Talk:Washington International University

Undue weight on old laundry

I've looked into the issues of the Oregon state office, and I'm concerned that we may be using Wikipedia as a means to unduly defame an organization, rather than report neutrally on it. If it is "interesting" to readers to know what the Oregon site used to say about WIU, then isn't it even more interesting to know that the Oregon site went out of its way to remove the negative content? If we were to do that, though it just becomes rather ridiculous that the Wikipedia article about WIU would be giving so much undue attention to what an Oregon site used to (presumably erroneously) say, then what it now says about a British Virgin Islands organization that clearly "has not sought educational accreditation." If WIU is currently "operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education," then a reliable source (preferably, the PA Department of Education itself), and you find one, cite it. Otherwise, it's just republishing old laundry -- potentially libelous old laundry -- and Wikipedia doesn't have "libel" in its mission or goals.--Glasscity09 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article DID state that the statement was changed. I don't see how you can reasonable assert that it wasn't stated. Didn't you delete that statement!? The operation was illegally operating from Pennsylvania. This is a fact that was supported in the article. Why do you demand that it be proven that they are currently operating illegally out of Penn.? That wasn't the statement and aren't the current facts. So the mailing address of the operation was simply moved. Therefore, the ODA changed their statement about Penn.. It appears that you don't believe that they operated out of Penn. despite the archived source. Your statements indicate to me that you didn't even bother reading the whole article or perhaps have decided to ignore other parts of the article. It states in the article even AFTER your edit that WIU operated out of Pennsylvania for time, which of course is a sourced statement. Sorry if I don't provide the exact source that you seem to demand but, since you don't seem to believe (or didn't read the other source already in the article) how about if we added Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning by John Bear and Mariah Bear as a source? In there it says that WIU operated out of PENN for a period of time. Would that source along with the archive be reasonable plus the other source still in the article that you didn't remove, would that suffice in your opinion? Your assertions about libel don't seem to have any support to me? TallMagic (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Glasscity, and s/he's put the finger on what I was thinking about but I couldn't put into as many words. I have read sources that say that Edsel Ford willingly and knowingly cooperated with German factories using slave labor, but upon further investigation I learned that these are tenuous claims not supported by common current consensus of research. Thus, the Wikipedia article about Edsel Ford contains not one mention of Hitler, of Nazis, of anti-semitism. If there is no currently surviving official documentation of laws broken by this subject in the state of PA, why in the heck would we use Wikipedia to publish that original research? Wikipedia's purpose is not to serve as a consumer protection service. It's an encyclopedia -- general knowledge only, please. Simply cannot be stopped (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply cannot be stopped, your analogy is incorrect, silly, and insulting. WIU operated in Penn. WIU operated illegally in Penn. according to the ODA for a long period. When WIU no longer operated in Penn. the ODA simply took down the previous text. This is not a discussion about slave labor in Germany or anywhere, whether it really happened or not for the Edsel Ford. The history of WIU is relevant to the article about WIU. In my mind it is relevant, notable, and interesting that while WIU operated in Penn. it was operating illegally, according to the ODA. The history of WIU is relevant in an article about WIU. TallMagic (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in what you did recently on this article, TallMagic. I want to recommend to you that you consult with WP:NPOV before you try again to quietly re-introduce content that the majority of editors here have discussed and agree constitutes pushing an agenda that violates WP:UNDUE ("How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources.") and WP:RS ("...audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source."). The State of Oregon is not a "third-party" to a claim that it, and apparently it alone posited about activity in Pennsylvania. You have been offered the opportunity to add your agenda-driven content if you can find a reliable direct source that states clearly and explicitly that the WIU operated illegally in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This means finding a public record from Pennsylvania and/or a published secondary news article that clearly states this. Oregon is not a reliable source for activity in Pennsylvania, especially when you consider that Oregon apparently retracted the damaging claim. What it does not mean is finding an Archive.org web snapshot from the State of Oregon that alleges illegal activity taking place in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That is simply an unacceptable means of sourcing an encyclopedia. We've determined that an old, dusty Oregon website snapshot is not a reliable source for claims of illegal activity in Pennsylvania that cannot be substantiated by any other source, especially when you consider that Oregon apparently retracted the damaging claim. Anyone can find any amount of incorrect and unsubstantiated content by using Archive.org to prowl for old mistakes on various websites. Indeed, you could even look at the New York Times itself and find an article that contained such unabashed libel, as determined by a court case against the New York Times. Guess what? There's (rightly) no accusation of this or even documentation of this errant claim in Wikipedia's article about the subject. If you can't conform to consensus due to a glaring lack of credible and substantive sources, go find another area on Wikipedia to help us build an encyclopedia. That's what we're here for, not to sling mud based on old retracted out-of-state sources. -- Simply cannot be stopped (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the historical information from the Oregon Office of Degree Information, with wording that I hope makes it clearer that the information was from 2007 and 2008.

If Wikipedia were a publisher of paid advertising from educational institutions, it probably would be glad to publish paid ads from WIU that focused on the institution's current status as presented by WIU publicists. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of paid advertising, but instead is an encyclopedia that covers the past as well as the present, and it bases its articles on reliable sources. The ODA is a reliable source regarding the legal status and accreditation status of educational institutions worldwide, and it published this information for at least 1-1/2 years (according to archive.org contents cited in the article). That's a sound basis for including it as historical information.

The reference to "current" sources in WP:UNDUE definitely does not bar the inclusion of information that was published in 2007 and 2008. For one thing, in the span of the history of an educational institution, information from 2 or 3 years ago is normally considered to be very fresh. Typical university students who enrolled in 2007 or 2008 are still working on their degrees. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Defining some legal terms

I've been away for a bit, and needed some time to catch up. Let's start with talking about what it means to be "operating illegally." More importantly, who has the authority to pronounce that an entity is "operating illegally"? Let's say I'm an investigative reporter for the New York Times, and I'm writing an in-depth story about Bill Gates. One afternoon while he and I are traveling from Microsoft headquarters to his home, I notice that his car's registration tag is expired. Am I qualified to print in the NYT that "Bill Gates was operating his vehicle illegally" as of such and such a date? In my mind, that would be irresponsible. A reporter may have the "capacity" to judge whether or not some person's behavior appears illegal, but he most certainly does not have the legal authority to judge and determine whether or not someone should be "publicly pronounced" as "operating illegally." That's where libel laws can come into play. What if Gates had the new registration sticker in his glove box? What if his new sticker had been affixed, it was stolen, and he had properly filed a report and request just yesterday for a replacement sticker, which was currently in process? These are things that a police officer, or a court, or a lawyer would help to sort out before someone was branded as operating outside the law -- and it is exactly the reason we have social norms that advise us as to why reporters can't publicly pronounce guilt or innocence of specific legal issues that have not been heard or tried in a judicial setting.

In the case of this article, if the WIU had been "operating illegally" in Pennsylvania, who has the legal authority to make that judgment? Is it the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization? I certainly hope not. Is it the Pennsylvania Department of Education? While it may seem so, the answer there is actually "no." The entity that has legal authority to say whether another entity or person in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is "operating illegally" is the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General or a court within the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which could range from a municipal court on up to the State Supreme Court. An outdated screen shot of a website managed by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization does not pass muster. The Oregon ODA derives its authority from Oregon Administrative Rules 583. Guess how much authority those rules have toward determining whether an entity is "operating illegally" in the state of Pennsylvania, 2880 miles away? None.

Therefore, I am asking those who wish to re-publish what is likely a libelous claim from Oregon to simply do your homework. For now, show your ethical resolve and commitment to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and remove the statement from the article. Then take the time to go research the publicly-available records of formal investigations launched by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, or of lawsuits filed by the PA Attorney General against WIU, or of any court decisions in PA that implicate the WIU as having "operated illegally." When you have found that evidence that has authority to publicly pronounce law-breaking activity, then feel free to re-insert the "operating illegally" claim, with the new and better sources you’ve found.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not a fan of unaccredited educational businesses. I wouldn't consider such a degree for myself or for my kids, nor would I give any undue additional respect to a job candidate whose resume included one of these kinds of degrees. But I am here to help assure that Wikipedia is not used as a platform for libelous claims that are supported solely by one web screen shot from several years ago, on a site that has zero authority to be making the claim that they made. --Glasscity09 (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Glasscity09, you are suggesting that Wikipedia should not cite a reliable secondary source (Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, which evaluates, compiles and maintains a collection of information from a diverse variety of sources), but should only report information that Wikipedians have verified through original research based on primary sources such as court records. I believe you will find that your approach is the one that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY for more information on Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Glasscity, I think that you are making this all far more complicated that it needs to be. Please review one of Wikipedia's 2 or 3 most important policies, that is wp:V. Our job is not to write secondary source articles from primary sources. Wikipedia editting is much more restricted. The first sentence of the policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see wp:V#Reliable sources), not whether editors think it is true." You are flat out wrong in my opinion about the ODA. Please note that ODA stands for Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. The ODA is a government agency that was created to do exactly what it is doing in this case. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi TallMagic and Orlady, I think that you are making this all far more POV-pushing than it needs to be. I wonder if any uninvolved administrators would find it "interesting" that you two keep adding Archive.org as a source for a claim that's made "in 2007 and 2008", when it just so happens that those are the only dates that Archive.org makes available for the page that you're wishing to use as a "reliable secondary source". How convenient for your POV. - CRedit 1234 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, archive.org has quite a few versions of the page from 2007 and 2008, but all seem to be the same with respect to WIU. I recall that ODA changed the structure of its website some time circa early 2007, I guess one of us could dig up the earlier URL for that page in order to find the archive.org copies of earlier versions of that page. --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for digging up the version that said, "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE". So, you have personal recollection of the ODA website as far back as early 2007, some 39 or 40 months ago! You certainly are a very dedicated and "involved" editor on this subject, then. You wouldn't be pushing the limits of WP:OWN, would you, though? -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I poked around for just a minute and found more info being given 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20051228075655/www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html "British Virgin Islands does not have postsecondary oversight capability. ODA has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards. Operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. WIU is forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia. Oregon employers should consider degrees from this supplier to be substandard unless each degree program is evaluated in detail by an external evaluator acceptable to ODA." TallMagic (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Poking around a tiny bit more found a March 2005 that says, "May be a diploma mill but status difficult to determine. British Virgin Islands does not have postsecondary oversight capability. ODA has no evidence that this is a legitimate provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards. Operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education." http://web.archive.org/web/20050322024701/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.htmlTallMagic (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really peculiar, then, that there is no evidence whatsoever on the PA Department of Education site, or in any of its public records, or any of its legal filings, that it ever officially said that WIU was "operating illegally". But, the Oregon site certainly did say, "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE". I mean, whom can we trust? -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading quote

I removed the following misleading quote that was added to the article, "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE." This quote on the ODA website is not referring to the ODA website. It is instead referring to the website that the ODA was linking to. This was added to the article as if it was referring to the ODA database, which is incorrect and therefore misleading. TallMagic (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How are you possibly twisting the red-letter advisory as referring to anything but the ODA website itself? When you say "the website that the ODA was linking to", what exactly are you talking about? Link, please. -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, wait. I think I see what TallMagic is talking about. He's saying that the ODA advises site visitors that the Office of Postsecondary Education of the United States Department of Education has questionable accuracy in its database of accredited U.S. colleges. But, we are to blindly accept that an Archive.org snapshot of the Oregon ODA is infallible, even better and more perfect than a very similar database kept by the United States government. We're to believe that it's important for Wikipedia to assert that WIU was "operating illegally", even though this charge was never mentioned in any news source of any kind, even though this charge was never filed in any court in Pennsylvania or any court in any jurisdiction in the world. And we're to take this on the word of someone who has been lambasting unaccredited institutions across the Internet for decades, who can't find a single like-minded editor other than an admin with whom he shares 90% of their joint editing activity on articles dealing with unaccredited institutions.

The phrase "operating illegally" occurs 44 times in Wikipedia article space. I count 12 of those 44 where the phrase is used to describe the phenomenon of an unaccredited educational organization. I wonder if I searched the history of those 12 articles, would I find that either TallMagic or his partner admin Orlady have added that phrase "operating illegally" to Wikipedia, and whether the source will be cited, and if so, will it be a mainstream media report that asserts the importance, or whether it will be an Archive.org snapshot of this purportedly infallible Oregon state website? I think I'll go check those 12 articles now, and I'll report what I find either here, or in an Administrator's Notice. -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my documentation of how the phrase "operating illegally" has entered into 12 Wikipedia articles that relate to unaccredited institutions.

1. American University of London - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
2. Suffield University - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by 155.212.44.58, what appears to be a good-faith editor, inactive since 2007.
3. List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
4. Kingston College (British Columbia) - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
5. Vancouver University Worldwide - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
6. American Conservatory of Music - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by 38.104.166.30, what appears to be an account with a single purpose, operating for only 5 weeks, and touching only 2 articles, both about music schools. One edit removed important information that was reliably sourced.
7. Bircham International University - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
8. Weston Reserve University - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
9. Fidelis Oyakhilome - I was mistaken. This article is not about unaccredited institutions, per se.
10. Canterbury University (Seychelles) - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so, remarking that the edit was reverting "excuse-making".
11. Washington International University - no mention of "operates illegally" until Orlady made it so.
12. Education in India - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by Lalit Jagannath, an editor interested in India, not pushing a POV about unaccredited institutions.

As far as I could see, not one of these insertions were reliably sourced to a mainstream, journalistic publication. They were marked against state websites that, as I've demonstrated, are proved to make claims about legality without any basis in actual judicial review.

So, we can clearly see that 73% of the mentions of "operating illegally" in Wikipedia (as it relates to educational accreditation) is the sole responsibility of one administrator, Orlady. However, TallMagic, whom Orlady protects and tags off with on a regular basis, is concerned that I have an agenda that I'm pushing, and not Orlady who is responsible for 73% of a thematic agenda that now permeates multiple Wikipedia articles. This is truly Orwellian. -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is for all of the above work except perhaps to try to imply that Orlady is sloppy in her sourcing? Looking at the above articles that CRedit points out involves Orlady, it appears to me that all occurrences of the term "operating illegally" (or "operates illegally") are properly sourced, although I did find one that referenced a stale link and another actually says "not operating illegally". CRedit's definition of "a mainstream, journalistic publication" apparently differs from wp:V#SOURCES. I would like to respectfully suggest to CRedit that he/she redirect his/her campaign away from attacking fellow Wikipedians and instead try to focus his/her energies on Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. TallMagic (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind of difficult to "focus energies" when being brought up on spurious sockpuppeting accusations by someone with a years-long agenda to dig for sources that appear to be absolutely unique in the world and do not establish any form of corroborated "knowledge" about a topic that is frankly undue, don't you think? -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Using archive.org is, of course, reasonable to use to cover what a website said in the past. In this article the ODA website covers about 3.5 years where it's been found to give the same information. The article specifically lists the period that this is true. However, some editors have expressed skepticism that archive.org can be used as a Wikipedia reliable source. I searched through the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Here's a discussion in the archives I think might be relevant to these "skeptics". The beginning of the discussion may be relevant, it turns into a discussion of primary versus secondary sources. I don't think that part is relevant. The consensus in the beginning of the discussion is that archive.org is fine for referencing what a website said in the past. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Web_Archives TallMagic (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RS noticeboard

I've brought up the issue on using archived pages from the Oregon database at the RS Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ODA issue

I was asked for my opinion on the illegal status issue:

From 2005 through 2008, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) reported that the Pennsylvania Department of Education had provided the information that WIU was then "operating illegally" in Pennsylvania. The ODA listing during that period also indicated that WIU was "forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia".[17] The ODA no longer carries these statements.[18]

Note 17 refers to an old version of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission's Office of Degree Authorization page, linked to the Internet archive, though I can't get the links to work at present. Note 18 is their current page.

Assuming I've understood it correctly, I find it problematic for several reasons, primarily because it's OR-ish. First it's not clear that the ODA or Pennsylvania Dept of Education is in a position to determine whether something is operating illegally. Second, they removed that from their website for a reason, and we don't know what that reason was—perhaps because it's no longer accurate, but perhaps because it was never accurate. Finally, the ODA is a primary source, whereas for serious allegations we normally prefer secondary sources that give an overview.

My view is that for all these reasons the paragraph should be removed, unless we can find a reliable secondary source for it. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. [1] If there are objections I'm happy to discuss further. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to agree with removing this, but started searching the Web and found two secondary sources to support the idea that the school is operating illegally in Pennsylvania (or at least was operating illegally there). Normally, the ODA should be considered a good, reliable, secondary source in itself. It's the state-authorized expert on whether or not a school is operating illegally in terms of its own state, as their home page indicates [2], so as an organization it has expertise in this kind of thing. U.S. state departments of education are the authorities in the U.S. on whether or not a school meets legal requirements to operate, so the ODA would naturally defer to the Pennsylvania department of ed. Here's the relevant page at the "PDE" confirming that they regulate this. [3] (The Department of Education requires a formal application from the party or entity seeking approval from the Secretary of Education to conduct academic programs for credit and to award academic, higher education degrees.) The page explicitly states that the PDE is an agency enforcing regulatory law.

I don't see anything about "Washington International University" at the PDE's website -- which is odd. Perhaps it just means that WIU is no longer operating illegally in that state. But the ODA's listing is confirmed by the current Web page for the state of Maine's Department of Ed [4] (Operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. WIU is forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia.) This related Web page [5] from the same website gives some caveats, including the possibility that the list may be out of date. A second source is the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board [6] (page title: "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas").

Also, I just looked up Cla68's request to the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 61#Archived pages from the Oregon database on diploma mills. I see a consensus there that there is no WP:RS problem.

A state agency, and particularly when it is backed up by other state agencies saying the same thing, should be regarded as reliable on a serious matter (unless we have evidence a state government agency is unreliable). When we've got two state agencies (Texas and Maine) reporting on a third (Penn.), we don't even have a primary source problem. It is odd that we don't have anything on the Pennsylvania agency's website, but I think the fact that the institution is now incorporated outside the state would account for it. It seems to me that if we cite multiple state agencies we'd be responsibly serving our readers.

So I would restore the Oregon language in the history section and add in the "Accreditation status" section that Maine and Texas agencies (or maybe just Texas) say the institution is forbidden to operate in Pennsylvania and that it's illegal for someone to use a diploma from WIU in Texas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As the sources you cite are citing the PDE, should we not be able to find the listing on a PDE cite for confirmation? My concern is that the allegation was removed from various sites, and we don't know why. Perhaps because it's no longer true, or perhaps because it was never true. When organizations remove serious allegations from their websites we have to take that seriously. When newspapers do it for legal reasons, they prevent the Internet archive from capturing it, but we can't be sure that the sites we're linking to would have taken that precaution, so we really have no idea of the status of the allegation. And the sites you link to above aren't really secondary sources, because all they're doing is mirroring the PDE claim. There is no overview of it, no checking.

Also, I don't follow from the links you provided how it would be illegal for someone to use a WIU diploma in Texas. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to JohnWBarber for checking the Maine and Texas pages. The three states of Oregon, Maine, and Texas compile "unaccredited institution" information from their sister agencies around the world and disseminate it on the web. Like JohnWBarber, I regard them as secondary sources of information about institutions outside their borders.

Those three states share information with each other, but each of these states makes their own compilation, so it's common to find small differences between the contents of their websites. Laws in the individual states differ, but when the Texas agency lists an institution on the page titled "illegal in Texas", you can be pretty sure they know what they're talking about.

Not all governments publish this kind of information on their own websites. A few U.S. states put some state-specific "unaccredited" information on their websites (and Michigan also has a pretty comprehensive online list, although I don't consider it as being as authoritative as Oregon, Texas and Maine), but most states do not. Thus, the fact that Pennsylvania doesn't have a website list of unaccredited institutions does not indicate anything about the status of WIU or any other school. For what it's worth, it appears to me that WIU has moved out of Pennsylvania, and I figure that this is the reason why the Oregon site no longer has the statement about WIU operating illegally in Pennsylvania. --Orlady (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) It's at the top of that Web page and it's very explicit. That page cites a particular Texas law. Here's the link again. [7] If Texas is telling people it's illegal to use a WIU degree in that state (criminal law: "Violation of this law is a Class B misdemeanor."), they're doing something considerably more than repeating an allegation -- they're indicating they may use it in criminal prosecution. (Their Web page indicates they could go after a WIU degree holder for three different reasons: lack of accreditation by a group they recognize, substandard foreign degree and/or violation of the law of another state).

I think your argument about not using something removed from the ODA was a good one, and with that information alone, I would have supported it out of prudence. But now we've got two states with the information still online. If it were just Maine, I'd still go with caution and not use it (given the caveats they cite on their own website). But the Texas source, added to the rest, seems like too much to ignore.

In addition to restoring the ODA material in the history section, I suggest adding this to the "Accreditation status and recognition of degrees" section (which I've just renamed and added something else to):

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board ("CB") lists WIU as one of many institutions issuing degrees that are either not issued by accreditation agencies it recognizes, issued by institutions outside the United States that don't meet the CB's standards or are operating illegally. It is illegal for individuals to use in that state to obtain a job or employment benefits, or for any state government position of authority, whether or not the degree-holder receives compensation. CB describes Washington International University as having "[n]o accreditation from a CB recognized accreditor. British Virgin Islands does not have postsecondary oversight capability. The Pennsylvania Department of Education reports this entity is operating illegally in that state."<FOOTNOTE>Web page titled "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" at the website of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, retrieved April 26, 2010</FOOTNOTE>

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "illegal in Texas" link; I see it now. I'm still concerned that the two states that have it online are mirroring the PDE. What I'd do in this situation, if I were writing this article, would be to write to the PDE and asked about the status of that claim. We couldn't use what they say directly, but we could let it guide us in terms of how to use the other sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've been wondering whether or not it would be a good idea to call their public information office to ask about it. As Orlady does, I assume WIU moved its operation out of Pennsylvania. I do notice that the information, even on what they say about WIU, is written a bit differently (and with a bit different information) on the different state Web pages, and that may indicate something more than simple copying. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to put it in the article. If there's a new objection, we can sort it out here, but I see consensus at this point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)