Talk:Warren National University/Archive 4

message: In the past some people were interested in tracking down more detail as to what states made it illegal to use unaccredited degrees and what states had restrictions. I found this tidbit.
Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees?
No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Washington and Maine to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana to use an unaccredited doctorate and Michigan law limits the legal options of users. Illinois limits the use of unaccredited degrees to those licensed by other states. See those states’ laws http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud. 
TallMagic 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  States Where Unaccredited Degrees are Illegal 

message: Avruch writes:2007-10-09T22:39:59 Avruch; (Undid revision 163425344 by Rkowalke...isn't categorizing WNU, its additional refs for subjects covered.
:I agree, didn't think of it that way.
:Rkowalke 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diploma Mill Link

message: It seems the use of peacock and weasel words by the "MarkTwain" account need changing as identified in bold below.
::For several years the university has been financially successful targeting those who are unable or would rather not attend traditional classroom courses, where the work is more rigorous. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to a federal government investigation.
Peacock problem:
:Peacock terms often reflect opinion, not fact, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. Let the facts speak for themselves.
:Weasel words:
:Editors inevitably disagree.  It is too easy to exploit Wikipedia and use it to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda with Weasel words. Not coincidentally, there is a Wikipedia policy that deals with exactly that problem in more general terms: The verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for what sort of support a statement must have for it to remain in an article if it is challenged. It is one of our core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles - and it is this policy that weasel words undermine. 
Need to come to consensus on this talk page prior to including these sentences into the article.
Rkowalke 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is very little left of Marktwain's direct edits. The only exceptions that I can think of is the article summary sentences being added to the lead paragraph was prompted by Marktwain's edits (but no longer contain Marktwain's wording) and the large quote in the Faculty section, which Rkowalke already cut down to a more reasonable size. TallMagic 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem sentences requiring resolution on this discussion page before re-insertion into article

message: I just undid an apparent revert (that didn't have any comment associated with it) that seemed to go back to an old version (16:43, 20 October 2007 Marktwain403) that was missing all of the recent enhancements since October 20. Please be more selective in your edits. TallMagic 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  undo marktwain403 revert