Talk:Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary

message: Thanks for explaining my motives, 72.4.74.21. Without your help, I would not have known that I am a zealous "Accreditation Defender." Here I thought that I was trying to help Wikipedia by developing/maintaining articles that are accurate, objective, and readable. I will assume good faith and assume that you have the same goal, so I will not use your edit history as a basis for making other conclusions about your motives.
You say the following is grammatically correct and a true statement:    
The NAPNSC, which accredits distance education institutions, is not one of the higher education accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and therefore does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.).
I agree that it is a grammatically correct sentence, but it is nonsense. What it says (what's left after you take out the comma-delimited clauses) is "The NAPNSC does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.)." It is true that an accreditation agency (recognized or not) does not qualify for student loans, but it is nonsensical for Wikipedia to make that statement. 
I have repaired that text to restore its original meaning, which is to the effect that a school accredited by a nonrecognized accreditor is deemed to be unaccredited, and its students therefore are ineligible for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.) I hope you will agree that this is an objective statement and that nothing in that statement alleges that the school is substandard. Additionally, I created an article about the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges, containing sourced information about this organization.
Your insertion that "In contrast, however, one cannot gauge the quality of unrecognized accreditation against that which is considered to be recognized" does not appear to me to be an objective statement, but rather a bit of "spin" offered in justification of the status of Trinity College and Seminary. Accordingly, I have marked this "neutrality disputed." --orlady 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to 72.4.74.21

message: Your statement that my direct interpretation of a factual statement is a "spin" is yet another example of why I must question your own motives.  The quote is from one of the references upon which you heavily rely.  In fact, it is offered in NULLIFICATION of the contrasts assumed between accreditation and non-accreditation.  Simply because you believe something to go against your own perception (or wish, as it appears) does NOT make that statement inaccurate.  It is a factual statement from the US Government.  It stands without dispute; but due to your apparent unwillingness to perceive that, I'll compromise by leaving it in.  Having a statement unnecessarily disputed, I assume, is better than not having the statement at all.
My claim that you are an "Accreditation Defender" comes from your own User page. You specifically address content related to "controversial educational institutions".  I've looked at your work.  Most of it is very well-spoken, well-researched work.  But your emphasis on institutions of controversy stands out, and you seem to pay "special" attention to religious institutions.  If you should ask Steven Levicoff or John Bear to explain what institutions they consider "controversial", then you'll hear only about Accreditation or the lack thereof.
While I'm glad you offered at least a weak compromise of your own, I still have a problem with your contradiction.  You begin by allowing the statement that the school achieved accreditation by NAPNSC.  You then state that the school is considered to be unaccredited, while proceeding to make the truthful claim about the government funding, etc.  You're finding no argument from me with the factual statement.  The argument I'm providing is against the statement that the school is not accredited.  According to the rest of the section and supported by the government's own statements, the school IS accredited.  It's just not accredited by a government-recognized body, and therefore it doesn't qualify for government funding.  Thus, I am editing the page to remove your statement that the Trinity College is unaccredited.  
I do appreciate that you created the article about the NAPNSC.  THAT particular article is clear and easy to understand.  This Trinity article has had many misleading edits throughout its existence.  While I believe that the NAPNSC article should also reference the USDE statement on recognized/unrecognized bodies, I'll save that for another time (and another IP).
Despite the obvious truth I've included in this particular article, I'm sure you'll be obligated to come back.  Let's make a deal.  If you can refute these arguments, then I'll call it even, but you have to actually refute them, or find real evidence supporting otherwise, before I'll leave it alone.  That does not include labeling things as "disputed", either.  You have to explain why something is disputed, rather than just applying the label because the wind is southerly.
Otherwise, you really are a very good editor.  Have a wonderful evening.
72.4.74.21 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your last change to that passage, saying "Accordingly...may not be accepted" but deleting the "unaccredited" part. Good move! However, the sentence about the recognition/approval process for accrediting agencies still reads like an opinion, and it's not really germane to the article, so I deleted it (again).--orlady 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As for my interest in controversial educational institutions, it's purely a hobby. My first involvement in that area was in trying to separate truth from fiction (including hype by the operators and attacks by an array of critics) in articles about institutions for "troubled teens". Then this post on my talk page , which attacked a legitimate accrediting agency (albeit one limited to primary and secondary schools, and thus unrecognized by USDE or CHEA), got me interested in the problem of telling truth from fiction in the general area of accreditation.--orlady 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from 72.4.74.21

message: Now we're on the same page.  The reasoning behind posting the statement from the referenced USDE website was to counteract the apparent misuse of the term "unaccredited".  Now that we're stating that the institution is accredited by an unrecognized accreditation body, rather than claiming that it's not accredited at all, it sounds fair without the USDE reference.  You were right to remove it.  I believe its current form is impartial and honest, in that it states the truth from every perspective [that I'm aware of].
On a personal note: I think that your greater pursuits are justified, and I'm a little disgusted that any primary and secondary level accrediting agency could make a claim for accreditation without state authorization.  I had a hope that eventually the same level of importance would be applied at the higher levels, as in this article; but now I'm seeing that it has a much longer road ahead of it.
Now that Romney's been mentioned, I have a feeling that the WWASPS program is going to receive much more scrutiny.  Good luck there.  I'll be keeping an eye out for more of your handiwork in the future. --Gone-- 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from 72.4.74.21

message: Those changes were more than a bit gratuitous, weren't they?  81.149.190.174 also took it upon himself (or herself) to edit the local Evansville, Indiana page's Higher Education listing.  I suspect that 81.149.190.174's relationship with TC&S is a little more than observation.  If in fact he or she IS a representative of the school, it is my great hope that he or she does not represent the typical spelling capability of the its "accademic proffesionals".--72.4.74.21 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Call Orlady 

message: I have removed an undated, uncited claim that USDE accreditation has "just" been sought, since I have been unable to verify it with the USDE or anywhere else.  Please re-add this info when it is verifiable now, not in the "immediate [undated] future". Rogerborg (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hidden the similar text, pending further investigation. When a school applies for accreditation, it is customary to announce which accreditor they applied to. Therefore, the statement "Trinity is actively working towards an application for accreditation with a U.S. Department of Education (USDE) recognized agency" cannot be credited as factual. I also marked some statements about Wales as "failed verification" -- they aren't supported by the cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USDE accreditation 

message: I've added the conflict of interest tag to this article because of sentences such as the following:
     - When they did decide to transfer the candidacy, students who enrolled prior to 2002 were allowed to finish under the University of Liverpool's "accreditation" logo. In time, the language changed from "accreditation" to endorsement".
     - This choice was made after the HLC continually went back and forth on Trinity, costing multiple thousands of dollars each year. Initially, the reason for being denied accreditation was for course work that was "too challenging", but ultimately Trinity did not have enough "financial stability reserve."
     - Though Trinity is not affiliated (accredited) with any regional or national accrediting agency they have operated, successfully, as a school of ministry for over 50 years with students graduating and serving in a variety of areas including teaching, preaching, missions, and counseling. Trinity clearly understands the purpose of accreditation. However, as noted by the US Department of Education, and all US DOE recognized accreditors, accreditation is a voluntary process.
Each of these sentences is uncited, and reads as though it has been written by someone who either has inside knowledge, or has access to someone who does. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and all such claims should be citable. Furthermore, the entire "Accreditation" section reads like a defence of the seminary, since it lacks accreditation. (See the second and third sentences above for two particularly clear examples of this.) Judging by some of the older contributions to this talk page, this problem has been noted more than once before. I strongly suggest that any user associated with the seminary stops editing this page. The "Accreditation" section in particular is in need of a re-write in order to remove unsourced claims and conform to NPOV. OldCause (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest