Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

message: I've semi-protected the page, so things can be discussed on the talk page. It appears that we have a troll in our midst. --No Jobs 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll is right. The excessive doctorinal statements can be viewed at the TRACS' webpage. That is unless these are to be summarized so it does not violate copyrighted material they are removed. Arbusto 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything should dominate the article, the requirements for accreditation should. I've added them back. With the citation, there is no copyright infringement. --John3031 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No Jobs, you have not semi-protected the page.  You can't.  Only an admin can do that, and I don't see enough of a problem to justify semi-protection so I'm not going to.  You can ask for semi-protection on WP:RFPP but I doubt you'll get it since this is a content dispute, not a vandal problem. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The religious discourse does not have the "accreditation requirements" it has TRACS' religious dogma. Information about how they accredited would be useful, but not a copy-vio stolen from the TRACS website. Arbusto 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually matter - large-scale copy & paste is almost always wrong, even if copyright issues were not involved. Teir criteria are on their website, which is linked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I've added the NPOV tag to the criticism section. With the exception of one usenet post, the section seems to be based entirely on the work of Timothy Sandefur. All the citations are to an article written by Sandefur (which I have not been able to confirm was actually published). We need broader sourcing for this section to eliminate the appearance that we are acting as a soapbox for Sandefur. -- JJay 15:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to a point, Lord Copper.  It also relies on work by Levicoff, which seems well sourced. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * I mentioned the Levicoff work above when I referred to the Usenet post- because that is how we are sourcing Levicoff. Sourcing from Usenet posts, as you probably know, is not encouraged. Few would call that "well sourced".  It would be far more balanced if there was some actual sourcing from Levicoff's book. Be that as it may, I reiterate that the entire section is drawn from a possibly unpublished article by Sandefur (it would be nice if someone added a bibliographic reference for the article). The NPOV tag is necessary because I would really hate to give the appearance that wikipedia editors are trying to denigrate the reputation of TRACS in a partisan manner, instead of objectively reporting the facts. -- JJay 12:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Maybe a "needs sources" tag would be appropriate as well, then? --Tim4christ17 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *And maybe JJay missed the bit where Levicoff's book-length critique was cited.  That wasn't a Usenet post. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I didn't miss anything. Our discussion of the book is the following: 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. That does not tell us much. It is also why I wrote above that: "it would be far more balanced if there was some actual sourcing from Levicoff's book." Please provide some quotes from the book to balance this article. -- JJay 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to add to it. Arbusto 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the NPOV tag. If JJay has a problem with the sources perhaps a more approitate tag should be added. However, while it would be nice to have a New York Times article about this, I don't think TRACS has the influence or noterity to warrant such articles. Arbusto 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Npov

message: As TRACS is a national accredition agency, I have removed the unnecessary notice that it is not a regional accredition agency, and added a link (at the end) to the U.S. DOE's list of Accrediting agencies (sorted by type.) --Tim4christ17 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National accredition agency 

message: Please read the paragraph below.  It contains lots of implied statements that are not stated expressly.  "Sandefur argued ..."  So what?  Did he criticise the practice? If so, then we need to say so.  "He cites..." What did that incident involve? What happened to MSACS for requiring racial diversity?  Why is it in support of Sandefur's position (whatever it is)?  I cannot edit this section because I do not know the underlying facts but the paragraph does not currently make sense.
:*In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[6] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.
::What about the paragraph doesn't make sense?  It tells you what Sandefur says, and gives his citation backing up his statement.  The formatting and phrasing is appropriate when referring to an argument made in the past using sources, as in this case. --Tim4christ17 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct the below paragraph 

message: If you want to ignore my concernds fine, but this you need to pay attention to: I write/edit aviation articles, and we have to be careful of this one also. 
:Some consider their recognition "controversial."
Your use of "some" here is a weasel word (I assume you know that one, given the other guidelines you've been quoting). You must be specific about who said something, and who they are. I have to take lines like this out of aircraft articles at times. It's like the proverbial "they say" - well who's "they"?
A good aviation example is the F-22 Raptor. We have editors who want to say, "the F-22 is the greatest fighter in the world". Or even, no kidding, "Some consider it to be the greatest fighter in the world." We can't leave that in! It's non-specific.
Yes, you have a quote, but you need to identify in the text who is making the assertion, and qualify the scope of the statement. "Some" can be anything, from one man to 300 million people. I can't do that myself, other than to mention Steve Levicoff's name. - BillCJ 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, then you should simply insert the name of the author who made the claim. That does not require a NPOV tag to be added for weeks. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some

message: I have noticed all your quotes from Steve Levicoff come from pages 24 and 25. You could easily just use one cite for that, as you do with Sandefur's listings. I can't see any obvious reason why you didn't do it that way, unless you weren't sure at the timehow to do it. I'll glady help if you want it changed.
: I didn't write the whole article, but for the record I think its important to use as many sources as possible. That is, Sandefur's writing should be given in addition to the Steve's whenever possible. Again this has nothing to do with NPOV and leaving the tag in. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I just now read the article on Steve Levicoff. I should have done so earlier. I now realize his main beef is against "diploma mills". I assume the book against TRACS is aimed at that issue, and at high educational standards. Including one line on who he is would be helpful in establishing his "credentials" in the article. In using him and Sandefur, you do have two divergent views, which is good on your part; however, that is not clear from the article itself. Also, you did say Sandefur is a fellow at the Clairmont Institute. My bad for missing that.
:Agreed, feel free to add it in. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, whatever you want to do with that is fine. Again that is not related to NPOV. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: I've rewritten the Lead paragraph to include a breader description of TRACS form below. I've also rewriten the "some" line, and included a Sandefur ref.
:Its fine by me. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is relevant given that TRACS accredits Falwell's school and a powerful evangelical. thus, it should stay. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, while you might thinks its not a good argument the author does. Thus, the quote should be attributed to the author and other readers allowed to agree or disagree. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like some more sources and to expand this, but there just isn't that much about this place online. I've seen this page and so many others related to colleges get white washed on a fairly regular basis. From what I read so far your changes are fine, but I'm going to think about it some more and might tweek some stuff. Judging from your changes I do think your addition of the NPOV inappropriate. However, thanks for working out your concerns so it did not have to remain. Arbustoo 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Annotations

message: This article notes that TRACS is currently up for renewal by CHEA, and Swamidass (disclaimer I'm the author) argues that their renewal be contingent on clarifying and improving their position on scientific creationism: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537
Bob Jones University has responded to this (they are accredited by TRACS): https://www.wsj.com/articles/science-and-creationism-in-serious-colleges-11615490100
Sswamida (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reference to the agency's current (2021) renewal in the article. Am I missing something?Cmartinmo (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRACS and CHEA certification 

message: The section of the article regarding the decision of then Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander to grant the agency initial recognition seems to indicate that the appeal hearing which proceeded the Secretary’s approval was initiated by Mr. Alexander. (...Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing,"...)
Actually, the agency filed an appeal of the Secretary’s previous denial of recognition based on a provision within 34 CFR 602.3(d). It was on this basis that the Secretary granted the appeal request from the agency. 
The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. 
The way the article is written could lead one to conclude that the Secretary’s decision to grant initial recognition to the agency was based on personal bias and was simply “political”. 
Might I suggest a rewrite of this section something like this:
**
The agency’s first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991 under President George H. W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition”. 
This approval came when, following the agency’s denial of recognition, TRACS filed a request for an appeal of the denial based on provisions afforded to such agencies as detailed in 34 CFR 602.3 (d) and the Secretary granted the agency’s appeal based on this provision.
The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. Based on these recommendations, the Secretary granted the agency’s petition for recognition.
Critics of the Secretary’s decision insist that Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and further insist that the move was about politics. The agency’s approval "worried" some accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor, and the Secretary’s approval was criticized by some education officials. 
**
I removed the original citation footnotes in the above narrative simply because in rearranging the items in the narrative, the footnotes would have been out of order. Certainly, the original sources should be placed back in the article.
I have not been able to find on-line citations for the new information in the narrative, so I know that is problematic and the information is unverifiable without such citations. PDFs of letters, the appeal hearing transcript, etc. can be obtained, but how to reference them on-line is something that I am not familiar with. Any guidance in this regard would be welcomed.Cmartinmo (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Edits?