Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

Google groups "citations"

Google groups is not a valid citation. Google groups is a place where people can talk, spoof identities, spam, argue, etc. I'm removing the section with no valid citation. --Doe, John 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a first-person post from the author of the book about TRACS, whose title is cited (and easy to confirm). You not only removed the author's discussion of the reaction to the book but even mention that there was such a book-length critique of TRACS, which is certainly notable to TRACS, and so I'll put back in. And if we didn't include this information that this critic of TRACS subsequently grew more favourable, we'd be presenting a point of view more opposed to TRACS than the evidence merits. As for identity-spoofing, Steve Levicoff, like most notable consumer writers on distance education in the US - John Bear, Thomas Nixon, Marcie Thorson and others - all haunted alt.education.distance in those days, knew each other, quickly called out forgeries, etc.; their posts - with appropriate server stamps and with no responses to the thread citing a forgery, and especially with multiple such posts, as there are on the Levicoff-Falwell discussion - are reliable sources, certainly at the very least on their opinions and incidents in which they personally were involved, by virtue of their own notability in the field. Samaritan 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Samaritan that it should stay and is important to the subject. "Doe, John's" removal is pure POV. Also "Doe, John" is a "new user" who has been quoting "policy" and seems to have a good handle on wikipedia use despite having no edit history. He has been tagged as a sock puppet. SeeUser talk:Doe, John for further details. Arbusto 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material can not stay in per WP:RS, which strictly prohibits quoting from usenet: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. -- JJay 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And continues, "This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." Here we do. WP:RS is guideline not policy, and almost every reference to usenet on its talk page speaks in favour of just this sort of allowance. Samaritan 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, relying on these kinds of unofficial sources is really going against the spirit of the verification policy. When you say you know who wrote the message, is that because it has been cited in print or other reputable sources? Or are you basing that on your personal beliefs? Furthermore, what people say in an email or BB post is very different from what they are willing to say in print. I think our standards need to be pretty high. However, maybe we should do a poll on it or something. -- JJay 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any (to nest it within the allowance for personal websites as allowable primary sources?), the posting email address, levicoff@ix.netcom.com, was also confirmed on his personal website (via archive.org, before he took it down or let it expire since, except for periodic posts to aed's major successor degreeinfo.com, he's "retired" from the field). Samaritan 17:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all that really seems to me to be well into the realm of OR. If you want to quote from him, why don't you use his book, or find other printed sources that might be critical of TRACS? -- JJay 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out to find criticism of TRACS, just information; that his posting opined that TRACS had improved seems like a data point too. Hopefully a wider consensus on usenet sourcing will emerge (how the heck do you write about a notable newsgroup otherwise? A subset of these are...) Samaritan 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how one writes about the usenet groups. Probably printed sources should be used there too. However, given some of the controversy around Tracs, I think it would be better if we went for a high standard if we are going to do a section on criticism. However, having said that, and although I'm very uncomfortable with the idea, you do make somewhat of a good case for looking the other way and using the post. That's why if you still think it should be used, we should probably put it to a poll for a week or so. Maybe if some new people can make a case that Usenet posts are cool to use then I could go along with it.-- JJay 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly reasonable to use a usenet source from an individual already involved something (and already citable). Isn't that what is happening here? JoshuaZ 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added to the article and added on related pages pertaining to questionable practices. Arbusto 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, they may be better as long as they are not coming from blogs. Regarding JoshuaZ's question, read the discussion above and reread WP:RS. -- JJay 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "answer" to Josh's question read what an adminstrator said about keeping in that source[1] for the reasons Josh gave. Arbusto 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that user wants to disregard guidelines and policy here that's his choice. I support the guidelines on never sourcing from blogs, newsgroup posts, message boards or partisan websites. I see no reason to destroy the integrity of wikipedia by depending on sources that are not irreproachable. It's a bit of a shame that you don't see things that way. -- JJay 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty irreproachable, as others observed, the associated email address is certainly his. There isn't any doubt that this is someone else. JoshuaZ 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no doubt it is his post. Arbusto 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So when the guidelines say: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." What they really meant was: "This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. Unless we think we do". No one has any proof that the message was written by the owner of that email address. The message was never subject to review comparable to a published article or book. No source that I know of uses that message as a primary source. By using a usenet post as a source in this article, we not only violate WP:RS, we are also dangerously close to violating OR. We also essentially brand the article as sloppy trash, unbefitting of a serious reference work. But have it your way, put the usenet quote back in the article. Depending on how it's done, a number of tags may then be required. -- JJay 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No one has any proof that the message was written by the owner of that email address." If you re-read the post above Samaritan wrote: "If it helps any (to nest it within the allowance for personal websites as allowable primary sources?), the posting email address, levicoff@ix.netcom.com, was also confirmed on his personal website (via archive.org, before he took it down or let it expire since, except for periodic posts to aed's major successor degreeinfo.com, he's "retired" from the field)." Thus, there is no doubt it is his own words pertaining to his own book. Arbusto 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and all that qualifies as OR. If he posts here and says he wrote it- that would be OR. If you call him and he tells you he wrote it- still OR. There are very good reasons for never quoting from usenet, not the least of which is that we are not detectives. -- JJay 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Why was this, in part, removed and a complete copy of the TRACS doctrine copied from the website added? And a good critical link was removed too.

While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987.[2] Yet, in 1987 "recognition was denied, but in 1991, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite the fact that his advisory panels repeatedly recommended against recognition."[3]

Then in 1993 Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law.

Among the questionable practices, TRACS gave "immediate accreditation" to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions."[4]

Also in 1991, TRACS granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR."[5]

Then in 1995 a "federal review" was conducted and resulted in probaton "which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors." It has been noted that these imrpovements have been made "including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing Chairmen."[6]

Currently, Timothy Sandefur argues that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school," which had caused controversy 1991 when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[7] He argues that if MSACS had to drop this criteria TRACS should too.

One link was used to support something that was untrue. The link didn't say anything about TRACS being suspended. So, that is unverifiable.

It was unfair and misleading to have one of TRACS' biblical standards (chosen by random? or to smear? hmmm) and it's much more encyclopedic to list the whole bunch. More information is better than less. Link was given as citation.

By the way, please sign your posts. --No Jobs 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link have a good sources and had plently of criticism and information about its exitence prior to 1991 was deleted. Why did you remove that? Then why did you add in something that was just copied from the webpage?

I mean what does this mean: "God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience."? What does that add?

It's important to document what the heck TRACS requires of its members. If TRACS wants their members to stand on one leg and say, "Acka Ooka Dooka", then we should report it. --No Jobs 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]