Talk:Accrediting Commission International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2008[edit]

I came to this page after creating one for ACI (since redirected to here), which was listed as one of the accreditors for Wisdom University. According to John Bear, as well as the TIU website, there are over 250 member schools altogether. Bear adds that the complete list is secret.

An internet search revealed the following schools claiming accreditation from ACI:

Wisdom University (San Francisco)

The International University (TIU) ("Missouri, USA")

Faith Christian Univerity (Tampa, FL)

Freedom Bible College and Seminary (Tokyo)

Agape International Ministries Bible Training Institute

Wisconsin International University (Wauwatosa, WI)

Sacramento Theological Seminary

Columbia Southern University (Alabama)

Cornerstone Christian University (Orlando, FL)

Dawud (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy problems?[edit]

Believe this article suffers severe issues. Was created by WP:SPA User talk:Diplomamillwatcher, who also created Steve Levicoff and his [meaning: Levicoff's] WP:SPS book Name It and Frame It? in a 3-day flurry of activity, then disappeared. Most of this article is sourced by that book, clearly against WP:SELFPUB; I also don't see a link to its charges. Then when I looked at the Bear article, it comes short of saying what Levicoff says about the two institutions being the same. If the two institutions are not provably the same, then the whole IAC and Perry [Reddeck] info is a WP:COATRACK. Then of course we have WP:BLP on Reuter, and Scheel, and Perry, none of whom I know, but I do know the policy. That's a lot to cut back, but what else can be done with the sources? JJB 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Plus, even the good links are bad. The ACI link doesn't work, its site has been reprogrammed to mask internal links. If you go to accreditnow.com, wait for it to load, and click ACI Benefits (the closest page to the dead link title), you get the text below; note that the article text didn't conform to the source. Also the link to CHEA was the homepage and I have no idea what was intended there. Stubbing accordingly. JJB 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Text from "ACI Benefits":

You have made the first step by looking through our Web Site. Let me congratulate you for being interested in enhancing the quality of your educational program and that of the learning institution you represent, if any.

We hope that you will soon reap the benefits and the rewards of being a member of ACI. ACI also provides individual membership for teachers with certification by ACI. This is not a requirement for the school to become a member, but we do recommend that a school certify its teachers. This certification is not to be confused with State Teacher Certification. This is a vehicle to let our members know that a teacher is qualified in a certain field to teach subjects for our membership. Administrators may also be certified.

The teacher must furnish a request letter from the member school and a resume. If they have attended official classes at a college in their field they must furnish a transcript of credits. If they have been conferred a degree, a copy of the degree should also be submitted with the application. Please only send copies because we will not return them. The fee for teacher certification is $25.00 per year at all levels. The certificate must be renewed January 1 each year.

Other benefits include educational seminars in various locations each year; newsletters; textbook recommendations and evaluation; and discounted World Travel. These offered trips are throughout the world, including the Holy Land.

The next step is to send us an email at the address below and give us the name of your school, number of students, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. We will send your school an application and the information need to begin the process.

If your application is approved, you will receive a Candidate Status. The candidate status will expire in six months from date of issue. The school will have to schedule an on-site visit date for ACI examiners prior to the expiration of the six month certification.

ACI sponsors a conference each year for its members. The conference is packed with seminars and meetings that help and enhance the school's progams. The best speakers are scheduled to facilitate the subjects of their expertise.

A copy of ACI Quality Guidelines will accompany your application form.

You may order an information packet for a school by clicking here.

If no one can fix the article, then invocation of WP:ORG and WP:ATP is also appropriate. JJB 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
JJB, I'm not sure what you're saying but there's no proof that Steve Levicoff did the edits that you seem to accuse him of. You say that using Name It or Frame It is clearly against WP:SELFPUB. Well it must not be that clear because I don't get it. That book is a well known source for religious related diploma mills. Even though it is rather dated now, it is still the best source that I know of. TallMagic (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate that you had this watchlisted! Could you please inform me where I seem to accuse Steve Levicoff of doing any edits? Can you tell me why you think this admittedly self-published book is an exception to the WP:SELFPUB rule that self-published sources are only for noncontroversial info about themselves? Or perhaps you could tell me you are invoking WP:SPS to the effect that Levicoff is perhaps an established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, as that doesn't appear to me from the sources in his article? I don't doubt your experience, but we have content rules, and an expert on diploma mills should have unimpeachable credentials himself. If you don't believe that you get it, you might ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you for your help. JJB 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that Orlady had this watchlisted too and is providing some sources about half-a-tier higher. My apologies that you found my edit summary misleading. I'll be happy to wait until you are done, but my first round of thoughts are:
  1. Article created by WP:SPA should err on the side of safety.
  2. WP:SPS should not be used at all if unsupported by another source.
  3. Info on IAC and Perry is a WP:COATRACK because no link is established and the alleged sharing of mailing lists is not reliably sourced. Article split would be fine with me.
  4. WP:BLP policy should be used protectively on parties such as Reuter, and Scheel, and Perry.
  5. The link to CHEA's homepage is unhelpful.
  6. Too much bolding, against WP style.
  7. You are now relying on degree.net and claiming it is recommended by the DE, which does not appear clearly from that page.
  8. But even if it did, using a second site as verification for the claim that the first site is recommended is really way beyond my long experience with reliable sourcing on WP.
  9. The Oregon website does not support the claim attributed to it and has "DO NOT RELY" on the top of its page. Um, are you saying it's still reliable?
  10. Linking the TIU website is really silly for an outdated claim that appears better (310, not 250) on the ACI website. Unless you are doubting the number 310?
  11. None of the Bear sources are used in the article.
  12. Vancouver Sun archive may be reliable, but its one-liner doesn't appear to add anything not already present in the stub.

Now I have no ax to grind, I simply came here and saw a clear attack page and followed the policy procedure of stubbing it. And this list is just on a very quick pass of comparing this article to my experience with WP policy. The fact that both the original article and the proposed changes are still so problematic suggests there is something deeper going on here. As I said, I'll wait and then cut back more surgically when you're done, but you can see what my concerns are. Would either of you agree that WP:RSN is the right place for a first review of these questions? JJB 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is "clearly an attack page". I also argue that Name It or Frame It is not the typical material that WP:SELFPUB is referring to. I believe that this conclusion is supported by the other reliable sources that have referenced the book in the past, plus the fact that Steve Levicoff is a recognized expert in this area. I don't know what WP:RSN is but your proposal sounds okay to me. Good night, TallMagic (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict - This reply is addressed to JJB] First, I'll explain why I found your edit summary misleading. It said you had deleted all "self-published" content, which I took to mean that you had removed all content that was based on sources published by the subject of the article, when in fact the only content you had kept was content sourced to the subject of the article. In my experience, when 3rd-party-sourced negative content (particularly content that has been in place for long time -- this article had been largely untouched for more than 2 years) is expunged from an article about an accreditation mill or diploma mill, leaving only neutral or positive content sourced to the institution itself, it usually is a sign of WP:COI editing by someone affiliated with the "mill." It's a bit of a long stretch to suggest that this content was obviously added by Steve Levicoff and needed to be summarily removed as an emergency action after 2+ years.
The article suffered from a good deal of link rot. As you have observed, I have updated some of the URLs and added additional sources for several items in the article.
I don't have a copy of the Levicoff book, but I think it appropriate to assume good faith on the part of the contributor who cited it and used information from it. Anyway, the information from that source is almost completely corroborated by other sources that can be accessed online today, including degreenet.
The US Dept of Education website formerly had a link specifically pointing to the accreditation mill page on degreenet. For legal and practical reasons, official US government agencies are loath to maintain lists of entities that they don't approve of, so instead the USDE pointed people to a privately maintained page that they considered to be a good resource. I personally recall reading the USDE page a few months ago, and it is still linked on another article page here. The USDE website has been reorganized and I did not find the specific text recommending the degreenet list of accreditation mills, but a .doc file linked from the USDE page cited does recommend degreenet, saying "Dr. John Bear’s Guide on Degree.Net is a detailed introduction to distance learning and the problem of distance learning fraud by one of the leading private authorities on academic fraud and distance education." The main reason why the reference states that the site is recommended by USDE is that WP:COI editors affiliated with diploma mills frequently allege that John Bear is not a reliable source.
Names of people usually are important to include in articles about diploma mills and accreditation mills because the institutions change names and locations frequently, but the people who run them often continue to use the same name as they move from one institution to another. At least ACI has been fairly stable, so the article is named for the institution instead of the person, as in the case of James Kirk diploma mills.
I agree that the link to the CHEA homepage is not very helpful. The CHEA website historically has been difficult to link to (only the home page link was stable), and I haven't yet figured out what content the ref citation was intended to point to. I left the link, pending further review. The CHEA website has good information that is generally relevant to this article, so the link is not harmful.
The boldface here is used to highlight the alternate names previously used by this organization. Consistent with WP:BOLDTITLE, these are rendered in bold because they are alternate titles for the article (and these titles are redirects to this article).
I don't know what you mean when you say "The Oregon website does not support the claim attributed to it." ACI is listed on that site as an accreditation organization lacking recognition by the U.S. Department of Education. As for the "DO NOT RELY" warning on the top of its page, it is clear from a careful reading that the warning applies to this US Department of Education link. (Nevertheless, WP:COI contributors attempting to whitewash articles about diploma mills are fond of suggesting that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization is declaring its own lists to be unreliable.) Oregon's list is one of the best resources there is on fraudulent educational accreditation, but if Wikipedians are spooked by the warning on the top of the page, there are several other similar lists, and ACI appears on all of them. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf and http://web.archive.org/web/20070217012233/http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/FraudulentAccreditors.cfm are additional sources that could be cited.
The TIU website was already cited in the article, in an article section that I had previously hidden for lack of meaningful sourcing. I merely restored the TIU website link, rather than adding a new citation to the ACI website. Anyway, the "more than 250" figure isn't wrong, it's just lower than ACI's current claim...
The John Bear book is not cited as an inline reference (back when this article was created, Wikipedia placed less emphasis on inline sourcing), but I believe it is indeed an additional source for the content in this article. I have not delved into the book today to see what it says.
The Vancouver Sun article is cited inline to support the statement that Wisconsin International University claims to be accredited by ACI. More could be done with the Vancouver Sun article as a source; please don't delete the source just because I did not make more extensive use of it.
I have tried to answer everything, but I probably left a few gaps... --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough reply and the fixes on several points. First, I believe you misread my edit summary-- try it again please; I also refactored the pronoun in my first line above, because it seems to have thrown you both off, making you think I suggested things I didn't. I respect your experience with this topic, although TallMagic is also hampered by being another WP:SPA, for 1.5 years (even I wasn't an SPA for Ron Paul that long!). But for whatever reason, your sourcing practices in this arena don't conform to anything I've seen elsewhere in WP; and my reaction is consistent with my observation that this kind of sourcing gets slapped down everywhere else. These are all my first-impression views on this field, and they might be valuable to you as insiders perhaps too inured to a status quo.

  • Perhaps you could point me to where Levicoff, Bear (=degree.net?), or the Oregon list have been discussed before for reliability as you or TallMagic imply. Certainly I can assume good faith for the citer of Levicoff without assuming that Levicoff is reliable. Certainly the Levicoff and Bear articles should be fleshed out with more sources (including USDE) that give one the impression their self-published works are expert in this field, especially when a cursory review of both articles suggests to me they both have their own poor credentialing pasts as well.
  • I also don't see that you've provided any sourcing stating that Reuter was convicted, which is really a brightline necessity, and I would not anticipate that you would try to revert war against BLP even when I offer it as a minimum and temporary compromise, as if that sentence needed to stay in overnight.
  • I also don't see sourcing for the allegation that IAC and ACI are the same entity rather than two legal entities, and since there are presumably multiple POVs on that point, it's another omission.
  • I don't have a problem naming people who have been previously named in reliable sources. I don't see a reliable source linking Perry or Reddeck or whatsisname to ACI, sorry. Again, that was put in by a drive-by SPA and should be suspect if sourced only to Levicoff (and doubly so: once for the link to IAC, and again for the link from IAC to ACI).
  • I don't see a source describing what direct link Reuter had to Scheel. I see indirect links in the naming and sharing of mail lists, but what do you have to convince me here?
  • Even based on what you said, CHEA should be moved to External links, and only the first two names should be bolded (not the unproven IAC link or the redundant name).
  • Oregon site does not say anything about CHEA, as the article implied. This can be solved by the footnote moving to partway through the sentence. However, I would be careful to cite only what the source says and not make original inferences.

Anyway, I'll go ahead with the partial cutback, not as a revert war, but to show you where you haven't convinced me (leaving the items where you have, of course). The basic idea is that in controversial topics, each clause or sentence should be linked to a reliable source that says what we say it says. I trust you can see why the inattention given to the SPA's insertions for two years did indeed raise red flags and fulfill the attack page description in my view. Thanks. JJB 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This "hampered" account is leaving the china shop while the bull does his thing. TallMagic (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. Orlady's latest edit summary was: restoring more specific category that is confirmed by goverrnmental sources that were removed from this article in favor of reliance on sources affiliated iwth the article's subject; I don't have time to deal with the other changes made. But there were no plural "goverrnmental sources" removed; there was only Oregon. (I also moved CHEA, cut Levicoff as unreliable, and left all other sources for now.) And there was no favor toward reliance on sources "affiliated iwth" ACI; the only source I added was the current ACI page to support Scheel's middle initial and his current membership claim. All other sources were Orlady's, and the only other affiliated sources are the three universities that make noncontroversial claims allowed by WP:SELFPUB. Now as to specifics, Orlady implies the category "unrecognized" is confirmed by the Oregon site better than it is at the extant source (Degree.net, or, apparently, ACI's own claim about its nonaffiliation). Well, to me both Oregon and Degree.net are below the bar of the reliability necessary for the claim, for the reasons stated, so neither is a good confirmer of the troubling category; and basic WP:NPOV is that ACI is allowed to state its own perspective in light of other perspectives. Now I recognize that ACI is in the category of "orgs that have met the criteria of WP's diploma mill watchers for counting as unrecognized", but that strikes me as a POV category that is not clearly defined or else improperly named. Anyway, this long paragraph is just to demonstrate that again there are some mistaken inferences floating around and there is ripe ground for my position that the whole accreditation coverage on WP is tainted by poor policy compliance. JJB 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I gather that you don't trust information from the states of Oregon, Michigan, or Texas. I'd say that you're a tough audience to convince, except that you seem to accept at face value the self-interested statements made on the website of the Accrediting Commission International. (I'd accept third-party information from state governments as WP:RS information long before I'd think about accepting self-sourced information.) Regardless, note that the ACI website states: "Due to the views of most of our schools concerning the separation of church and state, we have never applied to the U.S. Department of Education for any affiliation with the government." If ACI says it has never requested recognition, that adds strong supports the independent RS-supported statement that they don't have recognition. Additionally, you should note that (although Wikipedia does not allow this line of reasoning to prove a negative) ACI does not appear on any of the lists of recognized accreditors maintained by the US Department of Education, CHEA, or various states. --Orlady (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JJB is further discussing his irrational mistrust of valid government sources over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#School_accreditor_sources. I find myself too short of time and too short of patience at the moment to deal with his nonsense. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, first, your gathering is mistaken, in that I haven't read the MI/TX sources, which you didn't use in the article, nor have I disputed any claims of what they say. Second, I do not "accept [ACI] at face value" as it seems to you: I only used noncontroversial claims from the ACI site, unless you think that the 250-310 numbers from three (connected) sources, which all concur harmoniously, are somehow controversial; but you didn't say that. Third, your implication that I misweigh self vs. state is mistaken, because the state governments and the accreditors do not agree on jurisdiction, so both their POVs are significant. Fourth, you did not note that I already used the ACI form of the statement ("never ... any affiliation") in the article, as its POV, and used Degree.net's form as its POV. Fifth, you seem to equate affiliation with recognition; in the absence of clear legal definitions (which nobody has provided) I would hesitate to do so, assuming that the different language in each case is deliberate. Sixth, it is my understanding that it is eminently proper in WP to state specifically that "X does not appear on a list maintained by Y stated as including all entities in category Z", separately for each lister; but you didn't do that. Now, having cleared those misconceptions aside, the real problem here is that this word "unrecognized" is a passive-voice WP:WEASEL term meaning "unrecognized by USDE, CHEA, and other folks on my own list", while recognized by others who view jurisdiction differently. If the List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning stated objective inclusion criteria, it would be another matter. If the experienced editors in this field don't have objective criteria after all these years, to whom should I turn?
TallMagic, I have no irrational mistrust of government sources, nor nonsense, and your statements are hard for me to take in good faith: I must refer you to WP:NPA. I only questioned one (singular) government source, which stated itself that (all or part of) it was unreliable.
Anyway, guys, if we have agreement on the article as it stands (aside from its category), then our conversation on this page is over. Thank you. JJB 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The Michigan and Texas sources were linked in my comments earlier on this page. See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf and http://web.archive.org/web/20070217012233/http://www.thecb.state . I posted that comment because I thought you would read it. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "I am told with great certainty what experts these sources are, with little to show for it besides the USDE recommendation, which is apparently a conflict of interest because of course USDE would be interested in Bear if he is charging other groups with not being USDE-affiliated."[1] If that does not demonstrate an irrational mistrust of government sources then I don't know what could? It can be argued that pointing out your apparent irrational mistrust of government is a violation of wp:NPA although I believe that the counter argument is better that editors with an irrational mistrust of government sources should not be editing articles where government sources are critical to the article and so ignoring that irrational mistrust would be a disservice to Wikpedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC) — TallMagic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do you believe a governing entity never has a conflict of interest, even when another governing entity disputes its jurisdiction? This is not much unlike PRC-ROC relations, except that we'd be much more diplomatic in that case. Regardless, the core policy here is: an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. We only have the one source on Bear's expertise (two if you count CHEA, which I haven't seen), and their interests are aligned with Bear's. Then when we have the unaligned CBS report, it only said that Bear had written books on the subject, a confirm of WP:SPS status but a nonconfirm of any expertise. If [Bear's expertise, or any accreditor's status] is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. A Bear book published by Random House and quoted in Talk would be reliable for controversial statements, but must be attributed and rebutted; but we don't have that either. Please let me know if anything turns up. Until we have reliable sources, we have the burden of using the aligned sources on both sides as well as possible. Look, I haven't done any work at all in seeking new sources, I've only been trying to draw the correct conclusions from the sources already provided before doing my own research. But if those conclusions are already so sketchy, what would I find if I did the legwork myself? JJB 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
John B. Bear has authored or co-authored 34 books (not all are distance learning or diploma mill related). Here's a few I'm not sure sure why you went off on this tangent though. I thought the discussion was your apparent mistrust of government sources and how that might negatively impact other articles that you try to edit, not John Bear? Or are you arguing that John Bear is not an expert to try to show that the USDOE is in fact suffering from a conflict of interest when referring to him as an expert? Perhaps The Chronicle of Higher Education is also lying by falsely claiming that John Bear is an expert on the subject? John Bear, an expert on distance-learning institutions and diploma mills who is a co-author of the Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. As another example, four or five people have said that the the NO RELY statement on the ODA site is referring to the USDOE database and yet you still don't seem convinced. Hampered TallMagic (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JJB: You do appear to be suspicious of government-related sources. I think you might find Baker's Guide to Christian Distance Education to be a helpful guide to your study of the matter of accreditation, degree mills, and related topics. Mr. Baker is very sympathetic to the goals of Christian institutions and the reasons why some schools might choose not to seek accreditation. The online FAQs About Accreditation and Online Degrees explain both accreditation and the "recognition" of accreditors. You might be particularly interssted to read "What About Other Accrediting Agencies?", which says (in part) "Some non-traditional institutions, particularly within the Christian community, attempt to bypass the standard accreditation process by claiming accreditation from a different agency. Christian magazines are full of ads from schools claiming accreditation from the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, Accrediting Commission International, or even other institutions. My advice is simple: look elsewhere." (emphasis added)
Like TallMagic, I have other things going on in my life right now and can't devote myself full-time to discussing this topic with you. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Additional resources for this article (if needed):

Orlady (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will look as convenient. TallMagic was uncomfortable leaving the page alone, so I explained the differences between my versions and Tall's with careful references to the appropriate policies in the edit history. At one point Tall seemed to confuse ACI with St. John's University (Louisiana), and there were other SPA-style errors. Here's hoping that discussion and agreement on the application of the policies should suffice to keep this from boiling over. JJB 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent attempt reverted[edit]

JJB, I read through your edit comments and have made changes to article based on the ones that I agree with. Your other edits appear to me to be an attempt to censure negative information that is properly sourced. Here's the diff showing the changes that I made. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Alan Contreras' reference to some guy in a church is referring to ACI. TallMagic (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading my edits thoughtfully, that's a great show of good faith. BTW, I trimmed this talk section title according to WP:TALK#Others' comments at "Section headers".
Here are the changes we don't have agreement on, plus my rationales. You have not stated rationales for preferring your edits, which I have claimed are against sourcing and other policy citations, and I am fully prepared to defend against your noncitations of policy. How would you like to go about finding consensus on them? JJB 23:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Naming IAC or IACSCTS in lead or bolding them is undue weight.
  2. Delete "unrecognized" in lead: may or may not be lead material, but it doesn't conform to source, requires disambiguation to "USDE-unrecognized", and may be unduly redundant.
  3. Move Contreras down to recognition/affiliation paragraph rather than lead, because one-sided, strongly worded opinion by Contreras is a detail and definitely not lead material.
  4. "It's" refers to St. John's, not to ACI (I believe). Since we disagree on the meaning of the source, the ambiguity should be either transferred to our article, resolved, or deleted.
  5. Tighten rambling Contreras quote.
  6. There is no contention about whether Contreras said it so naming SPT is not necessary.
  7. Delete title "Controversy": Controversy sections are deprecated. Neutral title is "Affiliations".
  8. Cut one Quack-Bear cite, as it does not support the claim in the attached sentence (that ACI is not recognized as stated).
  9. Attribute and date Degree.net quote, on how ACI is unrecognized.
  10. Degree.net does not say "the two institutions responsible for recognizing educational accreditating institutions in the United States"; and "responsibility" is ambiguous.
  11. Delete some IAC history because ACI has no responsibility for IAC actions unsuitable under WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK, which see. This should go in an IAC article.
  12. Conform and attribute to third-party (hearsay) source (Roach).
  13. Restore ACI's position on IAC to the IAC paragraph, as necessary for balance.
  14. Delete the redundant citation to the interested source (Bear-Quack) as adding nothing to the third-party reliable source (Roach).
  15. Restore another sourced member name (TIU) and its POV about number of members.
  16. Restore "which publishes Bear": I see no evidence that Bear authorizes or publishes Degree.net or takes any responsibility for the site or its anonymous content (other than the fact that his Guide appears on it).
  17. Delete Wikilinks to derogatory categories and/or links/categories too loosely named to be meaningful.
  18. Swap the two large sections; because readers should be led in gradually rather than thrust into controversy, data on members and growth should appear before quibbles about affiliations.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Bulten (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 March 2009

Acischolar comment added to article and moved here by TallMagic[edit]

There have been untrue stories floating around about Accrediting Commission International for years. We have chosen to ignore the accusations in the past. We have experienced continued growth, both in size and in quality, since our inception in 1989. In an effort to increase transparency within our organization, we are addressing several issues that have been in circulation. There was another accrediting organization that has been out of business for around twenty-three years. While, most of the stories told about the other organization are only half-truths and outright falsehood, we have chosen only to answer the part of the stories as they apply to ACI.

ACI has never had any legal association with the old organization. The stories connect us to them, but it simply is not the truth. The man who was co-founder of the other organization has been deceased for years. People who want to sell books and love war stories have simply not laid the story to rest. ACI has made a serious attempt to clarify any misunderstanding between ACI and our accusers. In several cases we have sent printed documentation to our accusers to sincerely enlighten them to the truth. Many times this has been ignored.

ACI did not invite all the schools from a former organization to join ACI. We did invite some of them to join. Each new school must eventually have an extensive on-site evaluation. Accrediting Commission International accredits approximately 320 learning institutions in thirty-nine United States and eight countries of the world.

Approximately twenty-five schools, who are currently members of ACI, were members of the older organization. All of these institutions had to apply, receive a site visit, and meet other accreditation criteria in order to obtain accreditation from Accrediting Commission International.

No school is given membership in the ACI association that does not have a stringent site visit to determine the quality of school. ACI reviews all complaints. We require that the complaint be signed by the plaintiff, after which the complaint is investigated by both ACI and the associated institution. After the complaint is comprehensively investigated by ACI, the institution is consulted prior to an official decision regarding the complaint. ACI has the authority to decline membership to schools that do not meet its rigorous guidelines. Additionally, institutions that haven’t continually met ACI’s regulations have been revoked from the organization.

The cost for accreditation is well adjusted for the amount of service given to the schools. The costs are kept as low as possible.

The reader should be aware that most of the schools accredited by Accrediting Commission International are not state-regulated educational institutions. These facilities, because of the quality they have to offer, have chosen to have us look at them, critique their programs, make recommendations and to assist them in gaining higher standards of education. The student or prospective student of these schools should appreciate this. Every school which becomes a member of the Accrediting Commission International must certify that they are operating within the confines of the laws in their state or country of residence to become members. They must continue to work within the realm of law to maintain membership in ACI. Accrediting Commission International is an Accredited Member of the Better Business Bureau. ACI will soon celebrate twenty-one years of service to private and religious schools throughout the world!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrediting_Commission_International" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acischolar (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 January 2010

Acischolar, I moved the above text from the article to here. I copied it here so that it could be discussed. In my opinion it does not belong in the wikipedia article because it violates wp:NPOV. Wikipedia is not your personal wp:SOAPbox. It does not appear to me that there's really not much real substance in the above that isn't already mentioned in the article. The main difference is that the above contains much opinion and fluff with little substance. Please stop adding this information to the ACI article. TallMagic (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the above text, it's main argument is that there was no association between ICA and ACI. The current article has two sources supporting the assertion in the current article that ACI had some likely association with ICA. Both of these sources appear to fully adhere to Wikipedia requirements for wp:verifiability and wp:reliable sources. TallMagic (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accrediting Commission International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BiologicalMe (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accrediting Commission International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota[edit]

An unsourced statement says ACI relocated to Sarasota, FL, but the infobox still lists Beebe, AK. There is some evidence of an entity named "Accrediting Commission International" in Sarasota, but nothing to indicate that Beebe is not still the base. I placed a {{Citation needed}} tag, and am likely to delete the line promptly unless a source appears. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Websites still say Beebe, although some institutions are using a Sarasota address. Any clarification is welcome. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reference[edit]

The link for Reference number 10 is no longer valid 174.26.67.193 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accrediting_Commission_International&oldid=1167317004"