Template talk:Unaccredited

message: It may be appropriate to modify the tag to read as:
::... is an institution operating in the United States that is not accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 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 states unless approved by the state licensing agencyhttp://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/accreditation.html.
This accomplishes two things: 1) It better clarifies the US-centricity of the statement and 2) It reads just as the USDE disclaimer reads.--Jreichard 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you a government source that states unaccredited degrees are illegal in four states, and the Washington law. The template is fine. CaliEd 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you read the proposed change?  The word "illegal" is not removed in my proposition.--Jreichard 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are unaccredited schools outside the US, and use of unaccredited degrees from US schools is illegal in some jurisdictions outside the US, so I think it's best to leave it generic as-is. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then perhaps we need to remove the word "states" as that is certainly US-centric.--Jreichard 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Maybe local laws approve them or maybe not? However, states is a mainly used in a US context. This unaccredited template is, as wikipedia also is, used internationally. It is fine. CaliEd 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, it says jurisdictions, which is also suitably generic. Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the government's laws. Such as:
* Database for Accreditation in the United States (CHEA)
* Database for Accreditation in the United States (USDE)
* Database for Accreditation in the United Kingdom
* Database for Accreditation in Australia
* Database for Accreditation in Malaysia 
* Database for Accreditation in the Netherlands
* Database for Accreditation in Pakistan
* Database for Accreditation in Sweden
* The World Higher Education Database (IAU/UNESCO) List of accredited schools throughout the world
CaliEd 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is quite clear there is someone hairsplitting, but I everyone here is in agreement. C56C 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change of tag

message: New Jersey basically has the same law as North Dakota. New Jersey Statutes & Regulations 
Regarding Academic Degrees 
: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 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jersey does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: 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." 
Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees. (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 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I  spoke with Karen Oelschlager, a Degree Authorization representative at the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (360.753.7869). She told me that while she could not render legal advice (of course), the intent of the Washington legislature was not exclude degrees approved by other states, but simply to prevent diploma mills from operating within the state of Washington without state authorization or accreditation. The law is not intended to make Washington an island by excluding the approval of other states; it simply omits mentioning other states because it was irrelevant to its original purpose. It is a matter of how the law is approached and interpreted, certainly.  If you are questioning Mrs. Oelschlager, you are saying that your interpretation of her state's educational law is inferior to yours. --Jreichard 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, WP:AGF that you called, how do I know what you said, how do I know your clear bias didn't influence the discussion, how do I know that you disclosed all relevant data. Well, I don't. The laws posted above are very clear, and no second-hand WP:OR about one phone call to someone will convince me. Give me a source, you know, what you asked from me. CaliEd 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program."
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 CaliEd 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates

message: Florida, like Indiana, does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program."
The citation is: 
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 817
FRAUDULENT PRACTICES 
 
817.567  Making false claims of academic degree or title.-- 
(1)  No person in the state may claim, either orally or in writing, to possess an academic degree, as defined in s. 1005.02, or the title associated with said degree, unless the person has, in fact, been awarded said 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 Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation; 
(b)  Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political subdivisions or by the Federal Government; 
(c)  A school, institute, college, or university chartered outside the United States, the academic degree from which has been validated by an accrediting agency approved by the United States Department of Education as equivalent to the baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate degree conferred by a regionally accredited college or university in the United States; 
(d)  Licensed by the Commission for Independent Education pursuant to ss. 1005.01-1005.38 or exempt from licensure pursuant to chapter 1005; or 
(e)  A religious seminary, institute, college, or university which offers only educational programs that prepare students for a religious vocation, career, occupation, profession, or lifework, and the nomenclature of whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program. 
(2)  No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "dr." before the person's name or any mark, appellation, or series of letters, numbers, or words, such as, but not limited to, "Ph.D.," "Ed.D.," "D.N.," or "D.Th.," which signifies, purports, or is generally taken to signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of a doctorate degree, after the person's name. 
(3)(a)  A person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 
(b)  In addition to any penalty imposed under paragraph (a), a violator shall be subject to any other penalty provided by law, including, but not limited to, suspension or revocation of the violator's license or certification to practice an occupation or profession. 
:CaliEd 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida does not accept unaccredited doctorates

message: This template contains the following uncited weasel words: "use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." Can someone improve it and show some cases where this is true? - JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs) 
: See above. The laws of various states are cited. Arbusto 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: The use of unaccredited  degree titles may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.Diploma Mills and Accreditation,  U.S. Department of Education  Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon,Unaccredited Colleges, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization State mulls online learning by the Associated Press, Billings Gazette, January 30, 2005  Michigan,Colleges and Universities not accredited by CHEA, Michigan Education and Children's Services Maine,Accredited and Non-Accredited Colleges and Universities, Maine’s List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools North Dakota, New Jersey, Washington, Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, Washington Consumer Information Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, and Texas.Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating BoardTwo less doctors in the house - Hebert, Wilson back away from Ph.D.'s issued by ‘diploma mills', by Stephen Palkot, Fort Bend Herald, September 28, 2007 As an example of a law that may restrict  degree use, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is defined as use of a fake or misleading degree and is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both.Use of False or Misleading DegreesNevada statute NRS 394.700 Many other states are also considering restrictions on unaccredited degree use in order to help prevent fraud.Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? Oregon Office of Degree Authorization
TallMagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's waaaaaaaayyyyyy long.  That's what happens with disclosure statements, even not-really-a-disclosure disclosure statements-all the fine print nuance.  Besides, just checking a few, I see many of the states listed have exceptions policies, or avenues available for the acceptance of unaccredited degrees in some cases.  Oregon, for example, makes exceptions, and has delineated the circumstances where the use is illegal-such as it's illegal to misrepresent it as an accredited degree in licensed or public employment, or to fail to disclose it is an unaccredited degree in private employment (it is legal in Oregon to use them in employment whenever it's disclosed to be a degree from an "unapproved" degreeing institution).  Further complicating the issue is the religious exemption to standard accreditation requirement afforded to religious colleges and universities by most states, and how in states like Oregon such exemptions don't have much impact because Oregon public agencies ignore religious degrees anyway, even those from accredited institutions.  The template offers a tempting shortcut maybe, but because "unaccredited" does not equal "is illegal in some jurisdictions" the shortcut doesn't get the job done.  At best,  "unaccredited" simply means "may be illegal somewhere, depending", ie, pretty wishy-washy connection for our purposes. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing lots of information sometimes requires more text. I don't understand your reference to disclosure statements. Requiring the holder of an unaccredited degree to disclose that the degree is unaccredited is still a restriction in the use of the degree. So your assertion that it doesn't apply to Oregon seems to be false. The wording says "may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions". It's entirely possible that two people with unaccredited degrees from the same school might have one of their degrees be illegal or restricted to use and the other person it might be free to use, even when they both reside in the same legal jurisdiction. This is why the word "may" is used. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. It may still be required for some people to do further research to get their own specific case/question dispositioned. Providing references might help people do this further research on their own. Calling it wishy-washy because of this does not seem to me to be an argument that the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia? TallMagic (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say whether or not the template "applied" to Oregon, except that there is no simple A=>B equation, even in Oregon, as in the case of "unaccredited means restricted in every case".  Even the longer statement is incomplete.  If the statement were complete, yes, it would require even more text, leaving it even more impossible to use well.  What's wrong with solving this problem the old fashioned way?  By sourcing any such claim against an institution and writing copy which is faithful to the source?  WP editors aren't supposed to pioneer unique claims in articles, they're supposed to source them with WP:RS.  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is meant by "pioneer unique claims" in the text above. The above text also seemed to argue again that the proposed statement says that all unaccredited degrees are illegal in all those jurisdictions. That is not the proposed statement. This appears to me to be a proposed statement that is fully supported by the given reliable sources. If there is disagreement then please be more specific. True that it may not be clear to everyone with an unaccredited degree whether or not they themselves will be restricted in the use of their unaccredited degree. That is where additional research may be required on the reader's part. The comments above seem to imply that the proposed text is not faithful to the source. The comments above may also be interpreted to imply that the sources in the proposed text may not be reliable sources. If either is the case then please be more specific. TallMagic (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry.  I mean as in WP:SYNTH.  As it says in WP:SYNTH, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research", ie pioneering a claim.  This Dept of Ed template is a reference about non-accreditation in general, but not about any particular unaccredited institution.  To use a general statement about non-accreditation and bring it to an article about a particular institution to imply some claim about the article's subject is editing practice that is difficult to justify against the WP:NOR policy.  We don't typically "suppose" claims in articles, as in "we suppose the degrees of this institution, because it is unaccredited, might be illegal or restricted in some places".  Instead of playing footloose with policy, it's important to find sources about the institution itself.  To do otherwise, to play the internet detective to try and dig up secondary circumstantial evidence to judge  "fly-by-night" educational institutions that no real agency, researcher or reporter has written about anywhere, would be in most all cases original research. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it is original research. It is a statment of fact regarding unaccredited degrees. It makes no claim beyond the information that is explicitly provided in the given sources. There is no synthesis of information that I see. TallMagic (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the template in and of itself doesn't.  The manner in which the template has been used to add text to articles is a different story.  In general, a very clumsy cookie-cutter that plays the boundaries of WP:SYNTH.  Professor marginalia (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, that seems to be more an argument for the proposal to delete the template rather than an argument for or against the proposed enhancement to the template. Perhaps that is more what you've been arguing all along? I would rather keep that a separate argument. TallMagic (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new template