has said, "Before the U.S. Department of Commerce created its current, strict requirements, some questionable institutions were approved to use an .edu. The current requirements allow only colleges and institutions accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to use the .edu."<ref>[http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/diploma-mills.html#edu United States Department of Education] explanation of [[.edu]]</ref>

That's all for now. I won't try to fix it just yet. ImprobabilityDrive 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You are right it was poorly worded. I changed it. Arbustoo 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The cite on the sentence leads to a webpage that does not talk about LBU. The cite is incorrect then. That is why I put the fact tag on. If you know of a cite for this, please added it and remove the fact tag. I suspect it somewhere on the website where the current cite points, but I cannot find it. This is in the spirit of something you wrote to another user: "Also I was truly disappointed in seeing you add a source that did not back up a claim." The claim in the article is not backed up by the source provided. (I don't think you added the claim or the source, but I do think maybe either you or I are not seeing the same page referenced in the same light.) ImprobabilityDrive 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I think you are confused.
The sentence in question is "ACCTS is not a recognized accreditor."[9] The source does not belong to LBU because the link is to Council for Higher Education Accreditation. That is organization that approves accreditors.
Why would the source talk about LBU? The sentence is about recognized accreditation associations of higher learning, and would have NOTHING to do with LBU. Thus, I am removing the fact tag, and other comments should be made on this talk page. Arbustoo 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this Article

Thanks for the intro. I realize that LBU is not an accredited university and am fully aware of the controversy that has surrounded this article. Here are the problems I see with the present article:

1. The information derived from Steve Levicoff's book seems to be more opinion than fact. I recognize that Levicoff is an authority (on what I'm not sure), but the problem is, if you are going to cite Levicoff's work to persuade readers that LBU is a degree mill then you must also cite the authoritive sources he uses to support his claim. Otherwise, Levicoff's claim is empty and mere opinion. Keeping this statement in the article would be unethical and bias. This article should provide factual information about this institution and not an author's opinion. To date there has been no other "authority" claiming that LBU is a degree mill and no documented proof has been provided to substantiate the claim. By keeping this in here it gives the reader a false idea about a University that may be a decent School of learning even though it is not accredited.

The documented proof is the book. The threshold for inclusion is WP:V not "truth." Wikipedia doesn't believe it, wikipedia mentions what Steve Levicoff thinks. It is VERY important to note that an expert of distance education believes this to be a degree mill. Thus, it stays. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

2. The claim that "only six people on the staff are listed as having earned a terminal degree from an accredited insitution" are incorrect. If you visit the actual webpage (http://www.lbu.edu/macfacultyandstaff.html) you will see that they have graduates from many accredited institutions such as: Tennessee Temple U, Liberty U, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, East Texas BU, Southwestern Baptist, Talbot Theological Seminary, Wheaton et al. This should be corrected.

I just double checked. It is correct as it is writen. Please note what you quoted says "only six people on the staff are listed as having earned a terminal degree from an accredited insitution." Please review what a "Terminal degree" is. This about the qualifications of the instruction is vital as well. It stays. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The Diploma mill article is another problem. The article starts out: "LBU is alleged to match several of the criteria for a diploma mill". Alleged by whom? Where are the references to this allegation and where does their information come from? This should also be corrected. If their are no legitimate allegations then why would Wikipedia soil the name of this institution unjustifiably?

Regarding who: See the footnote on that sentence (#10). Or see the above section about what Steve Levicoff thinks. Again we want to WP:ATT claims that are "WP:V not truth." If you want to know the criteria that these sources based in on, contact those that make the claim. Or search google Levicoff posted his criteria. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

4. What about the info on Robert Morey? What does this have to do with LBU? This article should be on an article about Robert Morey, not LBU. LBU never claimed to have a class on Islamic studies, so why then would this be here and not in it's appropriate place. This is unecessary and excessive information has nothing to do with this institution itself.

This to is silly to object to. Its sourced and mentions LBU awards a degrees that it doesn't have a department in. That is strange and worthy of mention. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that LBU does not claim to award such a degree. The source only says that Morey recieved a degree from LBU in this field of study, nothing more. Therefore, this is not an issue with LBU but with Robert Morey himself. Thus, it should not be here. --Cbeech

I concur on this point. It might be worthy of mention for an article on the source, but I agree with Cbeech on this. It should not be here. Besides, it might be violation of original research/synthesis. ImprobabilityDrive 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

5. "LBU has been criticized". Criticized by whom? What legitimate authority has made these allegations and where is his/her documented support for this critical assesment? There should either be a link to the source or this entire piece should be removed as it is undeniably bias in nature and tone.

You are right criticism must be cited or removed. However, the rest of the section is sourced and thus stays. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

6. It's obvious that this institution is not accredited. However, it should be noted on this article that LBU is widely respected in the State of Louisiana and in many other well known and accredited institutions (Liberty, Southwestern, Baptist Bible College,et al). It should also be noted that LBU received an honorary proclamation from the Governor of Louisiana and that April 2005 was declared by the Governor to be "Louisiana Baptist University Month". It should also be noted that many prestigious speakers have done commencements at LBU, speakers such as Dr. Jerry Falwell, and Dr Paige Patterson (NOTE: These speakers were also awarded with Honorary Doctorates from LBU). Why is this other information not on this article? It almost seems as if though this article has been designed to not only point out the institutions unaccreditation (which I am not trying to hide) but also to embarass and potentially damage it's long standing reputation. I do not see a problem with noting that LBU is not accredited, however, I do see a problem with avoiding all the information and inserting opinion that is not legitimately supported.

What's the significance of the "award"[10]? I don't see the value in it. Please explain how it should included, and what it adds to the article. There is no explanation about it or WP:RS to show notability/importance. Seems like a fluff mention without substance.

The significance of the award is that the State of Louisiana recognizes Louisiana Baptist University as a contributor to good and education. If we are going to put all the negative aspects of this institution in this article, then we should be so courteous as to include the positive as well. Otherwise, where is the neutrality of information here? Besides, if Wikipedia wishes to publish facts about any institution, what harm would it do to place this fact here? --cbeech

A major research institution awards hundreds of honorary degrees over its existence, and has hundreds of famous speakers in a single year. Many of whom are more notable than Mr Falwell. However, wikipedia is not here to list information about speakers or lectures. If something famous/newswrothy happens as a result of it, its nothing special to a legitimate school. Arbustoo 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True, however, any time, any one of notable acheivement or reputation gives a commencement at an institution of higher learning then he automatically associates himself with that school. If LBU was truly considered to be a "degree mill" by the academic community, then no legitimate educator or leader would show his face there in order to avoid the embarrassment. Apparently, Dr. Falwell, Dr. Patterson and many others consider LBU worthy of their address and time. --cbeech

I hope that my info here does not greatly upset anyone (though it probably will), my intention is not to cause any further controversy but simply to find fairness in reporting information. Thanks for your time and I would appreciate it if this problem was fixed. --Cbeech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbeech (talk • contribs)

Ok, the claim about the speakers is simply original research and given who the people are, it isn't surprising that their standard of what they would think is a degree mill or is prestigious enough to spend their time at might be different (personally I think that LBU is in a strange nether zone, in some respects it is a degree mill in other respects less so). Regarding the state recognition by the governor- I don't know how much attention you pay to state legislators and governors, but they recognize all sorts of things that has nothing to do with them being important or notable at all. That's why most states have state flowers and state birds and why in some states (such as New York) sometimes months are officially proclaimed to "X month" for multiple values of X. It doesn't really alter things at all. JoshuaZ 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research/synthesis

While the following research and logic seems sound, it is a violation, IMHO, of wikipedia policy on original research/synthesis.

While LBU has a domain that includes .edu its domain was registered in 1996, which was prior to the 2001 requirement that only post-secondary institutions that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a .edu domain.

What is wrong or WP:OR about it? Arbustoo 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you tag a section for this? ImprobabilityDrive 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured out how to tag it. So now I will wait for others to chime in before boldly editing. ImprobabilityDrive 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more lines were tagged, and copied here for discussion:

The OC Weekly noted, Robert Morey has a PhD from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in Islamic Studies, but the school does not have an islamic studies program. The Weekly described that Morey told the Christian news service ASSIST that there are three nuclear terror devices in U.S., but "no mainstream journalist reprinted Morey’s claim—despite the fact that Morey pitches himself as one of the country’s leading experts on Islam."

LBU has been criticized for not making graduate student research easily available for the academic community. At accredited schools, master's theses and doctoral dissertations are microfilmed and made available for loan; and since 1940 these universities have deposited their dissertations in the United States Library of Congress (LOC) becoming available to the public. Some universities require students to submit their original dissertation and abstracts to the University Microfilms International (UMI) who then submits them to the LOC. LBU does require dissertations to be professionally bound and a hardback copy submitted to the LBU library for public viewing. However, due to the fact that LBU policy does not require submission to the LOC or UMI, it is relatively difficult to determine the quality of instruction and graduate work at the university.

Thanks again. ImprobabilityDrive 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Explain what you are protesting. WP:OR says "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." With the exception of uncited claim of criticism, everything you are calling a OR/synthesis is sourced material published by either the EDU domain registration or the OC Weekly.
For example, explaining when LBU registered the .edu domain explains how they are able to have a domain that for the last six years requires accreditation, which it does not have. What should be changed or is WP:OR. As for me, when I saw the LBU.edu domain I thought it as accreditation until I learned more.
I think you are misunderstanding what WP:OR is. I suggest you explain exactly what you are protesting and offer alternatives on this talk page because there has been a long time consensus on the page. Arbustoo 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
From the wikilink I posted above:
“ Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. ”
Hope this explains things. ImprobabilityDrive 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Sorry that explains nothing about your claims; you gave a claim that doesn't relate to this. Walk me through what you think is improper about EACH objection. The citation of the OC Weekly are only from the OC Weekly. The citations about the domain also come from a single source. Arbustoo 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I diagram the paragraphs (plese give me some time), let me respond to one of your earlier comments that I neglected to address. You wrote: "For example, explaining when LBU registered the .edu domain explains how they are able to have a domain that for the last six years requires accreditation, which it does not have." If we could find a reference to a verifiable RS that this is a comman mistake, your case for including this line of reasoning would be much stronger. To paraphrase another wikipedian in a different context, people have all sorts of misunderstandings. Your or my examples of misunderstandings are not notable, and if wikipedia is allowed to address misunderstandings that contributors want to clear up, well, I don't even want to think of the consequences. This is not to say that your misunderstanding is not important, but my understanding is that if a verifiable RS commented on this as a misunderstanding, the case for the .edu paragraph would be stronger (but still might be synthesis, unless the cited hypothetical reference synthesized a similar line of reasoning). As it is, the article is juxtaposing verifiable RS to explain a misunderstanding that you (and others) might have. Misunderstandings that you, I, or others might have are not notable.
Regarding the paragraph that used to begin "LBU has been criticized for not making graduate student research easily available for the academic community", and which you changed here, the problem was that the first sentence was not cited, but the details provided. Consequently, I added a strikethrough on the above quote. Now that you have made the change, I will review it. Hopefully the results of these reviews will be an improved article. Thanks for working with me on this, I appreciate your help and patience. ImprobabilityDrive 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Again, before I diagram the paragraphs, I want to provide the rationale for some additional tags I just added.
“ Only one piece of graduate student work is known of online. ”
The reference is to a dissertation, and in the footnote, it states:
“ This is the only known available example of the standard of LBU graduate work. LBU has no communications school or history of communications research; no published peer-reviewed publications are related to this document. ”
I added a question on OR for the sentence, and a request for attribution in the footnote assertion that "this is the only known...". ImprobabilityDrive 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
What's the problem its cited? If you have other sources/links add them. There is no problem here. Arbustoo 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I also added a fact and failed verification tag to the following cited sentence:
“ At accredited schools, master's theses and doctoral dissertations are microfilmed and made available for loan; and since 1940 these universities have deposited their dissertations in the United States Library of Congress (LOC) ”
While the sentence is cited, the reference points to a LOC page that states "which means most U.S. dissertations" and does not discuss accrediation nor does it identify which dissertations are not included. Maybe the reference is pointing to the wrong LOC page? ImprobabilityDrive 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'll update the article. "Most US dissertations," means "more than 99 percent of the accredited institutions of higher education in North America, as well as a growing number of universities throughout Europe and Asia."[11] Arbustoo 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Morey

Regarding

“ The OC Weekly noted, Robert Morey has a PhD from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in Islamic Studies, but the school does not have an islamic studies program. The Weekly described that Morey told the Christian news service ASSIST that there are three nuclear terror devices in U.S., but "no mainstream journalist reprinted Morey’s claim—despite the fact that Morey pitches himself as one of the country’s leading experts on Islam." ”

The paragraph that describes that Robert Morey claims a degree in a program not even offered by LBU probably belongs (if it is not already there) on the Robert Morey article. I am not sure what the intended point is, but the implication that this is somehow LBU's fault that one of its (possibly) former students is claiming to have a degree in a program not offered. If this is not the implication, perhaps the sentences could be reworded (or just moved to the Robert Morey article.) If it is the implication, it is not backed up by the cited reference. Also, the reference does not claim that LBU does not have a degree in Islamic studies. Though somebody might have found this out by searching LBU program offerings would be interesting, but to juxtapose this is OR/synthesis in my opinion. What do you think? ImprobabilityDrive 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

The article discusses Morey's degree earned here. As the article noted it was odd, and it is indeed strange for schools to offer degrees they don't have departments, it stays in this article.
Your claim that Morey might be falsely claiming a degree is WP:OR. That is, give me a WP:RS for us to doubt it. Your claims are getting bizarre. You just resulted to a conspiracy theory in an attempt to get this removed. Arbustoo 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edu domain

Regarding:

“ While LBU has a domain that includes .edu its domain was registered in 1996, which was prior to the 2001 requirement that only post-secondary institutions that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a .edu domain. ”

This paragraph, in oder to meet my understanding of wikipedia standards, should be supported by a reference to a RS identifiying this as an area of confusion. Additionally, if the reference identifies the EDU confusion in the context of LBU, the paragraph would be unassailable in relation to OR/synth. But as it is now, the juxtaposed references serve to address an area of concern that may not be notable (that a contributor thinks it is common misunderstanding with regard to LBU is not sufficient for wikipedia, according to my understanding.) I'll do a google search, but even if I don't find something, hopefully someobdy else will. ImprobabilityDrive 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Also, I do not mean to suggest that my examples of making the paragraph better are the only possibilities. ImprobabilityDrive 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Sorry, the department of education is the source for these claims. There is no OR material there. Again, as I told you on your talk, read WP:OR. Arbustoo 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbustoo, I see you made some changes. Please be assured that I did read the OR, the "dispute" (this word has a negative connotation, I would rather it have the connotation of "review") was synthesis. I will re-review your changes, and comment again if I see any problems that need to be addressed. If you were the original contributor to the material, I understand that it might be frustrating to have your contributions subjected to scrutiny, but please consider that with scrutiny, a better article (in that it will meet wikipedia standards) will result. Also note that I am not just deleting the sentences; rather, I am trying to discuss ways to improve the article and bring it in to compliance with wikipedia standards. Again, I wish the tags did not have the negative connotations. I am identifying areas that I think are problems, and allowing others to address them here on the talk page. ImprobabilityDrive 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
That entire sentence came from ONE source: The United States Deparment of Education. Not a single word in that is WP:OR. Arbustoo 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Synthesis and relevance

From article: "The OC Weekly noted, Robert Morey has a PhD from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in Islamic Studies, but the school does not have an islamic studies program.[20]{{syn}}"

The source [20] states (bold added for clarity):

“ You’d think news of three nukes hidden in American cities would make headlines around the world. But no mainstream journalist reprinted Morey’s claim—despite the fact that Morey pitches himself as one of the country’s leading experts on Islam. His résumé lists a doctorate in divinity in Islamic studies from Faith Theological Seminary in Gujranwala, Pakistan, and a separate doctorate in Islamic studies from Louisiana Baptist University. For years, he hosted Bob Morey Live! (heard locally on KPSL-AM 830), where he mixed commentaries on the Bible with jabs at Islam; on Dec. 9, 2003, during one of his last broadcasts, Morey told listeners Islam was “rotten in its roots.”He travels the Christian fundamentalist circuit delivering the same message: Islam is inherently dangerous. ”

Problems with this, in order of importance (IMHO):


1. Original research/synthesis because two sources (one unidentified) are being juxtaposed to advance a position (that Morey is a liar or that LBU has at least one liar as a student?)
2. unidentified source: The clause "but the school does not have an islamic studies program" is not supported by the source. I would add a {{fact}} tage to this statement, but I am still unclear on why Morey merits mention in this article.
3. Relevance: This article is about LBU, not Morey. If Morey is a liar and a former LBU student, it is not notable that LBU has a liar as a former student.
4. Reliable source: The source is an opinion piece. (See below, dispute is in process of working itself out).

I will go issue an RFC now, to get others involved, since it is clear that only two contributors are discussing this today, and they are not agreeing with each other. Meanwhile, please be paitent. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

This absurd. Did you bother looking at the second page of the article? (Bold added for clarity):

Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.[12]

Lastly, how do you know its an "opinion piece"? It says "news" and is not listed as an opinion piece. Arbustoo 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point regarding opinion piece. And I do apologize, I missed the second page of the article. My fault, and I am sincerely sorry for the failure on my part to notice there was a second page. You have changed the article, so let me restate the points again.


1. Original research/synthesis because two sources are being juxtaposed to advance a position (that Morey is a liar or that LBU has at least one liar as a student?)
2. unidentified source: The clause "but the school does not have an islamic studies program" is not supported by the source. I would add a {{fact}} tage to this statement, but I am still unclear on why Morey merits mention in this article.
3. Relevance: This article is about LBU, not Morey. If Morey is a liar and a former LBU student, it is not notable that LBU has a liar as a former student.
4. Reliable source: The source appears to be an opinion piece, even though it is on an html page indicating that it is news.

Again this is absurd. 1) If you have proof that the OC Weekly is incorrect about the Morey's credentials offer it. How do you know the OC Weekly didn't doublecheck with the school? Without sources to dispute sources it is WP:OR. 2) Proof of opinion piece? The upper right of the article says "news." Opinion pieces are listed under "columns." Good luck with your RfC. Arbustoo 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


"If you have proof that the OC Weekly is incorrect about the Morey's credentials offer it." Actually, truth doesn't matter, reliability and verifiability do. The reliablity (4) is my (according to my reckoning) weakest point here.
Also, Arbustoo, you don't need to put two sources in to the same article for my sake. That was my fault. You may want to point out the page the citation comes from, though. If the paragraph survives relevance, I can help you do this. Anyway, no need to carry the discussion to the footnotes. ImprobabilityDrive 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm leaving the both sources for now.
The threshold for inclusion is WP:V "not truth." 1) Either offer proof the OC Weekly is wrong or 2) remove the tags. Arbustoo 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for not noticing the second page. Please bare with me, I did make a mistake on not noticing the second page. ImprobabilityDrive 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Bare with what? What are you disputing now? Arbustoo 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"What are you disputing now?" 3 and 4. ImprobabilityDrive 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
OK: 3) A WP:RS that draws into question the education/credentials of this place and a self-proclaimed expert. That is very relevant. A WP:RS that says "no serious academy would recognize" this places credentials is VERY relevant. 4) the upper right has it listed as "NEWS". If you have a source to claim this is opinion, then provide it. Until then we CANNOT dispute what the article is listed as. To do so, is WP:OR. Arbustoo 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Section Tag removed. ImprobabilityDrive 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Thank you. Arbustoo 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. ImprobabilityDrive 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet


To recaptulate the keep/remove arguments:

  • Keep argument: The paragraph is relevant because the reference draws into question the education/credentials of this place and a self-proclaimed expert.
  • Remove argument: This article is about LBU, not a Morey. If Morey is a liar and a former LBU student, it is not relevant that LBU has a liar as a former student.

ImprobabilityDrive 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Independent, reliable information about this article is important. Stop saying Morey could be lying about his degree. You are breeching WP:BLP, and accusing the OK Weekly of not confirming the degree with LBU (sloppy journalism).
Removing it serves what purpose? Silencing what an independent magazine wrote? Removing what one of the few sources that can be found on this place? Arbustoo 04:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


"Independent, reliable information about this article is important." I could not agree more. Independent information is most important.
"Stop saying Morey could be lying about his degree." Isn't that the implication of the OK Weekly article? It looks like a polemic on Morey. I said "if" because I don't know that he is a liar. But it is clear to me that the author of the OK weekly is portraying Morey as a liar.
"Removing it serves what purpose?" You called Morey a "self proclaimed expert." Articles should be about the subject. Morey is not the subject of the article, and his relevance to the article has not been established in my eyes. Doesn't Morey have his own article? ImprobabilityDrive 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
WP:BLP is a guideline for wikipedia, not the OC Weekly.
Claiming that because the article isn't 100% about LBU, it should be removed is silly. The quotation that its degrees are meaningless to academia is important to the article. Arbustoo 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Enough for tonight. I hope others comment. Ignoring my dispute about relevance, and also appreciating the addtional quotes you added, I do believe the paragraph could be written better, and I only point this out because you rewrote it, I think, to address some of my concerns, and so I feel partly responsible for the structure of the paragraph. I might try to rewrite it tomorrow as a copyedit (independant of my objections to Morey's inclusion), if you don't get to it first. Good night and take care. ImprobabilityDrive 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
“ The OC Weekly noted, Robert Morey has a PhD from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in Islamic Studies.[20]. However, as the OC Weekly noted on the second page, "Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies."[21][22] The Weekly described that Morey told the Christian news service ASSIST that there are three nuclear terror devices in U.S., but "no mainstream journalist reprinted Morey’s claim—despite the fact that Morey pitches himself as one of the country’s leading experts on Islam."[20] ”

Adding snapshot of paragraph. ImprobabilityDrive 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet


[edit] Robert Morey paragraph

I am moving the diputed paragraph here for rework. But first let me propose an alternative (it will take me a few minutes to format the original paragraph due to all the nowikis I have to add).

Arbustoo's concern about a source stating that LBU's degrees are "worthless" is not without merit. However, the way the paragraph is written, the paragraph was as harsh on a person as it was on LBU, and it's hard to tell if the subject is LBU or the person. Perhaps the paragraph could be reworked as a compromise to something that conveys the following (with better grammar, of course):

“ The OC Weekly noted in an article about Robert Morey, who claims a Ph.D. from LBU, LBU is not accreddited and no serious academy would recognize it. ”

This changes the subject from Robert Morey to LBU, and makes it relevent. What do you think? ImprobabilityDrive 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

And now, the original paragraph:
“ The [[OC Weekly]] noted, [[Robert Morey]] has a PhD from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in Islamic Studies.<ref name="OCweeklypage1">[http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/dr-jihad/24608/ Dr. Jihad: The crusading life of Islam ‘expert’ Robert Morey (page 1)] ''[[Orange County Weekly]] March 2, 2006 </ref>. However, as the OC Weekly noted on the second page, "Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies."<ref name="OCweeklypage2">[http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/dr-jihad/24608/?page=2/ Dr. Jihad: The crusading life of Islam ‘expert’ Robert Morey (page 2)] ''[[Orange County Weekly]] March 2, 2006 </ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.lbu.edu/macgraduate.html | title=Post Graduate Studies | publisher=Louisiana Baptist University | date=2007-2008 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2006-08-18}} Not listed as a current program</ref> The Weekly described that Morey told the Christian news service ASSIST that there are three nuclear terror devices in U.S., but "no mainstream journalist reprinted Morey’s claim—despite the fact that Morey pitches himself as one of the country’s leading experts on Islam."<ref name="OCweeklypage1" /> ”
Siging... ImprobabilityDrive 04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
We can do without the ASSIST mention. However the rest should be included. Do not remove material that has been on wikipedia for over a year without consensus. Arbustoo 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus was (among those expressing an opinion) that Robert Morey tangents are not appropriate for an article on LBU. ImprobabilityDrive 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
See the archives. It has been consensus for a while. A WP:SPA, and you a user since late April are hardly a "majority" view. Arbustoo 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Having looked at the source, the description did not clearly reflect the source so I've edited it to be more in line. If a suitable paraphrase can be agreed which does not add interpretations which are not clear from the article, that would be preferable. Please take care not to introduce a new synthesis in contravention of WP:NOR. .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. All the more reason to include it. Morey's their "first and only" graduate for that program, and the Weekly considers his education to be, well: "no serious academy would recognize it." Arbustoo 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be that my sarcasm meter is more sensitive, but in the context of an article that's just described Morey's claimed degree as "Forged and Fake" and not awarded by the seminary in question, saying "Morey's their "first and only" graduate for that program" looks to me like saying he's a liar. I've added a little more context to the paragraph to let the reader decide. Your passion for exposing the misdemeanours of LBU is commendable, but original research in synthesising facts to support an opinion undermines the case. Surely there has been more published since the last search giving a better source for the assertion that LBU is a diploma mill? ... dave souza, talk 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported statement

On my first look at this article I had a look at the source for "Louisiana Baptist University is alleged to match several of the criteria for diploma mills, as defined by the United States Department of Education (USDE).[10]", and found that it didn't support the statement so have used commenting out to change the statement to "Louisiana Baptist University has been described as being unaccredited, and fitting the description of a diploma mill.[10]" The source itself is an article about a Young Earth creationism museum and its founder rather than about LBU, and as Answers in Creation is a self-published Old Earth creationism website it is not a reliable source. Since the section is centred around this allegation, a better source is needed to meet our standards, so hope that something more suitable can be found. .. dave souza, talk 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC), link added 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Two sources call it a diploma mill, and a third says "which means no serious academy would recognize" its degrees. Arbustoo 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also take a glance at the archives. This article has gone through numerous rewrites, and has a long standing consensus of displaying the questionableness of its degrees. Arbustoo 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still having a problem seeing how the references to Robert Morey have anything to do with the University itself. If Richard Dawkins claimed to have a PhD in Aviation from Harvard University, even though Harvard doesn't have an aviation department, would we then conclude that Harvard is lying and include Dawkins' nutty claims on a factual article about Harvard? No way. Why? Because we are focusing on factual information about the University itself, not Dawkins. The same should apply here. If this article is about LBU, then what in the world does Robert Morey's claims about his degree have to do with this school. This info should be on Morey's article. It almost appears as if though no one wants to remove this because it adds more negative attention to this University. The only thing that we can criticize LBU for is the FACT that it is not an accredited institution of higher learning. Even the "degree mill allegations" are not appropriate, because they are allegations and not legitimate factual information about this particular school. If I wanted to, I could glue all kinds of extra info to this article, both negative and postive in nature, but that's not what this is about. It is about facts concerning the subject of the article. --cbeech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbeech (talk • contribs)

cbeech, I agree with you on Robert Morey. But I think you posted this response to the wrong section. I am going to move the offending section to the talk page for additional discussion. ImprobabilityDrive 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
The article cited seems to be by Greg Neyman about Carl Baugh, and Neyman makes a casual assertion that LBU is a diploma mill. ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you are in the minority view. A WP:SPA. Arbustoo 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh really, how so? ImprobabilityDrive 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
You and a WP:SPA are not going to change a longstanding consensus that includes relevant information. Arbustoo 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading "Diploma Mill Allegations" I added "no substantial evidence has been produced to support the claim" because none has been produced. The actual citing it uses says:"This school is unaccredited and fits the description of a diploma mill" and that is all it says. It does not reference to an original source of information to verify the claim being made and is therefore unsuitable for a legitimate source. It is simply an opinionated statement lacking any solid proof. --cbeech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbeech (talk • contribs)

I removed it. Do not add things that are unsourced. Cite your claim or it is WP:OR. Arbustoo 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to JzG for improving the statement. If there's another source stating it's a diploma mill, that should be linked beside the citation cited above, if appropriate using the {{ref name=name}} citation method to get two links from the same citation. .. dave souza, talk 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean another source besides Steve Levicoff? Or the Weekly that said a LBU grad's education is worthless? Arbustoo 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Last good version"

This edit removed edits agreed by several users, and implies unacceptable edit warring. Please discuss any concerns in detail on this page. .. dave souza, talk 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, you said: "Well you are in the minority view." Wow, that doesn't sound like a neutral point of view. It sounds more like the idea that "the might, makes the right", or in other words, the majority wins regardless of whether or not they can produce verifiable evidence to support the proposition being made. Again, the information about Morey does not directly pertain to the LBU article and the citing used in the section heading titled "Diploma Mill Allegations" is not a reliable source; actually, the source cited has it's own agenda in making it's unverifiable claim. I thought Wikipedia wanted NPOV on all articles, it's blatantly obvious that this is not the case here. Are there any Administrators that are willing to give this a fair examination? --cbeech cbeech, 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to view the archives and the edit history over the last year. Please explain "what's unfair".Arbustoo 05:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What's unfair is the fact that there is no solid proof presented to support the claim that LBU is a degree mill, yet the opinion of Steve Levicoff remains on the article. Sure, Levicoff is an expert in distance learning, but he is not the only one. Besides, there are many well known theologians and educators who recognize the high standards that LBU places on its institution and students. The Answers in Creation article that it is linked to is simply original research from an outside source that is not a legitimate publication, therefore, it is not a reliable source and should not be cited. Secondly, I do not understand what the malfunction is here, the article on Robert Morey is about Robert Morey, not LBU. Again, LBU has never advertised that it offers a degree in Islamic studies and Morey was the one who made such a claim. Why doesn't this register with anyone? If LBU never made this claim and this article does not pertain to LBU in particular, and it remains on this article, it indirectly places a black cloud over LBU's good name (at least to the extent that is has one). This info about Morey is a strike against Morey's rep, not LBU, so why keep it here? cbeech 5:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LBU Redirect

I added, twice now, a redirect from LBU to this article, but it disappeared both times. The second time I added the redirect, I put in a hidden comment and on the talk page to please let me know why it is getting deleted. Does anybody here know why a redirect from LBU to here does not work? ImprobabilityDrive 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See the log. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, why could I not find that. I'll go talk to the user (if LBU redirect is bad, shouldn't this article be deleted?) ImprobabilityDrive 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
? Because of three letter redirect was deleted the article should be deleted? Arbustoo 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument that it should be a TLA dab page is a good one. There seem to be the following TLAs for LBU (this is a quick grab from the Online Dictionary):

KillerChihuahua?!? 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LBU non-accredited status

I looked around the LBU website, and while they do admit that the are not accreddited in many rather conspicuous locations, it does seem marginally like you can purchase a Ph.D. for some work and $3000. Of course, I never took any courses there. Anyway, I am not against calling a spade a spade, but please lets work to find a consensus. This article is far from wikipedia standards. ImprobabilityDrive 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I am starting to wonder if this article even deserves to exist. In any event, the history section is pretty untypical for a university history (though maybe it is typical for an unaccreddited university entry) on wikipedia. The diploma mill section is poorly worded and still has too much synthesis. But simply cleaning up the English might make it more difficult to assert synthesis arguments. Please try to collaborate (assuming you want the article to stay or be read). To be honest, I can't remember how I ended up reading this article, but it really could use fixing. No offense to the contributors, who have probably been battling for a long time. But I honestly don't care if LBU is portrayed as a diploma mill, so long as we can find RS and do not have to do OR and synthesis of OR to make the point. ImprobabilityDrive 00:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Two solutions: 1) nominate it for deletion or 2) explain your problems. This isn't a message board to discuss how you feel about an article. Thanks for telling us what you "honestly" think, but that isn't really important. Your behavior is. Arbustoo 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the LBU website does admit that they are not accredited in many rather conspicuous locations, that's useful confirmation and should be mentioned at the start of the section. My suggestion is "Louisiana Baptist University openly admits that it is unaccredited,[link to website]". Arbustoo, instead of defending an old synthesis of rather dubious sources which aren't directly about LBU, can you not find sources more directly related to investigations or claims that LBU is a diploma mill? If there are reliable sources giving a positive view of LBU, these should also be given due mention in the article without giving them undue weight, as required by WP:NPOV. Improvements to the article should help to strengthen rather than detract from the information you're trying to put across. .. dave souza, talk 10:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Old synthesis? I'm confused. Steve Levicoff directly calls this operation a diploma mill in his book. If you are interested in adding material do so.
As for the positive review stuff, that is a good idea as long as the source/material is independent from the school itself.Arbustoo 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Levicoff assertion appears to relate to LBU's predecessor, and appears under "History" rather than at the start of "Diploma mill allegations". To clarify things, the reference could be repeated and if appropriate the starting sentence adjusted, perhaps on these lines:
Louisiana Baptist University is unaccredited, and has been described as fitting the description of a diploma mill,[10] as it was in 1993 under its previous name of Baptist Christian University.[2]
That certainly seems to be a much more credible source. And I agree, there's no point in copying the school's publicity blurb, but an independent source giving an alternative viewpoint would be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and repeat the source, but I really see no difference.
What sources to do you have for positive material? Its been long decided that the quotes selected for their catalog aren't acceptable anymore that claims from St. Clements University's website should be included about its academic rigor. Arbustoo 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also can we remove the stuff about an honorary degree. I really confuses everything. An honorary degree means an award not earned from study. It has no relevance. Arbustoo 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Have implemented the proposed change to repeat the Levicoff reference at the start of the allegations section, which makes a difference for people like me who don't go through the history in detail before looking at the allegations, or who find the name change confusing. The comment on positive material is about the principle, not a proposed addition. In my opinion the article would read better with some sort of supporters' viewpoint, but I've no source and don't know if such material exists, and agree that closely linked or partisan websites would be unsuitable. In a second edit I've removed the honorary degree stuff, while rewording the paragraph to make it clear that the main purpose of the OC article is to cast doubt on Morey's claims. Hope you find that helpful. .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really perplexed on the post that was just removed, it just seems to say "I don't want this to appear to be a diploma mill so let's remove all the citations that say it is." Arbustoo 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because I've concluded that no matter what rational arguement is presented against the blatant bias of this article it will not change. I don't care if LBU is a degree mill, however, I've seen nothing authorative to affirm that it is. All the "citations" that you speak of are nonsense, they are mere opinion based on someone else's view of the institution. Opinions that are not verified by proper evaluation and documentation. Therefore, there is no need to hide LBU being a degree mill, because according to what I gather, it isn't. There is no hard evidence to support the claim. It simply appears that a few people dislike this university (for what reason I do not know) and would rather fill this article with unsupported and irrational claims in order to slam this school. I find it funny that just because Mr. Levicoff says so, it must be so. There is no need to attempt to find balance here because according to the history of this article anyone who points out any certain inconsistency is either labeled a sockpuppet or worse, someone with an agenda, the same thing the "majority" is guilty of. Nevertheless, to humor you, I have replaced the removed entry. Cbeech 11:28pm, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really have a problem with Levicoff's accusations being on this article. It's just in the wrong place. Why do you have allegations against LBU under LBU's history? Shouldn't this information be under the part entitled "Diploma Mill Allegations"? Here's my primary problem: By leaving this statement under "history" you go beyond informing the reader that these are simply allegations to where it seems as if though this is an affirmed fact, which it is not. Though I disagree with the Levicoff citation being here, nevertheless, I wouldn't be so uneasy about it if it were in its proper place. cbeech 11:36pm, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the post is incorrect about Levicoff, which as far as I'm concerned is a reliable source, though of course I'm assuming good faith in the editor who took information from the book. If someone has access to a rebuttal in a reliable source making specific reference to LBU that should be shown. However, the points about the other two sources have some validity, as I've discussed earlier. Regarding Morey, it's my reading of the OC article that it's accusing Morey of deceit rather than alleging that LBU gives out doctorates in subjects it doesn't claim to have on its curriculum, but it does assert that "no serious academy would recognize" a doctorate from the LBU. That's a passing mention, with no indication of where OC Weekly got the info, and obviously they have a particular political stance. Evidently it's not easy getting reliable info on this – a google got about 247 results for "Louisiana Baptist University" "diploma mill", and from a quick skim though them they're either mirrors of Wikipedia articles, web forums or blogs. None of which proves that the allegations are untrue, but it's far from ideal. . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) modified 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Cbeech, your opinion of whether this place is a diploma mill or not is not important. The threhold for inclusion is WP:V not "truth." Also Cbeech you appear to be a WP:SPA. That is not a bad thing, but it is something to take into account in this discourse.Arbustoo 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right, my opinion bears little weight. However, I am not pushing my opinion, I am simply showing the fallacy of using someone else's unverified opinion (professional or not) in this article in a way that may seem persuasive. Also, please keep in mind that I have only been a user on the Wikipedia for about two weeks now and I cannot spend every waking moment viewing various articles, that should be taken into account as well. As of right now, this particular article has my attention. Eventually, I will spread my wings more. Cbeech 2:26pm, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing something an expert said isn't a "fallacy." Arbustoo 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no discussion, reason, or consensus for moving that material. But rather a WP:SPA wanting to move the material. Arbustoo 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As I indicated earlier, including a lot of the allegations under "History" was something that I found confusing, and I agree in principle with the idea of moving them to the relevant section. However, it's a fair point that the allegations form part of the history of the institution, though care has to be taken to avoid a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position created by juxtaposing two facts. I've therefore left the basis mention that the allegations were made as a separate paragraph in the History section, and have moved the detail to the Diploma mill allegations section. I've also modified statements to reflect more closely the source, and added the claim by LBU that on February 1, 1994, they received receive full licensure by the Louisiana Board of Regents. Trust this satisfies the concerns of all. .. dave souza, talk 08:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I'm fine with your compromise. Arbustoo 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, in my opinion it does make the issues a bit clearer. .. dave souza, talk 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COPA

A section of the article mentions 'COPA', presumably some governing or accreditation body? I looked for it on WP without success, to wikilink it. I think it should either be expanded (so the full title is used instead of the acronym), explained with a brief sentence, or an article should be written on it and wikilinked. Anchoress 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't figure out what it is. (Child Online Protection Act? Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association? Canadian Owners and Pilots Association? Conservatory of Puppetry Arts? Center on Policy Attitudes?) I suspect a typo... Perhaps someone with a copy of the Levicoff book can look up the quotation.--orlady 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I ran across a reference to COPA on an ed.gov website, so I added an explanation to the footnote. It was Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, a predecessor to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). --orlady 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Unaccredited" statement at beginning of Alumni list

I see no useful purpose for the unencyclopedic statement "Note that all LBU degrees listed in this section are unaccredited" at the beginning of the Alumni list. The lack of accreditation is the main subject of the entire article, mentioned in 8 of its 14 paragraphs; surely it is not necessary to repeat it in the heading of the alumni list.

My last deletion of this sentence was reverted with the statement, "This has been covered enough in the discussion of this article to remain." I am not suggesting that it is not true. Rather, I am saying that this point has been made abundantly clear already, so it is unnecessary (and, frankly, obnoxious) to say it again. --orlady 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Chuck Missler

Chuck Missler's Koinonia Institute is unaccredited in the same way a Sunday School is unaccredited or a Microsoft MCSE class is unaccredited. They don't claim to give out real degrees ... unlike Louisiana "Baptist". Calling it unaccredited would be like pointing out that you aren't going to get an accredited master's degree when you go to driving school. I've never been remotely inclined to take a class there because they are pay and there are plenty of free equivalents out there (for example, BBN Radio's Bible Institute) ... but it is not a degree-offering school. --B (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top to bottom problems with this article

      Self-claims and promotional references
      Claimed to be a self-published source
      Original research
      Amazon buy it link
      Miscellaneous

There are problems with WP:N, with WP:NOR, with WP:V and WP:RS. Most are due to the sources used.

  1. ^ a b c "Academics and Vision", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
  2. ^ Steve Levicoff. Name It and Frame It?. (3rd edition) Institute on Religion and Law. 1993 (pages 113 and 133
  3. ^ Steve Levicoff. Name It and Frame It?. (3rd edition) Institute on Religion and Law. 1993 (page 133)
  4. ^ LBU website (accessed September 7, 2007)
  5. ^ "Domain check for the .edu", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
  6. ^ "Eligibility for the .edu Domain FAQ", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
  7. ^ Life Credits and Diploma Mills United States Department of Education
  8. ^ Learn the Bible in 24 hours by Chuck Missler
  9. ^ Dan Wooding.Learn the Bible in 24 Hours: Chuck Missler releases an extraordinary teaching tool ASSIST News Service. Garden Grove, CA April 3, 2001
  10. ^ Koinonia Institute degrees
  11. ^ >a b "Welcome to LBU!", Louisiana Baptist University (Archived), April 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
  12. ^ >"Minutes of Board of Regents December 10, 1998", Louisiana Board of Regents, December 10, 1998. Retrieved on 2007-03-13. Orders LBU to stop admitting students.
  13. ^ "Minutes of Board of Regents April 22, 1999", Louisiana Board of Regents, April 22, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-13.
  14. ^ United States of America, State of Louisiana, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Proclamation Signed March 29, 2005.
  15. ^ Louisiana Baptist University See faculty listings.
  16. ^ Louisiana Baptist University faculty and staff page
  17. ^ "Dissertation Requirements (page 20)", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2006-08-18.
  18. ^ "Library of Congress and Copyright Office Sign Landmark Agreement with UMI", Library of Congress, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
  19. ^ William P. Welty's dissertation on SWANsat for the Ph.D. in communications (2005) signed off by Chuck Missler. LBU has no communications school or prior history of telecommunications research; no published peer-reviewed publications are related to this document, despite peer-reviewed publication being a significant part of Ph.D. research.
  20. ^ Rick Scarborough Vision America


The last, #20, doesn't really count for anything much, and neither does #14 (my own mother was awarded a "day" in our state--it's just a fancy looking piece of paper the same as #14). But here's how the rest break out: red-all self claims and promotional refs, green claimed to be a self-published source, purple is all original research, chiefly synthesis, and the orange is to an amazon buy-it page (commercial) - topping it all, the book sold there doesn't even support the claim attributed to it here. I know this article has received considerable attention in the past, including from admins. Is anybody really following policy trying to set things right in here? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on your color scheme, I have added a color key. Enjoy! --B (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Great minds think alike (but your key is better B). Thanks PM for the classifications. Ra2007 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Great analysis, accurately reflecting the fact that dispassionate sources are profoundly uninterested in this place. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CNN contributor Roland S. Martin an LBU student

Commentary: Integrity biggest loss in baseball scandal by Roland S. Martin (12-19-2007), CNN Contributor: "Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University, and he is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." You can read more of his columns at www.rolandsmartin.com." (Original research, but apparently CNN has a "contributor" who is going to school at LBU. Ra2007 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not original research. If you called the school and asked for a student list, that's original research. If he said, "I go to a Christian college in Shreveport and you googled it and determined that LBU is the only Christian college in Shreveport, that's original research. If you draw a conclusion as to the value of an LBU "education" based on him being enrolled, that's original research. But stating that he is enrolled and using this as a reference is fine. --B (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this might be a better source since it focuses on Martin joining CNN. Some readers might be confused by the baseball article, not realizing the relevant text is at the bottom. Chaz Beckett 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, B. I should have clarified...in the context of the schools notability, it might be borderline original resaarch (along the lines of "somebody famous is a current student as evidenced by this...so the school must be notable"). I think the reference is fine for establishing Roland S. Martin as a current student. Ra2007 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Beckett, it might be a good secondary source, but it is a blog. Ra2007 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the CNN article is a high-quality source, but an irrelevant topic while the other source is relevant, but it's a blog. Just thought I'd throw it out there, I agree that either are sufficient to establish he's an LBU student. Chaz Beckett 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they should both be there if it is challagned. But the blogsome.com is throwing popups when I go there...Ra2007 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What about this idea? Why don't we take out all the bloat in the content, the "boundary pushing" claims taken from primary sources (which both sides are guilty of here), and find some secondary reliable sources that have even half-way noteworthy content about this subject? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

<---I think you might have some problems, specifically, certain people seem to enjoy the "unaccredited" status of LBU, and establishing that using secondary reliable sources without resorting to original research will probably be impossible. I'll go look for some secondary reliable sources to establish: 1. That LBU is notable. and 2. That LBU is unaccredited (as observed and noted by a reliable secondary source). In any event, here is another baptist college, Pensacola Christian College, which seems to be of a different tone than this article. Ra2007 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Will an admission from LBU work?
“ ...However, as a primarily religious institution, LBU has not sought either regional or national accreditation by a secular accrediting agency... ”

[13]

If not, I'll keep looking. (This is not a secondary source, though. If LBU admitted that they had planters warts, would we include that admission in this article without a secondary RS? Ra2007 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It works. Anything more added to this article needs to come from some source that demonstrates how this institution is noteworthy. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD undoing good work

The AFD has stimulated more interest in the article, which is great. Unfortunately several have simply restored all the uncompliant material removed yesterday, ignoring completely the comments made prior here on this page, which I find to be somewhat arrogantly dismissive of legitimate concerns about the sourcing of claims for this article. In fact, pretty much no attention was given to the content before it was restored, which is demonstrated by the fact that the dead links, the content which misrepresents its source, original research, etc, have been restored in its entirety. It is not necessary to fill the article with non-compliant content simply to justify a keep in an AFD, editors. Please~~edit in compliance to policy, not to your own whims. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the deleted material was all original research. The smaller version that Professor marginalia edited too was far more accurate of what a wikipedia article should look like. That afterwards it looked like slim pickings and warranted a trip to AFD for appraisal should not be considered the goal of removing all the OR material. It was disengenuous of the user who restored all the original research to believe there was some malice aforethought. David D. (Talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, before the Afd, we were doing good work to get this up to WP standards. I've attempted to restore part of the consensus version before the Afd. Ra2007 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please make sure you include all newly sourced claims, which would easily be overlooked in amongst the junk.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I just restored it to your last version, sorry about that. I guess we can pull stuff out one by one based on the OR in the previous section. Ra2007 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Perfect at Sunrise OR claims

User Future Perfect at Sunrise (FP) claims this material on this page is OR. It is not. It gives facts supported by cited references. A rewrite of the page to state the cited and supported facts as simply as possible without at all relating them to avoid the concern of advancing a stance - ie let the reader draw the conclusions his or herself, without even minimally relating the facts - was also rejected and reverted by Future Perfect.

As others have noted (cf FP's own discussion page), FP holds an stringent interpretation of what 'original research' is - an interpretation not supported by stated policy, imo. Does this include all syllogisms? As far as I can see, by FP's standard, event A happened in 1945 [source 1], event B happened in 1950 [source 2], therefore event B happened after event A is considered OR in relating times from different sources to draw a conclusion and advance a position (that B happened after A), and should therefore be deleted.

Deleting the usual Wikipedia accreditation template and calling that OR also seems unwarranted.

I see also FP chooses to be anonymous. Editing of this page has frequently been done by anonymous pro-LBU sockpuppets, and the December 'cleanup' and focus on editin this page has provided an opportunity for those puppets to make modifications under the radar. Previous claims of OR on the text FP has deleted were made above by ImprobabilityDrive, now identified as a sockpuppet. As a result of this situation, I am forced to ask these questions: FP, what is your relationship, if any, to LBU? Are your edits advancing a position?

I concur that the AfD and attention on this page has been detrimental to its content. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary...the article has many OR problems. Ra2007 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this article is a coatrack about a non-notable "school". It was created by a Jason Gatrich sock as an advertisement. "Louisiana Baptist University" gets 75,900 g-hits [14]. When you take out Wikipedia and Gastrich, that goes down to 998 [15]. In other words, we are a disproportionate amount of their attention. This article is never going to be more than advertising content + "oh noes diploma mills are bad" because there isn't anything else out there. Yes, the OR should be removed. Yes, the whole article should be removed. --B (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Trim it down (remove OR), and nominate it for its 3rd Afd. Ra2007 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lloyd's sockpuppetry insinuations are too ridiculous to answer. (Just look at my editing profile; besides, there are plenty of Wikipedians around who know who I am in real life and what my academic background is. Hint: I'm also an admin in this place, as it happens.) As for he rest: Yes, I do have a stringent interpretation of the OR policy. Personally, I dislike fundamentalist Christian diploma mills as much as any of you guys. But what I keep saying in such cases is: On Wikipedia, if you don't like something, the solution is always to talk less about it, not more. It is not our function to analyse why and how LBU is bad, except in rendering the opinions put forward by some other, reliable and notable public voice. Take the passage about the .edu domain as an example. Apparently, no reliable source outside Wikipedia has ever discussed why and how LBU has an edu domain and what that means for its status. The only reason why anybody would want to include such a discussion in the Wikipedia article is to advance a position along the lines of: "It has an edu domain, which might lead you to believe it's a legitimate university, but be warned, it really isn't." While that is probably true, it is as clear as day an example of original research by novel synthesis of published facts, to advance a position, exactly in the sense of WP:SYNTH. It is, in fact, a textbook example of what that policy describes. No amount of additional sourcing and no amount of rewording will ever change that - whether you explicitly spell out the argument or just insinuate it through mere juxtaposition makes no difference.
Just scale this article about this freaking stupid place down to a decent stub and be done with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, well stated. Ra2007 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Accreditation template"?

Re. Lloyd's objections in the section above: what "usual Wikipedia accreditation template" are you talking about? There is no such thing. If you mean the text you restored in [16], that's not a template and not "usual", and there is no reason why it shouldn't be evaluated against the same criteria of NPOV and OR as any other bit of text. Indeed, I can see that a similar wording has been used in a dozen or so other articles ([17]). All of them suffer of similar OR problems as this one and will have to be cleaned up as well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Unaccredited, which adds the page into that category. Note the subst instruction to include the organisation name, which is why the template is never seen in the page -- and why so many pages have 'similar wording'; as the template text has varied slightly over time, subst'ituting the current template for its text to include the name and category can only use the text current in the template when the page that will include the template text is edited. Perhaps a better understanding of what you 'clean up' would be helpful before trashing the content of those pages? Apologies for not further explicating the template use at the time with a link in the edit summary to make it clearer to you. If you have a problem with NPOV of that template, please take it up on the template's own discussion page.
Just look at my editing profile; besides, there are plenty of Wikipedians around who know who I am in real life and what my academic background is. Hint: I'm also an admin in this place, as it happens.
(Isn't that invoking 'the Essjay defense'?) Well, as an admin, template subst should be familiar to you. Good to see you at least agree your interpretation of OR is 'stringent' - my take is that it's overly stringent, and that your interpretation could be stringently applied to almost any two juxtaposed sentences in any Wikipedia to justify deleting them. Lloyd Wood (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use disclaimers and that template should not exist. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Your insinuation comparing Future Perfect with Essjay is inappropriate and he/she has done nothing requiring a "defense". --B (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That template does exist, and is very appropriate for this page in placing the page into that category. While the template exists, we should use it. (I see you've nominated the template for deletion. Discussion of the template should be carried on there.) Lloyd Wood (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not fully understand the history of this unaccredited template, so it's probably a little crazy to step into these waters having no idea how deep they are. But putting this language into the article is WP:NOR, plain and simple. Furthermore, it looks to me as if editors are confusing "writing as an encyclopedia editor" with "writing as a consumer watchdog". Not even the state agencies charged with monitoring "diploma mills" and such will go so far as some editors want to take this article by implicating this particular institution by name. Why is that? Why is it that state watchdogs would exercise more cautious restraint than WP? The answer is obvious--because doing so requires a higher burden of evidence than this "proof through syllogism". This template language is not WP:NPOV - note a key phrase found in the template's ref source which has been omitted from the template, "unless approved by the state licensing agency." And what does that mean, "approved by state licensing agency"? LBU has state approval of a kind, and though I don't know whether it's the sort of approval that qualifies, I do know that this particular situation is exactly what WP:SYNTH is written to address, and illustrates why editors have to take WP:NOR seriously, in every circumstance, and quit pretending to themselves that we can use references syllogistically (ie violate WP:SYNTH) whenever some editor wants to say something that can't be found via explicit references. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

← The template wasa compromise form of words to describe the status of degrees awarded by institutions like this. It's not a disclaimer, it's a statement of fact, supported by the US Department of Education and several State departments of education. This article was one of the main culprits leading to its creation, due to long-term determined POV-pushing by alumni, most notably user:Jason Gastrich. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LBU.png

Image:LBU.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B posted "This has been addressed by another user", but I think the response may not suffice to address the issue. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm, another user fixed the tag on Image:LBU.png. I checked the image to confirm that the description page now conforms with our policies. Everything looks fine to me - what do you think is insufficient to address the issue? This bot blasted thousands of talk pages with notifications of pro forma problems. Once they are fixed, the warning serves no purpose. --B (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know the full story, but my understanding is that WP is pulling away from fair use images because fair use doesn't allow free content reuse, and also to avoid conflict with all the different copyright laws in different countries. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably eventually, but that has nothing to do with this. The issue here is that the WikiMedia foundation has a new policy for project fair use policies that takes effect in March. We were already pretty much compliant (it was based on what we were already doing) but someone decided it would be a really good idea to go from 37 hoops you have to jump through for images to 42. So a bot at superhuman speeds is tagging all of the images missing those extra hoops so that they will be deleted before any human can get around to fixing them. As much sense as that makes, this particular image has already been fixed and is NOT going to be deleted unless or until we go completely away from non-free images (ie, not any time soon). This particular image is fixed, has been removed from the deletion tag and is not going to be deleted. Ergo this tag serves no purpose. --B (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)