Talk:Louisiana Baptist University/Archive2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

17 February 2006 POV dispute notification posted

Gastrich is clearly at it again, with multiple sockpuppets causing editors to waste far too much time with his POV edits. I've placed the nPOV dispute notification at the top of the page, and, just as needed to be done with the Skeptic's Annotated Bible article, I am suggesting that the page be locked from further editing until this matter gets settled and under control - WarriorScribe 02:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article page needs to be semi-protected, at least, (new users can't edit) so that the continued sock-attack by Gastrich may be addressed. - WarriorScribe 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UT

Paragraph change

Hello,, I've been reading about LBU and I have some suggestions.

I think the following paragraph should be changed:

"The University has 65 faculty, but it is unknown to what extent they are tenured, full time, part time, full professorships, or assistant professorships. Nevertheless, only two people on the staff are known to have completed PhD doctoral work from an accredited institution. [6]. The majority of the faculty listed graduated from LBU itself, [7] while even more have degrees under its previous name Baptist Christian University and sister institution Baptist Christian College."

Here is an alternate paragraph that seems more accurate to me:

Here is a tweaked proposal:

The University has 65 faculty, but it is unknown to what extent they are tenured, full time, part time, full professorships, or assistant professorships. Nevertheless, only two people on the staff are known to have completed PhD doctoral work from an accredited institution. [1] The majority of the faculty listed have a degree from LBU itself, [2] while even more have degrees under its previous name Baptist Christian University and sister institution Baptist Christian College. It should be noted most of the faculty have other degrees from regionally accredited Universities.

Feedback, tweaks welcome. Actually I have a question, what does "regionally accredited Universities" actually mean? Are they CHEA accredited or not? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi RoyBoy.. CHEA is a membership organization for nationally and regionally accredited universities[3]. There are 2 types of government-recognized accreditation in America. They include national and regional accreditation. There are a handful (5 or 6) of regional, accrediation bodies across America. Many tech schools and such seek national and not regional accreditation, so national isn't necessarily "worse" than regional. Also, many schools never seek to get governmental accreditation at all, for one reason or another. Some don't have the money, some don't meet the standards, some don't want government influence, etc.. --Turkmen 05:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I suggest this. It seems clearer, slightlly less POV and more conistent with academic norms for writing about instituation of higher learning both on Wikipedia and elsewhere:

The university reports having 65 faculty. There is no indication how many are full-time or part-time, or whether the school uses the distinction of assistant, associate and full professor used at most other universities. Most faculty listed on the LBU website have doctoral degrees from LBU, from Baptist Christian Unviersity (as LBU was known until 1995??), or from LBU's "sister's institution, Baptist Christian College [4]. Most faculty also have undergraduate and often master's degrees from other accredited institutions. Crunch 12:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal. I believe that paragraph is poor, though.. Here's why:

1. There is nothing that indicates exactly 65 faculty. This looks like a guess by Gastrich.

2. There is no indication how many are full-time, part-time, etc. Why should this be mentioned? If we don't know something, why bother saying we don't know? Omit.

3. "Most faculty listed on the LBU website have docotral degrees from LBU/BCU." Is anyone sure? It has been verified that 36 of 48 (75%) have degrees from other universities. If we don't have the numerical facts, the first part looks like a guess.

4. The word "regionally" needs to be added to the statement about most faculty having accredited degrees. There are obviously different kinds of accreditation. I don't know if LBU wants regional accreditation, but I do believe having a certain number of professors with regionally accredited degrees is one criteria in obtaining it.

Here is a counter propsal:

==LBU's faculty==

LBU's catalog reports having 48 faculty members. Many of them have doctorate degrees from Louisiana Baptist University (and Baptist Christian College/University)[5]. However, 36 of 48 (75%) of its faculty also have college degrees from other universities, many of which are regionally accredited institutions such as Liberty University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the University of Oklahoma, the University of South Africa, Texas Christian University, the University of California at Los Angeles, Talbot Theological Seminary, the University of Texas, the University of Nebraska, John Brown University, Wheaton College, and Dallas Theological Seminary.

--Turkmen 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I removed the subsectioning (just because its confusing for talk pages)... its a decent proposal and I believe the final will be a melding of Crunch's and yours. Again specific numbers and a list of schools aren't necessary, but I do like the 75% comment and we could list the most frequently mentioned and/or notable schools. Also I need clarification, is the regional accreditation(s) sanctioned by CHEA? By the sounds of it (a handful of regional accreditors) they are. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, regionally and nationally accredited schools are eligible for CHEA membership. --Turkmen 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Where did University of Oklahoma come from? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's also my understanding. I don't think there's much distinction between "regional" and "national" accreditation. I also don't know if we want to get into the exact listing of each school from faculty have received degrees. It will be difficult to maintain. Crunch 09:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the following line: "However, the majority of its faculty also have undergraduate degrees from other universities, many of which are regionally accredited institutions." And I tweaked graduated to "did graduate work". Hopefully that's an improvement. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Faculty

Among the 48 faculty members listed in LBU’s 2005-2006 handbook (see pages 111-121)[6], 36 of them have degrees from universities besides Louisiana Baptist University (or Baptist Christian College/University). Many of them have degrees from regionally accredited universities like Liberty University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist Bible Theological Seminary, the University of Oklahoma, the University of South Africa, Texas Christian University, Mercer University, Baptist Bible College, Evangel University, Hardin-Simmons University, the University of Cincinnati's College-Conservatory of Music, University of California at Los Angeles, Talbot Theological Seminary, Claremont Graduate School, Midwestern, University of Texas, University of Nebraska, Bible Baptist Seminary, Union College, John Brown University, Wheaton College, Dallas Theological Seminary, and the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, East Texas Baptist University.

The list of universities doesn't have to be included; or perhaps a partial list. Nonetheless, the above is the result of my research.

I believe the following is also important to include:

Academic Reviews

In order to "better meet the academic and professional development needs of the student" LBU submits itself to semi-annual, reviews from an independent review panel. The following are some recent reviews of the university by other, academic officials (see pages 20-21 in the LBU handbook[7]).

Dr. Harold Ledford, Director of Development and Continuing Education at Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana

In reviewing the Christian Education department of Louisiana Baptist University, I find that it meets the national norms in all areas that I reviewed. Many of the education textbooks are the same as the ones used at Louisiana State University and other major universities. The study guides reinforce and supplement the learning experience. Each course requires several research papers and a comprehensive final test. The university also offers several seminars and workshops each year so that students can interact with faculty and compliment their self-study. The university has a staff of well-qualified advisors that can be reached five days a week by phone, fax or e-mail.

As a pioneer in distance education the university has had time to develop a delivery system that is extremely student friendly and effective. The learning process and degree requirements compare favorably with those of other teacher colleges or state universities.

Dr. John Steffens, Vice Provost of the University of Oklahoma

My overall assessment of Louisiana Baptist University is very good. The course offerings clearly meet national norms. The study guides are well designed and are augmented with additional required research papers. The final test is administered under the direction of a proctor in order to insure academic integrity. Students have easy access to qualified instructors through phone, fax or e-mail. It is the intent of the university to offer an academically sound education in a Christian environment, clearly they are succeeding.

Dr. Richard Thompson, Director of Vocation Education, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

I first reviewed Louisiana Baptist University in May of 1993, when I was Director of the bureau of Student Services of the Louisiana Department of Education. I was impressed with the quality of their program and with their enthusiasm and dedication to excellence. I indicated at that time that I thought LBU had great possibilities.

In the 10 years since, the university has improved its facilities, increased its course offering, hired additional professionals, and quadrupled its student body while maintaining that enthusiasm and dedication to excellence.

Thank you RoyBoy for your painstaking and thankless efforts..

--Turkmen 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

NOTE: This user has 5 edits. Three are on this page. Another is defending Gastrich and attacking the admin. that blocked him. Interesting... Arbustoo 06:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hand picked quotes added to an online catalog. A quote from a person from Puerto Rico... Arbustoo 05:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot. If he's from Puerto Rico, then to hell with him.. --Turkmen 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Is there any other source to show how these quotes reflect the "report." How do we know Puerto Rican support for a Louisiana school is comprable to domestic critics? Meaning where is an unbias source of the report and not just a few select quotes? I presume the report was not made public and good quotes were used for the catalog to help promote its academics. Arbustoo 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can these comments be found else where, other than an LBU document? David D. (Talk) 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter.. We can assume good faith. It would be an enormous crime if LBU put lies in the mouths of honest men. --Turkmen 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

1) We know nothing about these men. 2) We don't have the report to comment on the report. There is a filter (LBU) between the Wiki readers and the report. 3) If people want to read the catalog, they can visit the links on the article page. 4) This is POV without ALL the facts. 5) Quotes in a catalog to sell the school shouldn't be included. Arbustoo 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would also be an enormous crime if we put unverifiable data on this page. David D. (Talk) 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this change:

The university's handbook, in part, addresses the issue of its non-accreditation by including testimonial quotes from individuals attesting to their reviews of parts LBU's materials.

That's all that has to be said. It is, to be blunt, ridiculous, and completely POV to print parts of any university's PR material in a Wikipedia article. It doesn't matter if it's the University of California or Louisian Baptist University. It's POV. Put the ref. in and people can read it and judge the quality and validity of the quotes and quoters for themselves. Crunch 12:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if they addressed the issue of non-acreditation by becoming accredited. Maybe it's cheaper to pay a posse of friends to come round for the day and write testimonials? - 13:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a rebuttal to Arbusto's statements:

1) We know nothing about these men.

Here is ample information about two of them.[8][9]

2) We don't have the report to comment on the report. There is a filter (LBU) between the Wiki readers and the report.

"Filter" is an interesting choice of words. Here is the report in html format. The report was given. Here it is again.[10]

3) If people want to read the catalog, they can visit the links on the article page.

This isn't very logical. First, these are professional reviews. Not only are they professional reviews, but: 1. They are reviews from people who are reputable in the field of reviewing university programs. 2. They are not employed by LBU. If you can set all bias aside, I think you'll see that actually, finally having some professional reviews is a good thing..

The claim that people can read the catalog for the reviews is absurd. People can read the catalog for 90% of the information on this entry and any other university entry, but the point is to construct an encyclopedic article and we get this information from the catalog and web site.

4) This is POV without ALL the facts.

This implies all the facts are not given. Do you have any proof of this?

5) Quotes in a catalog to sell the school shouldn't be included.

These quotes are much more than this. These professionals would lose their jobs if they were trying to sell the school. These professionals work at secular universities and they hold secular degrees. Their jobs are to review universities and give the facts.

Sincerely,, --Turkmen 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Gastrich, if the whole report can't be read then not a single line should go into the article. The link is not the report. The burdern of proof is on the person with the claim, you. Arbustoo 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Turkmen.

If this is your response to my rebuttal, I give you a D-.

Do you have proof that this isn't the entire report? It's your claim, so surely you have some proof.

Just for fun, I will call both men who are in America and ask for verification.. Anyone else may do so as well. Both of these work numbers were found on the internet.

Harold Ledford - (318) 795-4229

John Steffans - (405) 325-4414

By the way, if this were Harvard University (and their catalog/web site), would you two be acting this way? Why or why not?

--Turkmen 04:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

It's really hard to follow this discussion when people don't sign their comment. I can't tell who is saying what and where one comment starts and another one ends, but in any case I will say that the assertion that "these are reviews from people who are reputable in the field of reviewing university programs" has not at all been established. Crunch 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you have not read their bios.[11][12]

It has become painfully (and sadly) obvious that you two do not care about professional, academic reviews of the university; unless they are unflattering. I can only hope that people like David and User:RoyBoy can be unbiased. Saying that LBU is lying and putting those words into the mouths of secular, academic officials is a high and lofty claim; which requires evidence. Furthermore,, if you can't assume good faith, then maybe you shouldn't be here. --Turkmen 04:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Comment - A direct quote from WP:NOR (for the record - the present discussion (accreditation, outside experts, etc) is not about an academic subject (scholarly publications etc.) and the last sentence of the example in this quote equally applies to articles *about* institutes of higher learning. This type of information is not usually published in peer-reviewed journals anyway.):

What counts as a reputable publication?

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party magazine, The Militant, to publish a statement claiming that President Bush is gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

AvB ÷ talk 11:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich, your continual analogies to Harvard and LBU are really crazy. Harvard has been around for almost twice as long as the United States and is one of the most respected schools in the US. ( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php ) Not only that and their experts, but they have accreditation so this would never arise. Your stonewalling of proof is not helping your case. Arbustoo 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Crunch proposed: The university's handbook, in part, addresses the issue of its non-accreditation by including testimonial quotes from individuals attesting to their reviews of parts LBU's materials. When an article elaborates on what an institution should have done, casting it in a negative light, it also ought to elaborate on the positive steps the institution has taken in this area and let the reader decide whether this alleviates any concerns. Here's my proposal (I am not sure whether the testimonials themselves need to be included):

The university's handbook, in part, addresses the issue of its non-accreditation by including testimonials by academics from various fields, attesting to their reviews of parts of LBU's materials, personnel and methods. Testimonials from the following well-known academics are currently listed on pages 20-21 of the LBU handbook:

Dr. Harold Ledford, Director of Development and Continuing Education at Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana. Dr. Ledford is an accreditation expert [13].
Dr. John Steffens, Vice Provost of the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Steffens's background incorporates (...) the organizational analysis of schools and social service organizations. [14].
Dr. Richard Thompson, Director of Vocation Education, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

AvB ÷ talk 11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The university's own handbook as proof that a suspect academic program is rigourous? No. The testimonials say nothing, as the motives of those testifying is unknown. That's why there's accreditation. It's a neutral and dispassionate appraisal of a program's worth. Considering the concern about genuine academic rigour here, I think we're going to need to rely on something more objective than the LBU's own handouts. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Monk. The proposed sentence by Crunch doesn't make sense because they do not address the "accredetation" issue itself. Or if they do, not by that term. Also I agree with Monk that we need something more than LBU's handbook, IF this is going to be put in. Arbustoo 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the accreditation issue, I fully agree that it can't be *solved* by asking third party experts to check and report. And I remain somewhat mystified why this unaccredited university, if it's up to par with accredited ones, would not want to go through the accreditation process.

On the other hand, I cannot accept that such testimonials can *never* make it into a WP article if they have not been published in a peer-reviewed magazine. This is not the type of information that can be provided by anyone but the external reviewers together with the LBU. Or do you suggest that it needs to be published by, say, the New York Times before we have sufficiently covered our bases? My proposal clearly states that the information has been provided by the LBU itself. Readers can decide for themselves how much weight, if any, they are prepared to assign to these testimonials - i.e. the degree to which the concerns raised elswhere in the article are alleviated by them. I do not see why this information should be kept from the readers altogether and remain convinced that it needs to be included in the article. Not allowing this referenced info can only be defensible if there is reason to suspect that the published Ledford/Steffens/Thompson testimonials are not reliable (i.e. the undistorted opinion as reported by these experts, based on independent observation, etc.). The only reason to ever change the article when it has been updated as per my proposal would be if the LBU would retract the testimonials at some point. We do not need to asses whether the information provided by LBU is true or reliable. It is completely true, and therefore NPOV, that the LBU handbook *contains these testimonials*. We are saying nothing more if we include my proposal. If we leave it out, we are keeping something true and relevant from our readers. Sorry to be so verbose, I'll try to prune this a bit if I have more time later on (unless, of course, someone has by then added something that convinces me that I'm wrong). AvB ÷ talk 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If the school's academic rigour is suspect, which it is, we need to be circumspect here. It's natural to assume the school is following its own agenda, as all organizations do, which will be reflected in it's own promotional literature. The school's own handbook cannot be relied upon as definitive in establishing something as vital as the school's academic standing, particularly in light of its inability or refusal to gain common accreditation. FeloniousMonk 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I said the handbook "addressed" the issue, I didn't say it "solved" the issue. There's a difference. The school does address the issue of its lack of accreditation in the handbook. It doesn't really answer any questions and I agree that the testimonials shouldn't be included, but I think it's relevant to say that the university has not ignored the fact that the school lacks accreditation. Crunch 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Testimonials for educational standards coming from the LBU catalog? These really should be excluded. Funny how the diploma mill expert's comments are excluded, but testimonials from the LBU catalog are included. Arbustoo 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the reviews from the article since Jason Gastrich's sockpuppets (Turkmen and TonyT5) put it in there when other people (including myself) object. Let's come to a consensus if educational testimonials from the school catalog should be included. Arbustoo 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LBU using legal loophole?

Turkmen since you are here, do you know what the status of Act 129 of 1991 is at present? There used to be legal loopholes in Act 129 of 1991 that allowed institutions to operate without regulatory oversight in Louisiana [15]. Is this still true? The same source also mentioned that institutions operating under the 501(c)(3) IRS tax status are exempt from Regents' licensure oversight. Does LBU come under this category? If LBU gets such glowing reviews from external reviewers then i assume that the Louisiana Board of Regents have also done reviews. And if no, why would such a good university like LBU not want to get their endorsement? David D. (Talk) 08:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, that document makes a very annoying cite. They didn't cite the RS they were talking about. Found it, finally (digging through this state's laws drives me up walls). It's RS 17:1808. Apparently it was amended in '99 and any non-religious non-profit had to become licensed by 15 Jan. 2000. A religious institution that offers "nonreligious, nontheological degrees" also has to be licensed though my read is that the legislature was stepping lightly around the issue of religious instruction (as they should under separation) but if a religious institution offers purely secular degrees (say, a BS in Math for example) that aspect can be regulated.

Last I looked at LBU, were (or had gone?) wholly "religious" which puts them outside the realm of state jurisdiction. Mark K. Bilbo 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems to leave us with David D.'s important question: "Why would such a good university like LBU not want to get their endorsement?". The answer seems elusive in terms of reputable sources. AvB ÷ talk 17:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This page should probably be unprotected now; it's been protected for long enough. --Cyde Weys 01:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've listed it for unprotection. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will drop by in a while to see if it's all gone nuclear again. Alai 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist too. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now plenty of POV like it was never blocked. There is educational testimonials in the article, POV about "life experience," POV about the dissertations, and more unnotables. It is clear that Gastrich is making these changes because if you look at the history page these new edits are the same as his old ones. If you can't order a copy of the dissertation from the school it is almost pointless to hardbound a dissertation/thesis. No researcher is going to travel to the "school" to read a dissertation. The point of microfilming is to make the research (that's what a dissertation is) available to academia. LBU doesn't even allow the dissertations to be copied. Arbustoo 07:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous dissertation paragraph has been reinstated; I'd like consensus to take care of the rest if they see fit. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An LBU dissertation and LBU credit for reading a book

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

ACCTS Accreditation "approval"

I removed the ACCTS sentence that "ACCTS is designed to monitor religious colleges, universities, and seminaries" because it is uncited. ACCTS has no website and there is no citation that they "monitor" "universities." They "approve" (not accredit) Carl Baugh's religious university, but that is the only thing known about it. Also I noted that they have no approval from the government. Arbustoo 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to diploma mills

This new section by the new user Tony; should it be allowed? On one hand LBU and company should be able to present aspects of the school which may be reformed/robust; OTOH it can led itself to testimonials and attempting to disprove negatives or assert defense specific aspects of LBU that aren't in dispute to begin with. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Why call a section "contrary to diploma mills" if "diploma mills" criteria can't even be offered fairly? It's a strawman. That section doesn't even quote the experts refuting the diploma mill. As far as I am concerned, it should be locked again until a consensus can be reached. There is so much POV in that article it is almost useless. If the section is going to kept, academic reviews section should be deleted since they have the same people/information. It should also be renamed unless a quotation is cited to prove that it is "contrary to diploma mills."

CBS News did a excellent report on mills such as Hamilton University. "Requiring" coursework isn't what makes a school not a diploma mill, it is the quality of work that does. Whether or not is a diploma mill isn't the point of Wiki, lets remember that. It is to give impartial facts, this section does not. Arbustoo 06:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be allowed. If it improves the entry with more information, then it belongs. --LinkChecker 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

NOTE: LineChecker is a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The temporary block on Gastrich is over. It was temporary. He doesn't need these socks. Harvestdancer 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Participation of affiliated parties

Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving an organization in which one holds a personal stake often results in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and disruption of the article. That said, I've asked User:TonyT5 at his talk page to disclose his affiliation, if any, to the university. I feel this is necessary as his intense focus on this particular article suggests a pov agenda and has become disruptive contrib list. FeloniousMonk 06:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my FM, exposing our secrative wikiways. If you keep doing that POVs get wise and then I have to go searching for them. Actually that sounds kind of fun !"D Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Searching for missing socks? FeloniousMonk 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems "TonyT5" added Jason Gastrich's website to Kent Hovind's article[16]. Arbustoo 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"TonyT5" has undid my changes. Several mintues later a new wiki user registered,User:LinkChecker, who then undid all my TonyT5 reverts on other pages and reverted this article. See his comments on my talk page User talk:Arbustoo. This is getting very annoying, is anything going to be done? Arbustoo 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

TonyT5, and Jason's two other socks-of-the-moment were blocked this morning for a collective 3RR violation. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased and senseless deleting/vandalism

There has been some senseless editing, lately. In fact, it looks like vandalism. Basically, some are trying to remove everything positive from the entry; even if it's simply encyclopedic. Here is what has been removed, lately:

1. A section called "Contrary to diploma mills"

2. Elaboration on the alumni (as other university sites always do)

3. Elaboration on what is involved in earning credit by using Chuck Missler's book

4. Academic reviews

These things are pertinent, accurate, and encyclopedic and need to be maintained. --Turkmen 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Hi Jason! Mark K. Bilbo 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Turkmen and I didn't expect anyone to have a good reason or thoughtful reply because it's indeed senseless.--Turkmen 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You are reverting to a version by a blocked sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. All that's goign to do is get you blocked in the same 3RR violation bundle as the other socks. Now talk about it here and see if you can achieve consensus for the changes. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

New sections needed

The notable alumni section was expanded. It looks just like other university's sections. Why was it deleted or why shouldn't it be added back? Here it is:

Notable alumni

Carl Baugh - Th.D. (2005) - author and director of the Creation Evidence Museum who argues man and dinosaur lived together.
Bob Cornuke - Ph.D. (2005) - author and director of the BASE Institute
Mal Couch - Th.D. - author and president of Tyndale Theological Seminary
Gary Frazier - author, conference speaker, professor at Liberty University, and director of Discovery Ministries
Bill Gothard - Ph.D. (2004) - conference speaker and director of the Institute in Basic Life Principles
Thomas Ice - Ph.D. - author and director of the Pre-Trib Research Center
Grant Jeffrey - M.A., Ph.D. (1999) - author and prophecy teacher/speaker
Otis Ledbetter - Ph.D. - senior pastor, president of Clovis Christian Schools, and a director of Focus on the Family
Chuck Missler - Ph.D. (1999) - author, conference speaker, and director of Koinonia House
Ron Moseley - Ph.D. - author, Hebrew scholar, and director of the American Institute of Holy Land Studies
Mike Randall - D.Lit. - president of Baptist Bible College

Contrary to diploma mills

Although there may be some similarities between LBU and diploma mills, there are also many differences. Not only is coursework required, but unlike diploma mills, LBU has a campus with on-campus instruction. Diploma mills mail degrees to people without working on them, so they obviously need no campus. However, since Louisiana Baptist University has both a campus and on-campus courses, some have considered it a legitimate institution.

The existence of LBU's campus can, of course, be verified on its web site, in its literature, and in person. However, it can also be verified at RateMyProfessors.com; a useful web site where students rate the teaching abilities of their professors [17].

Diploma mills are known for granting entire degrees without taking any courses. This isn't the case with LBU. In fact, according to Dr. Harold Ledford (LSU), who sits on an independent review panel, said "I find that it meets the national norms in all areas that I reviewed. Many of the education textbooks are the same as the ones used at Louisiana State University and other major universities." Dr. John Steffans (University of Oklahoma), who sits on the same panel, echoed his sentiments by saying, "The course offerings clearly meet national norms." [18]

--Turkmen 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

What professionals say about the university is important. Furthermore, these academic reviews are from an independent panel. They should be included.--Turkmen 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Ratemyprofessors.com is not a [{WP:RS|reliable source]], for obvious reasons. Comments by a panel selected by LBU are also not necessarily neutral (although similar comments by an independent inspection team from a national accrediation body might well be); it would be remarkable if LBU's hand-picked inspectors found anything other than that LBU is a marvellous place. The diploma mill allegation seems to me to be well-enough founded to document the allegation in this article, which is precisely as stated at present. The article does not say it is a diploma mill, only that it matches several of the criteria. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I disagree with you and your methods and I feel that you have abused your admin privileges. With that in mind, I'll reply to you.

If you read about LBU, you find that this panel is referred to as an independent review committee. They are people who are not under LBU or involved with them that review the school's academics.

The ratemyprofessors.com paragraph only reveals that there is indeed a literal campus. --Turkmen 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

What difference does having a campus make with regard to the quality of education that can got from LBU. Hamilton University also had a campus. David D. (Talk) 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that rate my professor is a completely biased source. Also who ever defined a diploma mill as not having a "campus"? In fact, many of these mills have a campus. Often with a "church" of some sort so they can claim tax except status. Nice little loop hole don't you think? Could LBU stand up to scrutiny by '60 minutes' or would it be found wanting like Hamilton University?

Here are two quotes from the CBS news article: [19]

With respect to the low quality of education:

"All those credits and her "life experience," over 15 years with the government working with computers, qualified her, according to Hamilton, to get her bachelor's and master's degrees. All she needed was to take a 10-question ethics quiz and write a 2,000-word thesis, which amounts to just four pages.

With degrees in hand, Callahan wanted more, and Hamilton was happy to oblige. She wrote a lengthy dissertation and sent another check, and $7,000 later, she was Dr. Laura Callahan, Ph.D.

Did she feel like she was just buying a degree? "I would feel that way if I didn't do the work, if I didn't transfer in all the other prior learning experiences, and if I didn't put in an honest effort into the papers and the work that I did with Hamilton," says Callahan"

With respect to Hamiltons tax exempt status and lucrative buisness model that includes a campus

"According to documents obtained by 60 Minutes Wednesday, Hamilton is making between $500,000 and $2 million a year - tax-free.

Why is it tax-free? Because of a little church Marn built in the parking lot. Even though it has no pews, and townspeople can't recall ever seeing services here, it qualifies Hamilton as a tax-exempt religious institution."

What I want to know is how is LBU any different to Hamilton? What makes LBU more like an accredited University and less like a Hamilton-like diploma/degree mill? David D. (Talk) 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have much better things to do than find this answer for you. I'm sure you could find it, though. When we're done discussing the new sections for the LBU entry, perhaps I'll get around to discussing this topic with you. However, I would appreciate it if you'd put these sorts of irrelevant commentaries in a new section, so you don't muddy the existing discussion. --Turkmen 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Nothing on how they are not diploma mills in that section. No need for this. LBU's academics speak for themself. This is getting old, Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it? With all due respect i don't have time to answer? So I will continue to think it is a diploma mill. None of your arguments are convincing. Wow, it has a campus, so what? Wow, it has a library, so what? Wow, the teachers get high ratings on my professors.com, so what? From google maps the campus is nothing more than a parking lot. The quality of education appears to be very low (a Ph.D. in less than three years? And that might even be part time) and since none of the work is available for inspection why should anyone think otherwise. With regard to rating the profs, Dr. Laura Callahan, Ph.D. was very happy with her degree from Hamilton "University". I'm sure that is true for all graduates from LB"U" too. David D. (Talk) 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it. In case you didn't realize this, my job isn't to prove LBU isn't a diploma mill to you. You can do your own research if this is of interest to you. My job is to contribute encyclopedic information to this and other entries. --Turkmen 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

We did. Its a diploma mill. But you deny it, the ball is in your court. David D. (Talk) 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you want to chat. We aren't chatting. The "ball" isn't in my court. We are supposed to be discussing whether or not a section (specifically, the section written above called "Contrary to diploma mills") is appropriate for this entry. Are you able to discuss that or do you just want to keep avoiding it? We aren't here to try and convince each other that we're right. We're here to successful edit an entry by adding encyclopedic information to it. Please don't forget or personalize this. --Turkmen 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Steve Levicoff referred to LBU as a diploma mill. He has also drawn up a general guide on how to define a mill.[20] Arbustoo 08:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Academic reviews

The university's handbook, in part, addresses the issue of its non-accreditation by including academic reviews by members of an independent review committee, who review LBU's materials, personnel, and methods. Endorsements from the following academic officials are currently listed on pages 20-21 of the LBU catalog. They include:

Dr. Harold Ledford, Senior Consultant for the US Department of Education and Director of Development and Continuing Education at Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana. [21]
Dr. John Steffens, Executive Director, Public Service Institute University of Oklahoma. Dr. Steffens' background incorporates the organizational analysis of schools and social service organizations. [22]
Dr. Richard Thompson, Director of Vocation Education, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

By the way, these were discussed already. They have been edited and tinkered with. For User:JzG to delete them was against consensus. To claim consensus is needed when it was already reached is dishonest. --Turkmen 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

See above: for what value of "independent"? Were these reviewers chosen at random by an independent reviewing body? No such claim is made. There is something about a "uiversity" which is inaccredited, employs a lotof its own graduates, and fails to lodge doctoral theses with external bodies (let alone subject them to peer exposure) which inspires scepticism. People are funny that way. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the men who reviewed LBU are of low integrity or character? If so, why? Why should their words be left off the LBU entry? They are academic reviews from people in academia who are not under or influenced by LBU in any way.

The rest of your commentary has nothing to do with this section or including these sections in the entry, so I will not reply to it. --Turkmen 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Who picked the reviews to include them in the catalog? Based on who picked them, what purpose do they serve? From there, why include them? Arbustoo 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, your first two questions are irrelevant. The simple fact is we have professional reviews from men employed in the academic world, who aren't affiliated with LBU, and they are very relevant and pertinent to those who are researching LBU on Wikipedia. --Turkmen 06:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

While those two questions are clearly irrelevant to YOU, that's not going to cut it for inclusion. Arbustoo 08:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Missler's book

The one sentence citation from some web site that vaguely mentions Chuck Missler's book and LBU credit needs expansion or deletion. This summed it up well:

Louisiana Baptist University also offers credit for reading a book by Chuck Missler and completing a coursebook designed to supplement it. This course includes answering a number of questions, writing approximately 10 papers, and taking a proctored, final examination. The university advertises in this book as well.

This is standard practice for the university. This is how they do their distance learning courses. Missler's book isn't any exception.

--Turkmen 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Source on that? Also by purchasing and reading a book by Chuck Missler one can "receive college credit from Louisiana Baptist University upon completion of the book" and by following included instructions. The bold is a quote direct from a promotion of the book.[23]

Strangely enough Turkmen's objections and considerations are the same as the other Jason Gastrich's puppets. Turkmen do have any connection to Louisiana Baptist University? I ask because This is standard practice for the university sounds like something an insider who has taken LBU classes would know. Arbustoo 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if nothing else jason now knows how to get some quick credits. David D. (Talk) 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I know a good deal about LBU. Without considering LBU's documented policies on course work and credit, and taking as law a UK web site's one sentence about Missler's book and LBU credit is absurd. It needs to be expanded or deleted. --Turkmen 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I ask again, do you have any connection to LBU? Please clarify what and how you know. Arbustoo 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it not a great source. So you deny this is the case? LBU does not give credits for reading this book? David D. (Talk) 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is amazon.com a better source for Missler-LBU credit? From Amazon.com Information on how to receive college credit from Louisiana Baptist University upon completion of the book is also included.[24] Another[25] Another source here[26] Another here [27]

From Assist News: He said that the Louisiana Baptist University has offered course credits for those that do a "reflective paper" on what they got out of it, will get three semester hours credit on the transcript and also get a certificate for it.[28] There are more sources if people care to look. Jason Gastrich is right, it should be expanded with that Assist News quote, that students get three units for writing a paper on what they got out of the book.Arbustoo 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How many credits do they need to graduate? 4000? David D. (Talk) 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Less than 60 if you already have a graduate degree. But why mess around with that? LBU graduate and "notable alumni" Carl Baugh is president of Pacific International University that offers PhDs in one lump sum payment ($2,500-3,000 per doctorate). That seems easier than buying various books and writing one paper on each, right? Even though the state of Oregon refers to the school as a diploma mill, the school holds "approval" from Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools. Arbustoo 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I thought they had really high standards since they gave "approval" to LBU. There must be some mistake!, are you sure it's the same organisation? Also that couldn't be the LBU Baugh running PIU since he is one of LBU's star alumni. They are real academics, why would he be involved in PIU? I'm sure Carl Baugh is a very common name. Sure enough a quick search in the whitepages proves there are at least 13 of them in the US alone. David D. (Talk) 09:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question, but Pacific International University is so proud of Baugh that they list his credentials (Louisiana Baptist University included) and organizations on the site. But really you have to thank Gastrich for mentioning that Baugh was the president of a "university" for others to tie the facts together. Arbustoo 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. What a shame that such a successful LBU graduate should end up being involved in such a scheme. May be he is only a figure head? Maybe he does not even know he is president and its all a hoax. It's also strange that they don't toute all his other alleged credentials [29]. I can't believe people would try destroy the reputation of this genuine scholar from LBU, its libelous. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also its within a matter of six months too. Baugh graduated with his doctorate from LBU in May 2005. Arbustoo 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new approach

I'd like to propose a new approach for this page with the aim of trying end some of the disagreements and, more importantly, make the article easier to follow so people can decide for themselves what the truth is about LBU. How about separating the article into two sections:

Things everyone agrees are not in dispute: The name of the school, that it's not accredited (can be covered it three words) its location, the year it was founded, the president, the number of currently enrolled students, the degrees it offers (not the requirements for the degrees, just the degrees it offers).
Then an umbrella category called something like Criticism and Controversy. Under this can fall categories for Diploma Mill, Accreditation fight, Requirements for degrees, etc.

The way the article reads now, I think any new reader coming to it just sees an article that's a battleground and won't trust anything. If it can be separated into distinct categories of things not in dispute and things in dispute it will be easier for people to follow the text as well as easier for people who are still editing the controversial sections to manage that aspect. Crunch 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That layout woudl be normal for WP anyway, so I see no reason not to do it. It won't make the contents of Gastrich's sock drawer any happier though. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay with me as long as the other questionable facts are included, such as the bogus accreditation, I mean, "approval" board. He routinely has compared this school to others and yet removed the comparision to Harvard Divinity School for graduate work. Basically, the title of the section is going to change, but the one party personally invovled isn't going to satisfied until this article looks like a credible university. If this is done lets work on a consensus and keep it that way. Afterall going through the page history, Gastrich already created a "criticism" section then over powered it with POV. I just hope changing the title doesn't open the POV flood gates.Arbustoo 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think these problems may reduce. Semi-protection and a community consensus to block-on-sight for sockpuppets (per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich) should be sufficient to prevent disruption without impeding legitimate debate and updates. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My idea is to keep all of the same content just to organize into two distinct sections. I think the only thing that would be new is the heading "Controversy and Criticism" which could be shortened to just "Controversy" if that's preferable. Crunch 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Crunch's proposal. FWIW, I'd like to chime in with probaby the newbiest thing I ever did on Wikipedia. First off, I read the current article as one big ad seemingly aimed at prospective "students" looking for a diploma mill. I think this is not appropriate. Such a student would be very disappointed. Well, that was not all that dumb. Here it comes: I'm tossing my notes into this discussion, notes I intended to mull over for a while - but I won't be able to do the subject an justice for a while due to work obligations, and I have some hope they might be of some use, so I'm giving them to you straight, unedited, perhaps naive. So color me stupid, do with this what you think is right. As for me, I'm getting back to my wikibreak.

what I miss here:

clear explanation of the disadvantages and advantages of the unaccredited state
focus on who are looking up this article, and why

possible key points

general introduction
info from viewpoint of university and staff
info from viewpoint of current student
remaining information needed by prospective student, parents etc.
warnings (if important, put at top rather than at bottom)

Putting in more warnings than information is an insult to the intelligence of the reader (e.g. prospective students or their parents)

Why is it that the US even ALLOW unaccredited institutes to call themselves universities? To me it says that, in the US, absence of accreditation does not automatically mean a university is not every bit as good as it says it is. Also, diploma mills are illegal - and this uni has apparently existed for a long time without legal issues regarding the quality provided (I suspect that would have been meted out in the article).

As to minority/majority view, cultural bias, and the like:

How would you feel if people from all over the world started editing, say, the United States article, adding a differing viewpoint to every sentence that is seen differently from their own culture? This is about the scale of what has been happening to this uni article. Please understand that among the people interested in studying there, the uni is held in high esteem. Their religious diplomas are practically a prerequisite for the professions and job positions for which it trains students. Thus, the relative importance to the prospective students and possible employers should be highlighted. The unaccredited status needs to be mentioned separately, with pointers as to what the consequences are or may be, as clear from reputable sources. AvB ÷ talk 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people who spend 8 years in school, $200,000+ in loans, and pass up oppotunities in life to be called a "Dr." and help society. Then there are those who pay $100.00 down, send emails to unaccredited schools, never set a foot on the school's "campus," downplay the hardwork other researchers do, and sit at home editting Wikipedia to increase their educational status who buy a piece of paper from a unaccredited school and use title of "Dr." . I would like to remind AVB that Wikipedia is a resource not an advertising page. When someone says they have a PhD from LBU and they punch up Wikipedia to learn about it, the reader doesn't care what students/professors think about it. They care how the school compares to other schools.

Diploma mills are not illegal. Rather:

Fraudulent educational institutions continue to proliferate. These diploma mills survive by operating in states with lax law governing schools, such as California, Utah, Hawaii and Louisiana. They assume identities of well-known schools or as "religious" organizations. Because of constitutional safeguards in the United States guarantee separation of church and state, most states have been reluctant to pass any laws restricting the activities of churches, including their right to grant degrees. John Bear has asked, "What about a school that requires a five page dissertation before awarding the Doctorate. Nobody seems to want the government stepping in to evaluate doctoral dissertations before permitting schools to grant degrees." [30]

The fact that you can buy a book by Chuck Missler write a "reflective paper" and get 3 units for it should be alarming.

There are several problems to the above proposal/possible key points, *info from viewpoint of university and staff-- why should this be included? In academia your peers are in fellow universities working on projects. There are peer reviewed journals. This is the stuff that should be included, but LBU is not a normal school in the academic regard. *info from viewpoint of current student-- Why? It's going to posivite and goes without saying why else would they spend money. *remaining information needed by prospective student, parents etc. if a parent or students wants a webpage to tell them to apply or not to apply to school they should not use Wikipedia. *warnings (if important, put at top rather than at bottom) -- No warnings let the facts speak.

Put yourself in the mindset of a researcher using Wikipedia reading up about LBU because Carl Baugh or Jason Gastrich want you to give them the respect other people you call Dr have. You just want the facts, cut and dry about a school. What makes LBU like and dislike an other schools? You have Carl Baugh 2005 graduate of LBU who is president of a "university" that you can purchase the title of Dr for $2500. THIS WEBPAGE IS NOT HERE TO MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO SPENT MONEY AT LBU FEEL BETTER NOR IS IT HERE TO COMFORT PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS. It is here to give the facts. LBU has been called a diploma mill by an expert, they do not make their research publicly available (like every other accredited school does), they do not require on campus attendence, the majority of their "professors" are LBU graduates, the school had their license (never had accreditation) pulled in 1998, they tried for accreditation and were denied, they have approval from the same group Pacific International University is a part of, ect.

Higher education is really taking a beating in this article. Its an insult to those accredited and credentialed doctors who have worked so hard for their degrees. Some people want to make Jason Gastrich feel better about his "PhD" by downplaying the facts. For those people, ask yourself is an LBU PhD graduate worthy of being called by the same title as the people who treat cancer, who do surgery, who write histories, who teach Harvard students, who cure diseases, who research alternative energy, who use complex mathamatics and geology to date the age of the earth? If the answer is no, then ignore the childish activity of one poster who wants his PhD to be recognized at the same level as those I just mentioned. Let the academic facts speak and keep out the POVs, including those put in by Jason Gastrich-- a soon to be PhD LBU graduate. Arbustoo 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading AVB's post, it needs to be pointed out that religious universities such as Boston College, Texas Methodist University, University of Notre Dame, ect. have accreditation. There is accreditation offered specifically for religious schools. On the old LBU article page there was a discussion on Harvard Divinity School, they have accreditation and submit to the same rigorous standards of other displicines. There is accreditation for religious schools and requirements. That comparision demonstrated that there is a US Department of Education standard for religious schools overlooked by a independent board of appovers. (that discussion was deleted at the request of a current LBU student)

I recommend everyone reads up on what accreditation means, the government does not accredite any school. Probably start with List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning, which contains Association for Biblical Higher Education, Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada and Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. Independent groups that approve religious universities.

LBU misses accreditation for academics not for religion. Afterall there is the word "university" in the name, which should be held to certain standards. That is what accreditation means. Also I'd like to see proof that the Dean of Harvard Divinity School is consider equal to the Dean of LBU, the LBU staff might be important to Jason Gastrich--who strangely only knows what is listed at the LBU site. Your claim that "that the uni is held in high esteem" by the students there is confusing because I ask so what? My cat considers me to be the most important person in the world, does that make it true? I could go on, but read the school accreditation article before I do. Arbustoo 04:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help sneaking a peek before starting the monetarily productive part of the day - 1) To me the mention of JG above has sufficient "guilty by association" undertones to reflect badly on the school. And, even more incorrectly, on me. You are demonstrably wrong about my opinion about JG's actions here. (2) Even if it resulted in an ad (which is not what I envisioned), any too positive sentiments would be squelched by a warning at the top (3) I argued the school is held in high esteem by the community it serves, not its students alone. That is as verifiable as it gets on WP. Warnings are in order, but the suggestion that the school is universally seen as a diploma mill errs on the negative side just as much as JG's opinion errs on the positive side (there, now I'm doing it myself.. scratch that...) even more than the school's own views err on the positive side. I could go on but duty calls. Besides, I just floated these notes in case other people could use them constructively and do not intend to defend them now or later. And most importantly, those few lines and long rebuttal(s) touch on my ideas and should not serve to start a new reiteration of stale JG controversies, let alone to sidetrack Crunch's initiative. AvB ÷ talk 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the school is held in high esteem by the community it serves, not its students alone? And what please explain who the community LBU serves. I completely disagree that opinions should be included. This is a school. Religion aside, all schools have standards. Schools are judged by academics, not for their beliefs of the people attending or teaching. Arbustoo 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the larger issue of non-accreditation of universities in general can be covered in a separate article, and probably has. It seems to make more sense to focus this article on LBU. State what is accreditation status is with appropriate links to the Wikipedia pages that go into depth on high ed accreditation. I also recommend against the continual references to Harvard because: 1) it seems to assume that Harvard is somehow the gold-standard for measuring universities or divinity schools and that is obviously unverifiable, and 2) it compares LBU to only one other United States university. A much stronger case can be made by comparing LBU to the thousands of other fully-accredited United States universities: public, private, religiously affiliated, non-religiously affiliated, large, small, with and with-out distance education componnents. Crunch 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The quirks that LBU has should be (and are) discussed. Such as the unusual dissertation/thesis practice, buying a book and receiving college units, and being able to graduate the school without ever visiting the campus. Arbustoo 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

User:Turkmen's version:

Carl Baugh - Th.D. (2005) - author and director of the Creation Evidence Museum
Bob Cornuke - Ph.D. (2005) - author and director of the BASE Institute
Mal Couch - Th.D. - author and president of Tyndale Theological Seminary
Bill Gothard - Ph.D. (2004) - conference speaker and director of the Institute in Basic Life Principles
Gary Frazier - author, professor, and director of Discovery Ministries
Thomas Ice - Ph.D. - author and director of the Pre-Trib Research Center
Grant Jeffrey - M.A., Ph.D. (1999) - author and prophecy teacher/speaker
Otis Ledbetter - Ph.D. - senior pastor, president of Clovis Christian Schools, and a director of Focus on the Family
Chuck Missler - Ph.D. (1999) - author, conference speaker, and director of Koinonia House
Ron Moseley - Ph.D. - author, Hebrew scholar, and director of the American Institute of Holy Land Studies
Mike Randall - D.Lit. - president of Baptist Bible College

NPOV

Can the NPOV tag go? It seems to me that the article puts both sides of the case at present. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving it a bit longer, since we can see that the page has become something of a flash point for Gastrich socks. Once things have settled for a bit and the socks don't show up as quickly or as often, maybe then? Of course, that's just a suggestion. Quite frankly, I was debating nominating it for deletion, again, since it's become such a problem article and this particular diploma mill just ain't worth all that time and effort. - WarriorScribe 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it go, but Scribe is right. Arbustoo 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy events

Is it just me or are those "noteworthy events" a bit crufty? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that section: while these are certainly unique events at LBU, the singularity of the events makes their inclusion in WP somewhat unnecessary. Justin Eiler 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal; really seems out of place for WP. Arbustoo 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They are, but they were only offered and allowed as a concession and compromise. That all seems moot, now, IMHO. - WarriorScribe 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Noteworthy Events section should either be restored or the two items in it should be added to the entry. The Governor of Louisiana declaring some month to be LBU month is very notable. Jerry Falwell coming to speak at graduation is also notable; especially for an alleged diploma mill. --Chuck Hastings 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Greetings, Chuck. I removed the Noteworthy Events section because the events listed were ephemeral in nature: singular events that don't really change the status of the college or add to the useful information available. Many, many colleges have received proclamations of recognition, and just about any college tries to get a notable leader relevant to the goals and aims of the college to speak at commencement, but such events are not major impacts on the college, except in a very transitory sense. Justin Eiler 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all remarkable that Falwell turns up to talk at a college which is teaching his world-view, it's not like there are that many of them. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a Gastrich meatpuppet. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go one further and, given the previous use of "HRoss" as a sockpuppet name, assert that "Chuck Hastings" is a Gastrich sock. - WarriorScribe 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

the contributions list makes it seem highly likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chuck_Hastings When is Jason going to learn? JoshuaZ 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Foolish boy, Jason doesn't listen to us mere mortals. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's only the immortals with eternal life that have enough time to dink around with socks so they can edit an article about a "university" that took over a property vacated by Tattoo Alley. Ruby 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just amused he puts such emphasis on the declaration of one a them LIEbrals. You know, Gov. Blanco of LA. She's a Democrat (gasp!). Beat the White House's buddy Jindal in the race. Mark K. Bilbo 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought Pat Robertson called in an airstrike for that, about late August 2005. Ruby 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck. The Governor deeming a month LBU month is very notable. Plus, since there is a "alleged diploma mill" section, the fact that Jerry Falwell is speaking at graduation is that more notable. I have no evidence that he speaks at diploma mills. He's a very large name in Christian fundamentalism.

In all of the discussion above, the only thing remotely close to a reply about the topic at hand is Guy's assertion that it isn't notable that Falwell is speaking because LBU is of a like mind. However, for reasons I already stated, he and this event are notable. Does anyone else want to contribute to this discussion? Since no rebuttal can be made to the Governor issue, I move to add it, now. --Jason Gastrich 01:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

In other words, it's notable because Gastrich says so. It must be a pretty serious problem for him that this seems to carry no weight, at all, with anyone else. - WarriorScribe 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich, do you have any evidence that Falwell would not attend an event by a possible diploma mill? Furthermore, governors(and for that matter presidents also) frequently proclaim months days and weeks to honor certain highly trivial events or entities. (I don't think LBU is a diploma mill and even I find this argument to be very weak in regard to inclusion). JoshuaZ 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That Falwell is appearing is not notable. Falwell has appeared in lots of places over the years. Have each of these events been notable? Has any organization ever insisted that such a thing be declared notable? Are there lots of encyclopedia entries that list such a thing as "notable" for that organization? How pathetic is it that LBU needs to have such a thing displayed in an encyclopedia as "notable?" - WarriorScribe 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some Wikipedians have gotten a little biased in their editing here. How can one seriously argue that recognition from a U.S. Governor is not notable? Especially when it comes with a shiny gold ~~sticker~~ seal? Context is everything, though. Also, it would be nice if someone could find out (FOIA?) how big a contribution LBU had to donate to the governor's campaign. That would also be notable. As it is, I stuck it my edit into ~~the~~ a Trivia section. dfg 09:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [edited 07:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

How can one seriously argue? Well, for one thing, governors make these silly proclimations about fifteen times a day. This month is LBU recognition month, next month is "Hairspray Dangers Awareness" month kicked off with "Nutria May Look Like Rats But are Really Quite Tasty and Delicious We Promise, Here Try Some, Just a Bite, Come On You Gotta Help Us the Damn Things are Eating the Wetlands" week.

Now, I like Blanco. And I'm quite tired of the bashing she's taken from Congressional scum that didn't lift a finger to help during the Katrina disaster (don't get me started... for all her flaws, nobody seems to want to notice that she's the only governor in the union that pulled off evacuating 85 to 90% of the population of a metropolitan area, saving tens of thousands of lives... Perry couldn't even move less than half of Houston without it being a total cluster... um... you know). But, these kinds of proclimations are a dime a dozen. I live in the state and not only didn't know we had a month recognizing LBU but never heard of LBU before a certain individual started spamming the Wiki about it. Mark K. Bilbo 13:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, guys, Dfgarcia was being subtly satirical. Justin Eiler 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a strip mall?

From the google map it looks that way. Certainly it is right off the highway. The campus looks like a parking lot with one building. Along the lines of mcDonalds. David D. (Talk) 10:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since they only offer ten classes a semester for physical attendence, I wouldn't see the need for a huge campus. Arbustoo 11:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been able to obtain some of the materials from a sample of "graduate-level" classes and, in looking it over, I can't say that I'm impressed, at all. However, Arbustoo is right. A couple of the larger private universities also started from fairly humble beginnings, but I also think that it's safe to say that they don't have any competition from LBU. - WarriorScribe 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I put "strategically" in the infobox since that is how they describe themselves. i thought it was cute but it clearly had to go. The address is probably not appropriate since that is location. We should probably just make that a field a null since the other universites use that section to describe whether they are an urban, rural etc. campus aa well as the size of the campus. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay...sounds fine to me. In fact, since the category does say "setting," it probably means something general. "Urban" would work. - WarriorScribe 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shreveport? Urban? Boy they'll anybody in that club I guess. Mark K. Bilbo 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If your edits were reverted recently, please read this explanation

Here's a brief explanation, intended for editors other than User:Jason_Gastrich who are wondering why their contributions do not seem to be appreciated. Edits that clearly follow the pattern set by Jason are de facto reverted on sight, followed by the editor being blocked as a suspected sock puppet of Jason. The only way to get such edits in would be via consensus on the talk page of the article in question. Since the pattern typically involves the expressed total disregard of Wikipedia policies, it also involves a refusal to discuss, or after discussion a refusal to accept any other result than full compliance with the editor's wishes, which typically include removal of other points of view and addition or overrepresentation of the own POV. "Revert on sight" and blocking access may look hostile to you but please understand these edits and the pattern itself have already been discussed to distraction. Editors who employ these tactics basically stand alone (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich). AvB ÷ talk 11:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus, what, four more Jason Gastrich puppets? Jason's behavior certainly doesn't reflect well on Louisiana Baptist University. Arbustoo 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot these:

Blair Richardson (talk · contribs), FredTaylor (talk · contribs), Gastrich81965 (talk · contribs), JasonG044 (talk · contribs), JasonG072 (talk · contribs), JasonG099 (talk · contribs), JasonG158 (talk · contribs), JasonG226 (talk · contribs) and finally Narconcantari (talk · contribs). the last one is particularly bad since it is an impersonation of User:Naconkantari who blocked many of his previous socks. David D. (Talk) 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen such compulsive behavior out of him. I mean, one after the other after the other after the other... to the point he's numbering them? Wow. Mark K. Bilbo 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's multiplying like crazy now. This is not good for the LBU so surely counterproductive from JG's point of view. AvB ÷ talk 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now he's going as User:Andandrus so he's out of the numbered-clone phase. --Her girlfriend 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what Jason thinks he is accomplishing by this. JoshuaZ 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

Ok, with this constant barrage, I think one of the admins around here needs to put this under semi-protection so that noobs and anons can't edit this. Harvestdancer 04:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if that helps. Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich Denial

Gastrich is now claiming that the multiple socks aren't him, and he's naming John Wolf ("Bible John") as a potential suspect. My first impulse is to reject that, since Gastrich's writing style is markedly different from Wolf's (Wolf is a fairly poor writer) and the edits are vintage Gastrich, as are some of the associated comments that accompany the edits. The Gastrich comments on Plover's talk page are also typical of Gastrich. I'd also add that it's not unusual for Gastrich to make these kinds of pretenses about other personalities and then act as if they are not him, when they clearly are.

On the other hand--and to be fair, this has to be noted--the checkuser did not identify a number of the socks as necessarily Gastrich's (not that this is definitive, Gastrich operates or has operated from at least three ISPs--AOL, Charter, and Roadrunner, and may be able to access using Cox). - WarriorScribe 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Outside wikipedia, Gastrich has a history of impersonating other people. John has no history of this sort of behavior at all. And the writing style is very Jason. JoshuaZ 07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he has no history of this sort of behavior. See many of the supposed identities of John. David D. (Talk) 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. However, if Gastrich's claim is accurate why didn't he speak up earlier? JoshuaZ 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's another reason I'm not buying it. Everything that's been happening, from the pig-headed and arrogant behavior to the use of socks is fully within Gastrich's behavior. FWIW, I only mentioned it in because it was possible that some had not seen his denial. - WarriorScribe 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Were it anyone besides Wolf that he were accusing, I'd agree that this is an "oh please", but he is talking about the one person with less credibility than he has, so I'm forced to consider it as a possibility. Harvestdancer 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable outside of the controversy?

I don't tend to be deletionist, but for a plugged nickle, I'd put this article up for deletion again. Is LSU at all notable in the wider context, or is the Wikicontroversy the only "notability" that applies in the context of WP? Justin Eiler 04:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd vote for keep if it came up again, in that Baugh and Ledbetter at least are notable figures, and LBU does seem to be weirdly prominent among certain elements of the southern baptists. However, it seems highly arguable, so another AfD seems reasonable. (one worry- is there any way to make an afd semi-protected so we don't need to deal with Gastrich puppets disrupting it?)JoshuaZ 04:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No but we can just discount any votes from known socks or new accounts. --Ruby 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to vote Delete solely because of Gastrich's actions. If this page ain't even here he won't be able to vandalize it. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, thats an awful reason to delete something, and anyways, this way at least Jason's vandalism is concentrated in one easily detectable area as opposed to spread out over a host of articles. JoshuaZ 05:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Making no judgement of notability myself, I will comment that schools of any kind tend to be kept, and if their article is relatively well developed they are almost always kept, so I suspect an AFD would fail. Since it has just shy of 10,000 Google hits, that's even more reason. It's also likely that the prominent position of the Wikipedia article in the Google ranking is part of the reason JG is so persistent. Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done it yet though, so who knows what'll happen until it happens. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's notable mainly because of the diploma mill stuff. In Australia, the government requires accreditation, so perhaps this is why I seem to find this interesting stuff. Perhaps in the US, this may be very ordinary stuff.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The US is more of a hotbed for fundamentalism than Australia, I'll wager. Ditto on what JZ sez about being an awful reason to delete something. For me, that sentiment also applies to people's reasons to delete the "LBU month" thing. dfg 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Message for all Sunshine, Lollipops, and Rainbows

It seems my suspicions were correct in that several of the people who have a hard-on for Gastrich (however amusing) are guilty of the same revert-without-reading tactics they loudly decry. Next time, why don't you try to read and then re-read the whole edit (especially if there are NEW material and references) before assuming some evangelicial ding-dong is the one responsible, and labeling someone a sock or meatpuppet. Y'know that whole "don't want to bring myself down to their level" thing? Congratulations, you failed.
Oh, and regarding "The only way to get such edits in would be via consensus on the talk page of the article in question", I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so could you kindly point out the page where this policy is elaborated upon? You pipe-linked sock puppet, so why was it so hard to cite what one would assume is the more important guideline to observe? If indeed there is no such policy to be cited, then listen for a distinct scoffing sound coming from the direction of Chicago—it'll sound something like, "Hah!"
Thanks to Justin Eiler, for being what appears to be one of the few people paying close attention to this entry. dfg 07:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you are guilty of the same weaknesses you ascribe to others. Why don't you check which users support reverting your contribution before making global accusations? Also when did your user page get labelled as a sockpuppet? With regard to the hah from Chicago, who cares about policy? I thought there was also a policy of ignore all rules? Given the attacks on this page by a POV warrior or POV warriors then you should not be surprised that some people don't bother reading for subtle changes in the edits if the given user is not willing to discuss changes. David D. (Talk) 10:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Which particular reversion are you referring to? Not User:Trisha Black and "her" removal of the entire "diploma mill" section with an edit summary of "fixing Curp's transwiki links"? No, of course not. And not, I'm guessing the edits by the content's of Jason Gastrich's sock drawer, since those were blatant whitewashing, removing verifiable content. So which edits, exactly, do you dispute? Guy 11:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

dfg's referring to the edits made to move the LBU as university of the month to a trivia section [31]. Ironically it was reverted by Wiki4christ in a blanket reversion and then got lost in the noise. Thus it would appear that the dfg's "revert-without-reading tactics" accusations are baseless. I actually made a similar edit a month ago and Warriroscribe has made a similar edit too. David D. (Talk) 12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Daycd, of everyone who has responded thus far, you seem to be the only one who bothered to investigate the context of what I contributed that was reverted, despite your initial response which was riddled with silliness. I never claimed that my userpage was labeled a sockpupper; that's why my response is here and not on mine or someone else's user talk page. Also, be thankful that my name was not included on Gastrich's RfA evidence page or all you hooligans would have found your butts hauled in to Wikipeoplescourt on charges of Wikilibel and in a just Wikiworld, Chief Justice Jimbo Wales would have lived up to his name. By, y'know, wale-ing on you. Finally, "some people don't bother reading for subtle changes in the edits"? Thank you for explaining in one sentence what it seems I could not in multiple paragraphs. Maybe that should be made policy along with "ignore all the rules", hey new editors! Don't bother reading for subtle changes, especially in contentious articles! Finally (once again), if you would have looked, I was NOT "not willing to discuss changes", if you had bothered to check I discussed the material in the highly relevant section of the talk page

Truth be told, what bothers me most is NOT that it was reverted, but that Avb was quick to lump me in with obvious Gastrich sockpuppets in his initial "Message for..." bit. Any cursory investigation into my contribution history (first page) would have revealed that a puppet of JG's would most likely not have also made contributions to entries about indie rock (the DEVIL'S music!), comic books (Idolatry!), video games (Jesus hates violence!), and a website whose tagline is "Where Pornographers Debate Nihilists About Pop Culture." Seriously. The next time I need a dick that is not public, remind me not to call this Avb character. dfg 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DFG, AvB's message was precisely for people who might be Gastrich puppets. He has some doubt in the matter, hence he sent the message. Calm down —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the above calm down comment. In addition, is there any difference to what you perceive AvB did and what you did by starting this section? You seem slighted by him adding you to a section head yet if you read his text he is trying to explain to user whom might NOT be Gastrich why reverts are coming thick and fast. I don't see him making assertions about user identity. You on the other hand are making plenty of assertions in a very confrontational manner that will just piss people off. There are many here that agree with you, yet you have this 'me against the rest' attitude that prevents sensible dialog.

My point about your userpage not being labelled as a Gastrich sockpuppet was to emphasise that you are not being labelled as a sockpuppet by most editors here. My point that some editors "don't bother reading for subtle changes in the edits" was referring to the fact that the Gastrich socks are reverting on sight. ~~You did notice you were reverted by a Gastrich sock, not one of the other editors here?~~ (struck out as i see you did notice this from the section below) With all the vandalism going on it is hardly surprising that some edits get lost in the mix, why does this surprise you? With regard to your participation in the highly relevant section of the talk page i missed that. When a page is under attack constructive editing and discussion is pointless since it all gets lost in the noise ( I'm sure Wales will tell you same thing and by the way I don't think he'll give a damn). With the modus operandum of siege mentality a talk page topic is easily missed. I apologise for missing your input but not for accusing you of being a sock since that never occurred. David D. (Talk) 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be right; I may have gotten my knickers in a twist over something that could have been resolved with a simple "hey, I'm not a sock" comment. It just drives me nuts when people are trying to hold others to a higher standard (especially in regards to evangelicals, whom I loathe) but fail to keep that standard themselves. I mean, Avb pulled my name from the history page to stick it in his talkpage-edit's header, but didn't go that one extra step to look at my contribs. And it would have been real fun for me to have my name end up on someone's RfA evidence page, dontcha think? Regardless, thanks for your apology. Avb's... not holding my breath. dfg 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends how you define fun, right ;). I sense we can start from scratch with almost everything now out in the open. Let's all start being constructive. I think many of us have overreacted here. This is one of the problems of a written forum, no body language and too many wrong ends of sticks to trip us all. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dfg, you are asking for links to policies. When you registered your user name, and each time you log in, and each time you make an edit, you are given links to the policies and guidelines new users need to know. My message was intented to help new users who are not sock puppets of JG but seemed to follow his pattern understand the situation and explain how to avoid being identified as a Jason Gastrich sock puppet. So in addition to the policies you should have known by now, I directed you to the relevant info on sock puppets and to the Jason Gastrich RfC and RfAr processes. Thus giving you the full picture. Including links to all the policies and guidelines involved in Jason's editing pattern - the behavior I tried to steer good faith Jason supporters away from. Apparently I failed to get through to you. The net result is that where I initially assumed you were not Jason, I am now beginning to doubt that assumption. You are wasting time insulting others without consulting the information given to you at least 5 times, suggesting you already know it and choose to ignore it. That's the mainstay of JG's pattern. Why don't you just call one of my church's ministers (called dominee here) and discuss my "hard-on" for Jason with him? AvB ÷ talk 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Avb, DFG is clearly not Jason, a quick look at Dfg's contribution list should make that clear: [32]. JoshuaZ 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy poop! In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king! JoshuaZ, will you marry me? Wait, wait, I think I'm violating the "don't be a dick" wikipolicy. Apologies. dfg 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

PS In my opinion edits by accounts that follow JG's pattern should be reverted on sight and the accounts blocked indefinitely. Regardless of content. As you have seen, I am not alone in this respect. If Jason doesn't repent, the result of his ArbCom process is quite predictable. We're simply applying what we think is appropriate because we have seen it all before. You could say we're following Jimbo's example here. Wherever he sees meddling of the JG type, he simply announces ex cathedra: "ban indefinitely, block (socks) on sight, revert on sight". And if you really have trouble searching Wikipedia yourself, here's a link for you to follow - (and this includes clicking on some of the links on that page and reading the monotonous stories of JG's predecessors): Wikipedia Vandals. "Revert and block on sight" also refers to the verdict on one of them, Mr. Treason. AvB ÷ talk 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

AvB, I will take your inability to specifically cite the policy or suggested guideline of "The only way to get such edits in would be via consensus on the talk page of the article in question" as an admission that you were talking out of your booty. I find it laughable that you claim I have not consulted "the information given to [me] at least 5 times" when your response above clearly indicates that you have still neglected to read and process the material I had added to the article. To say it plainly: what I wrote was not vandalism nor a revert nor a defense of Gastrich's camp's position. It was strictly factual and referenced information that not only provided context for LBU's award but illustrated how ridiculously less-than-presitigious an award it is.

DFG, it is quite common when a page is highly contentious and/or has frequent vandalism for such procedures to be adopted. You are right in that it would probably be a good idea to have a message to that effect at the header of the article. JoshuaZ 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are finding it difficult to type out an apology of "sorry dfg, that I included you in the list of Gastrich sockpuppets because I failed to actually read the material you wrote" let me remind you that humility is one of those virtues I hear Christians hold in high regard. Lucky for me I ain't a Christian, eh? dfg 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its not Jason after all. Maybe we're just getting a fluke rash of seven or eight brand new editors who just happen to run across Louisiana Baptist University and just happen to do, as their very first edit, a complete removal of the section that describes LBU as a diploma mill, and then they go and remove all the sockpuppet banners from all of Jason's alter-egos as their next random edits. That's the ticket. --Her girlfriend 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone find it funny that my username appears under this section claiming I'm reverting changes, when in fact I have made a single LBU revert in the time DFG has been a Wikipedia user. Strange. Arbusto 06:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There has been a lot of editing going around and its understandable if one got confused in the fray (which is precisely what I was trying to say to DfG earlier). DfG's edits are highly inconsistent with him being Gastrich. Can we let this go now please? JoshuaZ 06:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as above per JZ. Header? Kill it with ~~fire~~ kindness. dfg 13:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User:Dfgarcia

Before you hurl accusations, you might want to read up on the history of this issue. Such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich. This all has been going on for some time now and you may want to inform yourself as to what exactly is happening before deciding on an opinion.

Basically, this page--among a few others--is under attack by a serial vandal using multiple sock puppets. And vandalism does, indeed, qualify for "revert on sight." With all the chaos of a sustained vandalism attack, legitimate edits could indeed be lost in the shuffle. Vandals are, after all, disruptive. But I note that it was the vandal who reverted your edits regarding the "Trivia" section[33] and complained about your "secularist POV editing" in the edit summary ("secularist" in his vocabulary means anyone who disagrees with his personal opinion). After that, another edit was made to "wikifi" some dates. By the time the vandalism was reverted, there was another edit between and the revert didn't "reach" your changes.

The advice to you about discussing your changes on the Talk page has much to do with the fact that it's hard to tell the legitimate, good faith editors from the vandal's multiple socks (he'd created some two dozen last I looked). Take a look at the history of the page and see how fast the vandalism is coming (or was coming... page protection may slow it down a great deal). I don't see that asking you to discuss your edits on the Talk page so you identify yourself as a editor in good faith instead of yet another sock is all that onerous. Mark K. Bilbo 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC) ñ

Oh for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Cosmic Star Goat all wrapped together in a blessed burrito of religious parody! I know this page was being vandalised. I know what Gastrich has been doing to Wikipedia. I didn't say anything when my edit was reverted because I checked and saw that it was a sockpuppet that reverted it, plus I could have waited for things to calm down before re-adding it. I took umbrage once Avb decided to get all clever with his "I see a sockpuppet!" edit and put my name at the front of his list in big letters. He probably wouldn't have made that mistake had he actually been a responsible editor and read the (my) material. Also, will you all please stop saying that I didn't discuss my edit on the talk page. I did. For anyone who wants to continue arguing against me instead of apologizing, here's a homework assignment: read my edit, then tell me what you think it means, and then I will tell you what it DOES mean. dfg 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in ahead of you AvB but this irritates me. Look, dfg, if that's what you're so hyped up about, you can forget about any "apology" from myself at least. You're making unwarranted assumptions about AvB and what he was trying to accomplish. Just reread his very first sentence. Notice the "...just in case one of you is not in fact User:Jason_Gastrich..." That is quite the opposite of lumping you in. It was, in fact, inviting you out of the Gastrich cloud. I find AvB to be very much the "responsible" editor. My experience is that despite the fact that he and I are 180 degrees apart on many issues, he's reasonable, rational, happy to seek common ground, and basically just a nice person. I think you've completely misread what he was trying to do. Personally, I think if there are apologies involved, they should really go the other way. Either way, I think everybody is quite clear on you not being a Gastrich sock. Maybe you could put all this effort at being offended into editing the article? Just a thought. Mark K. Bilbo 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You've never watched Sesame Street, have you Mark? I did (the forehead-shaped dent in my monitor is rather awe-inspiring) put some effort into the article, by going to the State of Louisiana's website and going through the whole list of Gov Blanco's proclamations (long-loading .pdfs, mind you) to investigate the significance of LBU having a month named in "honor" of it. I included the info, and I referenced my findings. But. It. Got. Buh-leeted. So, I had planned to wait for the post-Gastrich-deep-sixed era to reinsert it. Because despite what the anti-Gastrich crusader zealots would like to believe, having the Governor of a State of the U S of A recognize an institution in writing is indeed notable, despite how much filthy lucre it took to get that accomplished. What I tried to do was put that into the proper, trivialized context. So, like, I hope you have a big butt like me Mark, for when you fall off that high horse you're on. dfg 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice you went right past the issue that what AvB said to you was not what you claim in all your stomping around the talk page with your skirt hiked. You wrote--and I quote, "I took umbrage once Avb decided to get all clever with his "I see a sockpuppet!" edit and put my name at the front of his list in big letters. He probably wouldn't have made that mistake had he actually been a responsible editor and read the (my) material." He was not accusing you of being a sock puppet, he was trying to be nice and explain something of the context of the chaos here for the benefit of new editors who might have just happened to have shown up at the wrong time. And why are you back on the reversion of the "trivia" thing? You know full well that was done by a Gastrich sock. The edit was caught in the backwash. Your one edit. Pretty much immediately afterward, the only thing you've done is run around the talk page being offended.

And I note that one of your first remarks was Next time, why don't you try to read and then re-read the whole edit (especially if there are NEW material and references) before assuming some evangelicial ding-dong is the one responsible, and labeling someone a sock or meatpuppet. Well, take your own advice how 'bout? A Gastrich sock puppet reverted your changes. For this, you've been going around being offended at the, how did you put it, "people who have a hard-on for Gastrich." So far, you've not been accused of being a sock puppet and your edits have not been reverted as vandalism. But you want apologies from people? For which part? For which thing they didn't do should they apologize? Hm?

Listen, if you enjoy being offended I can help you with that. Unlike AvB, I'm not a nice guy. I can be highly offensive. Though I do my best work on Usenet, not here. Mark K. Bilbo 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, Mark, I don't know how to spell it out any further. My other responses here have made it clear that I never really thought anyone [who took a cursory glance] considered me a sockpuppet. Nor did I ever (seriously) claim that it was someone other than one of Gastrich's podpeople responsible for the reversion of my info. If you think about it, had AvB noticed that it was one of those PP who reverted my info, then it would follow that the info within that edit was not pro-LBU/Gastrich, and thus my handle shouldna been included with the three other noms de puppet. My point has been that my name should have never appeared there in the first place. I never pushed the issue, but that inclusion was an unsubstantiated, thinly-veiled, but quite possibly non-malicious ~~personal attack~~ judgement of character. A behaviour I'm sure is discouraged by one if not more Wikipedia policies. So... I don't see the point of continuing this postspasming since I'm pretty much satsified that everyone else has a grip on what went down, and the appropriate apologies've circulated. dfg 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And I can't type any slower than I am now. As anyone with reading comprehension skills can plainly see, AvB was not at any time accusing you of anything and the inclusion of your name was to draw your attention to explanatory text in case you didn't understand what was going on here. Because he tried to be helpful, you became rude. By the way, given the standard you propose above, I should continue to take umbrage at the inclusion of my name in the heading of your little snottigram as my entire contribution over the existence of the article was to revert the vandalism of a sock so blantant it was immediately blocked indefinitely. I've done exactly nothing to you nor knew who you were nor cared who you were nor really care now. If I wasn't procastinating dealing with some issues of an estate because it's depressing, I wouldn't even be doing this much.

I'm sure you don't see the point of "continuing this postspasming" as I'm betting you've realized the only mistake here is yours and you're looking for a quick exit. Mark K. Bilbo 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned now, ad nauseum, I'm willing to give Avb the benefit of the doubt on how malicious his intent was on including my name, but that does not change the fact that it was a very poor decision. There are several different ways to determine the degree of sockpuppetness of a user, and putting someone's name at the front of a header of a page that is linked to from the evidence page of a RfA is far from the most subtle. I hope that much is clear. The difference between that and your name (and others) in the snottigram is that people with even passing familiarity with Gastrich will recognize "wiki4christ", "JesusChristSaves[Ministries]", and "J[ason]G[astrich]Christian" but not my name and would most likely, without further investigation, assume that dfgarcia is another sockpuppet in the vein of the less obvious socks like Turkmen, Chuck Hastings, and FeeninforJeebus; whereas people looking at the snottigram roster will not be able to make snap judgements of your collective characters. You can keep angling for the last word, Mark, but the only thing I am guilty of is having to repeat the same arguments to you. And let me just say that begging off an argument by hinting at personal misfortune is tacky. Not that I don't have sympathy for you, but it really has no bearing on the issue at hand. dfg 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is really getting a bit stale. Cut it out Garcia. You're acting like a troll. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But a troll usually is the one instigating the mudslinging and doesn't stick around to defend himself. Jes' sayin'. dfg 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My assumption that Dfg was not Jason was based on a quick glance at Dfg's contributions list. I was worried that some of the current newcomers would would be caught in the fray so I offered some helpful information. Dfg's reading accusations into my message and responding with assumptions and foul language amounting to a gross WP:NPA violation was quite suspect though. It reinforced my impression that Dfg is shifting toward JG's pattern, fast. Dfg, calm down. All I see now is someone who bites the helping hand instead of trying to build a bridge. If I somehow were not clear enough and made you think I have accused you of being a Jason sock puppet, I apologize for my lack of clarity and the feelings this perceived accusation must have caused you. I take it the foul language was induced not by your personality but by your resenting seemingly being lumped in with Jason Gastrich. Please forgive me Dfg. AvB ÷ talk 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Foul language? Ding-dong or booty perhaps? Let me apologize in turn for such vulgarities. But please, do not patronize me any further by claiming that you were not accusing me of sockpuppetry. Putting my name up with Wiki4christ, JesusChristSaves, and JGChristian? In the words of the ancient sage Big Bird, "one of these things is not like the other". It's obvious that those other three are puppets or at the very least associated with Gastrich. Had our roles been reversed, I would have thought "Gee, this one name seems out of place, maybe I had better contact him privately—oh wait, I don't even have to do that! Wikipedia has this nifty feature that lets me check into an editor's posting background! Golly! I was just about to impugn the name of someone I don't even know". *cough*WP:BITE*cough* dfg 17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [edited 17:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]

"Hard-on for Jason" - funny but foul. AvB ÷ talk 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick, Dfg. No one was about to put a Jason Gastrich scarlet letter "G" on your user page without checking first. --Ruby 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Sycophant. Charming to see that the stereotypes transcend all forms of intarnets media. dfg 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dfg, everyone agrees at this point that you aren't Jason. The insults and such are unecessary and are in violation of wiki rules. Please calm down. JoshuaZ 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, Joshua. Y'hear that, Ruby?!? dfg 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gubernatorial proclamation notability

Um, trying to get this back on topic - I would say that the "LBU month" is trivial, quite likely down to special pleading, may be the result of personal bias on the part of the Governor, and is not a recurrent event. Include it if you must, though. Guy 18:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said previously, even though some might think it portrays LBU in a positive light while most evidence points to it being a religious diploma mill, I think it should be included as long as the proper context is provided. What would be even better is if someone could research the connections (staffer alumni, political "contributions") LBU has to the governor's office. How possible that is is another matter entirely, but a man can dream, can't he? dfg 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for connections between the gov and LBU would almost certainly by OR. In any case, it simply isn't notable. Governor's make all sorts of declarations of this sort all the time. JoshuaZ 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions from any evidence would be original research, but discovering something via an FOIA request, or looking at fundraiser invitee list would not be. The policy states: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. Merely presenting any factual information that has already been published or recorded would not fall into those categories. dfg 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what official policy is on FOIAs (I could find one from a quick search), but I would think a FOIA would constitute original research by most standards. JoshuaZ 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree that information garnered from an FOIA request would constitute OR because the way I understand it, the WP OR policy makes it sound like new ideas and hypotheses are not acceptable, but the straightforward representation of facts is. As an example, let me point out the featured article on Project MKULTRA; in the external links is a link to multiple documents s sources of information obtained via FOIA. I would think something as obvious as OR used would be caught rather quickly by peer review. dfg 05:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to vere off=topic. Those FOIA requests have generally been made by entities outside Wikipedia and the results of them can be found elsewhere. It seems pretty ORy to me for it to be done solely for Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's most certainly not veering off-topic, but I understand now the distinction you're making between looking for an existing FOIA and initiating one. But I'm sure that this little corner of cyberspace is not the only place where there are parties interested in looking into how diploma mills operate. If there isn't anything out there now, hopefully there will be in the future. dfg 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That distinction is detailed in WP:NOR, one of the policies mentioned earlier. But the point you seem to be making is relevant. I agree with JoshuaZ that e.g. FOIA requests solely intended for Wikipedia will, in principle, amount to OR. But it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to start their own (original) research projects and/or try and get the media interested in researching and publishing on the issue (without mentioning or involving Wikipedia). If this leads to notable, verifiable publications from reputable sources, Wikipedia policies will allow the information to be quoted in related WP articles. AvB ÷ talk 10:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have a hard time thinking of that proclimation meaning much of anything. Like I've said, I live here and never heard of LBU nor the proclimation until coming to the Wiki. Mark K. Bilbo 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a valid reason to exclude the information. Aside from the obvious fact that just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the entry—look here for an example of Señor Wales emphasizing that, regardless of fame and importance (i.e. who has and hasn't heard of it) "information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion" does indeed belong in Wikipedia. That the written proof of Guv'ner Blanco awarding LBU is available in a pdf on the LA.gov website meets the "verifiable" criteria, while noting that Blanco hands out so many proclamations like this that they're almost not worth the paper upon which they're printed, well, that provides context and thus a more NPOV. dfg 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not present that as a "reason" for anything but to illustrate a point. Nobody pays attention to these "proclamations." All 50 governors pass them out like party favors and I'm betting whatever state you live in, you haven't a clue what "official" month, week, or day it is right now. Nobody pays any real attention when Congress and the President do this "proclamation" thing. And they do, all the time. For all we know, this is "Polka Appreciation Week." It's not just Blanco doing this. They used to mean something but have been so overused that they lost all meaning and became trivial long before any of us here were even born. I don't actually have an opinion on whether or not it should be included in the article. I'm only expressing a personal opinion that it doesn't look "notable" to me. And, yeah, I kind of do think that whether or not the residents of the state in question noticed a particular action of their governor is something that factors into "notability." But, no, I don't have any surveys handy. I will say that I hazard if you said "LBU" to most of the folks in this state, they'd think you meant to say "LSU" but had a slip of the tongue. And particularly now far as notable things go, we have much more notable issues to deal with as it seems one of our cities has gone missing. Mark K. Bilbo 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Notability based upon how many people know about it does factor in, but there are many examples of issues involving states or countries where the residents within are not aware of them, yet are still valid for inclusion within an encyclopedia. I'm certain the percentages are quite low for the number of people within a state that are aware of every important bill or law their state legislature enacts, or even how many U.S. citizens could name all 9 SCOTUS justices, or all 10 amendments on the Bill of Rights, but just because the majority of people are ignorant or unaware of it does not mean it is non-notable. You are right that it is trivial, which is why there should be only a brief mention of it in such a section, and not a whole article devoted to this one proclamation. dfg 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a valid reason. Items on Wikipedia should be notable (this is why fancruft frequently gets deleted or removed). Including the proclamation is not much more notable than that LBU's graduates are more likely to be cat owners then a random sample of the populace (hypothetically speaking). JoshuaZ 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the proclamation is much more notable because of the public figure involved (50 governors:250 million+ citizens), and the proclamation takes 35 seconds to verify, online at that, while I think one would be much more hard-pressed to verify and find documentation for such a random set of demographic information from LBU alumni, and especially hard-pressed to find it signed, sealed, and delivered by the office of the Governor. dfg 05:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, notability as per WP can be a slippery concept. The solution is to reach a consensus on the talk page, or perhaps put it to a vote. I think it is notable precisely because of the diploma mill suspicions. To me this type of support from the Governor in the face of widespread suspicion is a clear statement that these concerns are not valid in her opinion. AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Two points: first notability and verifiability are different issues. Wikipedia is not about having all the universes information in it. Second, the proclamation doesn't indicate that the governor had such concerns at all. All it indicates is that someone wanted the gov to make such a proclamation. JoshuaZ 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, notability and verifiability are two different things. The quote I linked to re JWales' opinion on which of the two is more important in regards to inclusion indicates he believes it's the latter (along with NPOV). Also, dear Joshua, you make it sound as if the Gov is coerced or required to sign anything that crosses her desk. Don't forget that the governor is a public servant and not a despot, so essentially, she is required to do things that people want her to do if she is to remain in office. The proclamation does not explicitly state that the commendation was made to rebut diploma mill claims, but one has to assume that either the Gov or her ~~handlers~~ staff would calculate the risks and benefits of putting her name to the paper. dfg 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LBU month should be left out. It is undescriptive, offers no educational merits to the school, and has no value in the article at all. There is not a single convincing argument that it should be left in. If people are interested in viewing the school's promotions they can read it at the schools website. Arbusto 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dfgarcia

I haven't responded to much of Dfg's "facts" and silly conclusions. Mark is attending to more important matters. Dfg should, however, not fool himself into believing this means we have no defense. We (I think I'm also speaking for Mark at this point) simply do not wish to assist or encourage disruptive behavior. We also know the other editors are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions. Bottom line: This silly stuff no longer has anything to do with editing the LBU article—except for:

Dfg wants the "LBU month" information reinserted into the article. (I am in favor. Mark—and, I think, most other editors—are not.)
Dfg wants to document fraud by the Governor of Louisiana (fraud specifically alleged by Dfg), based on information e.g. acquired via FOIA requests. This is, however, impossible unless confirmed by verifiable information from reputable sources.

I hope this describes a consensus regarding Dfg's objectives. If not, feel free to discuss without me. I'm walking away from this article for now. AvB ÷ talk 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, except I only suspect foul play, have no hard evidence for it, and realize that an independent wikinvestigation would almost definitely constitute OR. I just wish the next time a professional journalist decides to do a story on diploma mills, the stars align and they happen across this entry and talk page and get inspired. I also wish for a time machine to go back and score that $365M Powerball jackpot, but, yeah. dfg 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you visit the archives on this talk page you will see a scholar on diploma mills refer to Louisiana Baptist University as such. Arbusto 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

An example of the work done at Louisiana Baptist University

For the past couple of months there was a link on the article page of a dissertation approved by Louisiana Baptist University for a PhD. That webpage was pulled offline. Since the link was dead it was removed and a cached version[34] was added. That link was removed and I just wanted to get a cited clarification as to why. I think having a LBU disseration linked is a valuable assest to the article. Arbusto 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Was it too embarrassing? David D. (Talk) 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation, Dissertation: 22 May 2006

Greetings, I am new to Wikipedia and had some difficulty figuring out how to e-mail the editor or post. I will see if this works. Looks like lots of discussion and controversy about LBU. Is it locked for editing? I tried to edit some (what I consider) rather biased skewing of facts such as that under the "degree mill allegations". Looks good to the uneducated eye but not to anyone who knows anything about higher education. Whoever wrote part of it created his or her own straw man arguments. Not sure how all this works but I was rather surprised to see some of the misleading statements. Others were accurate such as the lack of LBU dissertation availability, etc. I may have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is (ie not an encyclopedia in the truest sense of the word) and if so, I apologize.

LBU is unaccredited and completely open about that and the limitations of degrees (example in counseling).

So why are you removing cited information and wikipedia links to accreditation without any comment?[35] Arbusto 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just admitted above that I may have made some errors and probably should have read Wikipedia's rules. I attempted to make the article less biased and honest. Missler's stuff did not belong where it was and the rather dishonest skewing of the life credit issue as I noted below makes for a good straw man argument but was not intellectually honest in terms of LBU or the practice of so many regionally accredited programs. Read how to earn an accredited BA in 4 weeks on www.degreeinfo.com (details hwo to earn a regionally accredited degree quickly through CLEP, Life experience, etc along with case example). User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordundSud (talk • contribs) May 23

Also this page is not locked. But rather a few months back a LBU student (current LBU PhD holder) was white washing and changing criticism. For three months this page was reverted over and over again until it came to how it is now. Please do not change anything without it receiving consensus on the talk page. Such as your removal of direct quotes from Missler on receiving LBU credit for reading his book. Or your removal of links to what accreditation is. Or your moving of chronological material. Arbusto 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I say, my mistake. Most of what I have ever read about LBU has been positive. Ninety percent of what I have read that is negative is in relation to Jason G. Don't know him and frankly find some of his site rather strange and almost narcissistic. Not sure whether it is misguided self promotion or narcissism. User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordundSud (talk • contribs) May 23

LBU is one of six colleges owned or endorsed by the 4000 church BBFI (with missionaries around the world), they are on the list of affirmed & supported colleges (that strive for academic excellence or some such language) of the very legit 50,000 plus American Association of Christian Counselors, their degrees are acceptable for the military chaplaincy (no easy task according to a chaplain recruiter I spoke to since they must get 3 wash letters from accredited seminaries attesting to their being equivalent, and acceptable), high performing alumni, and commencement speakers that range from the Attorney General of the United States to Paige Patterson (big wig in Southern Baptist circles) and Jerry Falwell. The Southern Leadership Conference (or some similar organization) honored them for their education of African Americans. Their graduates have been accepted into schools ranging from Regents Law school to the Unviersity of North Texas. None of this is accreditation but many of these things would not happen nor people be associated with them if they were questionable.

To be a military chaplian all you need is three letters from accredited schools saying the work at LBU (or any other unaccredited) is equal. Its no big deal and has no academic merit. Arbusto 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Arbusto! According to the Chaplain recruiter I spoke to this is not easy and he has had many would be chaplains fail. For three accredited seminaries to put themselves on the line and say LBU or any other unaccredited school is equivalent and acceptable would not occur if there were doubt and it would bring discredit. You also ignore all the otehr issues which are in no way indicative of accreditation but that speak to the quality of the program.

User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordundSud (talk • contribs) May 23

Getting three letters from schools familiar with LBU is not a big deal. Considering the tie with Baptist Bible Fellowship International it might be considered "easy" per se. Arbusto 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me but I do not know how to sign this other than manually. What you are stating in regard to the chaplaincy means that you do not know what you are talking about. I know about the issue. So you can keep stating your opinion from now to we run out of space. USER: Nordundsud 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) NordundSud

That is not to say they do not have problems as noted in some of the Wikipedia article. However, ridiculous assertions about life credit (military experience) and so on shows a rather marked ignorance of higher education in the United states. This practice is not uncommon. I can think of three regionally accredited schools (Excelsior, Charter Oak and Thomas Edison State College) that due this regularly without even straining myself and there are literally hundred of others. On top of that there are several regionally accredited non traditional doctoral programs that allow credit for attending short couple of week residencies or seminars. In the US here we have regionally accredited non traditional doctorate programs that you never even set foot on campus as it is all distance education (Northcentral U & Touro). Don't even have to defend your dissertation in person. FYI, for those of you unfamiliar with education in other countries, in Australia, South Africa (etc) doctoral programs most often have no coursework just the dissertation. Although this sounds very strange to US ears and is vigorously debated in terms of quality on discussion boards, it is an acceptable practice.

Those schools you mentioned are accredited so we know they meet minimal standards. We don't know that (positive or negative) for LBU. Arbusto 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that LBU is Harvard, will meet everyones needs or does not have issues. Let's face it, even Regionally accredited schools are not immune from negative impressions and assertions about quality issues (University of Pheonix). My own feeling is that based on the above, LBU has a step above a number of regionally accredited programs. As a side note, I would always advocate for an accredited program first.

You're right there are shady accredited schools. How does that make unaccredited LBU any better? Arbusto 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't....but those factors I pointed out above do! User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by NordundSud (talk • contribs) May 23

Sorry, but these claims are impressive. Arbusto 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sample dissertation from an LBU student. Not saying it is perfect but it certainly stands up to many doctoral dissertations from Regionally accredited institutions.

http://www.newprovidencebc.com/Mt%20Sinai/Biblical%20significance%20of%20Jabal%20al%20Lawz.pdf

Nordundsud (talk · contribs) {In the interests of disclosure I have three accredited degrees BA to Doctorate and am currently a student at LBU}.

So LBU awarded an unaccredited doctorate to someone who wrote without any scientific proof that Jabal al-Lawz is a biblical artifact. Very few schools would even let someone begin a dissertation on something without proof let alone award a doctorate. I hope that you don't go around expecting people (outside of the LBU students and faculty) to call you "dr" because that is academically false. Arbusto 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin, I must say it is good for people to pursue their own research even if they don't have the time or money to attend a accredited institution for graduate work. However, it is not okay to pursue that type of education to falsely call oneself a "doctor" or to do sloppy research to back up a preconcieved belief. The point of academics is to learn something and develop knowledge in a certain field. Writing and researching a project in a poor manner to back one's beliefs without proper evidence is exactly why unaccredited schools should not be allowed to award anything with the word: "degree" or "doctorate."

Okay, I not going to nitpick that project (such as some grammar issues, incorrect formatting on the bibliography, etc.), but the sources for the research are Bob Cornuke (LBU graduate), Ron Wyatt, self-published travel journals, and internet sources. These show poor research. I'll cut to the chase for this "dissertation:" there are 10 scholarly secondary sources (such as Oxford, etc.) in the whole 200+ page work. Those mainly deal with Roman history and one is a bible atlas.

As for primary sources; there are none. Do you know how many universities would award a doctorate to someone who DID NOT EVEN USE A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE? None. Because a dissertation's purpose is to do that.

It's great that this person put a lot of time (its very clear that this person put a lot of effort into it), but it is not the caliber of a below-normal dissertation. Thus, I completely disagree with your assertation that "it certainly stands up to many doctoral dissertations from Regionally accredited institutions." Arbusto 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it is perfect but frankly look at degreeinfo.com and you will find a couple of threads about substandard doctoral dissertations from Regionally Accredited schools. I believe he has around 400 end notes???, etc. Also, I remeber similar accusation laid out against a very respectable graduate of a foreign doctoral program.

He can have 20,000,000 footnotes that doesn't change the fact that there is only 10 scholarly secondary works and NO primary research. Also 400 footnotes is on the slim side for a non-science dissertation. Arbusto 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't expect you to change or anyone else to change their mind. I have pointed out several factual issues in a paragraph above that point to the quality of LBU as an unaccredited school. Most of those factors are not debatable as they are simply facts. LBU is also completely honest about its lack of accreditation and limitations. I can do nothing to delete some of the poor quality stuff that has found its way into the LBU Wikipedia article or the dishonest skewing of information by whomever posted it. You would not be the first one who does not have a good grasp of higher education in the US or what programs (especially regionally accredited distance learning programs look like). You had no idea about the meaning of the chaplaincy issue or any understanding of what is required. As I said above, I realize this is more of a pop encyclopedia (I mean that respectfully) and I had the wrong idea that it should be unbiased and represent factual information. Es tut mir leid! Incidentally, whoever edited what I wrote deleted the factual statement that LBU is on the list of affirmed and supported academic institutions of the 50,000 member American Assocation of Christian Counselors. Another fact but I understand. User: NordundSud May 23

You have not pointed out any facts; You deleted the material from the Board of Regents vote to turn LBU down. You removed cited information about the Missler book. You added in POV comparisons to ACCREDITED programs when LBU isn't ACCREDITED. You removed a link to school accreditation. Don't remove cited material to add in your personal comparisons. Arbusto 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For the second or third time I obviously am not fully aware of the rules now how to do things on this site, I made an error if I deleted a link about accreditation. The Missler stuff was fine but belonged elsewhere. You are not following a simple argument that the nonsense about Life credit distorted to appear in the Wikpedia article as if LBU is doing something unusual is inaccurate when compared with ACCREDITED programs. Personal issues pervade the Wikpedia article and are distortions that obviously have a purpose that makes the article distorted and certainly not anything approaching unbiased information. You don't think that LBU is transparent about their lack of accreditation and limitations? Go to their catalogue......fact.

Comparing what other accredited institutions do is okay, so long as one compares apples to apples and does not delete/omit material. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparing it with your personal opinions is NOT okay. This is WP:OR. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No it is completely relevant if someone is twisting it to appear that a give practice such as Life credit is unusual and implying it is the mark of a mill. This means that the distortion in the Wikpedia article was done out of ignorance of educational facts or with deliberateness.

Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordunSud

You state that I have not pointed out any facts????

i) LBU is one of six colleges owned or endorsed by the 4000 church BBFI (with missionaries around the world).

That is interesting and should be pointed out in the article, but so what? Religious endorsements do little to assure general academic rigor. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article. Its been in the article since Gastrich started it. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never said this is equivalent of accreditation BUT for them to be endorsed and have a denomination put themselves on the line for the school does give it some credibility. As a side note lets look at the issue of the U of Pheonix. I don't know how many times I have heard people question the ademic rigor of U of P. Did Regional accreditation (which is an academic process)guarentee their academic rigor? In any case that LBU is endorsed is a fact (Arbusto state there were not any facts in my article). Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

Then stop trying to pass it off as its academically equivalent. Again U of Phoenix is accredited, which must be reaffirmed every few years if they wish to maintain accreditation and educational standards. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ii) LBU is on the list of affirmed & supported colleges (that strive for academic excellence or some such language) of the very legit 50,000 plus American Association of Christian Counselors.

Being "legit" doesn't matter; and striving is great... accreditation means they have strove for and met educational standards. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. I never said this was the equivalent of accreditation. That AACC would put themselves on the line for LBU in terms of endorsement simply speaks to LBU's credibility. Again that they are on that endorsed list is a fact (Arbusto state there were not any facts).Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

iii) LBU's degrees are acceptable for the military chaplaincy (no easy task according to a chaplain recruiter I spoke to since they must get 3 wash letters from accredited seminaries attesting to their being equivalent, and acceptable).

This is irrelevant to accreditation as a post secondary institution; since that involves and requires more than a religious seal of approval. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never said this was accreditation. But to disregard the process is ridiculous and more than a relgious seal of approval. It is not easy according to the military and the recruiter has had many people with unaccredited degrees fail in this attempt. That LBU is accewptabler for the chaplaincy IS A FACT. (Arbusto sstaed that there were not any facts).Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

iv) High performing alumni

How is that a fact? You understand "high performing" is subjective and irrelevant to its accreditation. A person going to a school and then becoming a millionaire does not provide meaningful evidence their business program is competent. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are confused in that I did not say it was equivalent to accreditation. We can debate this issue of wheter success reflects on a school but the fact that people ranging from Missler to Jeffery to Eggar (Prez of AWANA) are graduates and successful is a fact.(Arbsuto stated there were no facts above).Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

High performing, but no scholarly press have published them. In fact the "books" the Weaver (unaccredited school president) wrote aren't even available by any means. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

v)Commencement speakers that range from the Attorney General of the United States to Paige Patterson (big wig in Southern Baptist circles) and Jerry Falwell.

That certainly speaks to its notability in religious circles, but not academic circles. Please stop confusing the two. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roy. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. I did not say it was equivalent of accreditation. I did say that the type of people they attract (high profile) such as Attorney General Ashcroft relfect well on the school. The fact that these people have been commencement speakers at LBU is a FACT. (Arbusto stated there were not any facts).

vi)Graduates have been accepted into schools ranging from Regents Law school to the University of North Texas

And? Meaningless unless it can be established LBU credits were recognized/given weight by those institutions. At best a side note. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Again more vagueness of Nordundsud. How do we know those students weren't accepted on the merits of accredited degree from another school. Law schools and universities don't accept unaccredited degrees. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that but it affirms that you do not understand higher education. They do not as a matter of course but they do. This is fact. Maybe you ought to check with Regents Law school, Liberty, and University of North Texas. The LBU grads were accepted as LBU grads. Nordundsud 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

Oh come on......I did not say it was accreditaion but if you do not see the meaning in grads of an unaccredited school being admitted to these schools based on their LBU degree then you are missing something in terms of the academic community. Again that this has occured is a FACT. (Arbusto stated there were not any facts above).Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordunSud

You are trying to justify its lack of accreditation. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you come on; I'm missing nothing, you are. You have failed to establish these institutions recognized and/or gave it any weight whatsoever to LBU credentials. Their admittance does not provide that evidence; it is an inference without corroboration, as opposed to a fact. Next time you want to list facts, list relevant ones. Their LBU degree and admittance to said institutions are facts, but meaningless facts unless you can establish a connection. You are wasting my time, as I came here to help. Obviously my bad. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than my personal statement that I talked to a Chaplain recruiter or that Patterson is a big wig, etc.....which of these is not a fact??????? You stated that I did not point out *any* facts. If these are facts then are you deliberately distorting information about LBU???? (Tsk Tsk)

Or was it that

i) Excelsior, Charter Oak, etc take portfolio credit (Life Experience Credit)??

So what? They are accredited and have a oversight. LBU does not. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ii) That there are a number of no residency doctoral programs that are regionally accredited (Northcentral/Touro U Int'l) or programs where you can get academic credit for attending short residency courses (couple of weeks) or long weekend and doing distance learning.

So what? Those programs are different. If fact those professors at the school have gone through the rigors of PhD work and know what to demand out of their students. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

iii) What about CLEPS where you can read a little booklet and take a test and get credit at dozens (hundreds of Regionally Accredited) colleges.

So what? This article is about LBU's academics. Your vague claims aren't impressive. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

These are not facts?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

I have nothing against you and realize that you just may not understand educational issues very well but have developed an uninformed view of LBU that is not balanced. The alternative is that rather than ignorance you have an agenda that is biased. In that sense what is the difference between you and Jason G? Now....back to Dr. Mitch Pacwa :-)

USER: Signed Nordundsud 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

These points should certainly be considered for inclusion and if given appropriate weight will likely serve to improve the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying LBU offers "life" credit like "this DETC school" is WP:OR. As for speakers, it was already debated on this talk. It was decided ALL schools have conferences and commencements with notable people. Yet, at major schools there is no way to possible to list every single speaker and it is trival to include a list of famous people. Thus, LBU shouldn't be treated any different and there is no need to list famous "speakers." However, there is a list of what LBU considers to be a notable faculty and alumni. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Arbusto made the assertion that I had not presented any facts. As noted above regardless of how people wish to dismiss what I presented they are facts in and of themselves. What weight people give to the facts in terms of making a determination about LBU is another matter. In my opinion some of the LBU article was skewed to make someone's point as in the mill/life credit issue. As I pointed out this practice is not uncommon. But many people know little about higher education and would not know that. I remember when I once told a Cornell grad that you could earn a regionally accredited PhD totally by distance learning (no campus time, etc). She was horrified and had no idea that there were any programs like that. Nordundsud 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

For removing material, you did not present facts. Arbusto 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys crack me up. First, I did not present "any facts", then when I assert things that are not debatable and are facts (i-vi), you come back with we don't like your facts so maybe they are factual but they are not worth anything (why...because they disagree with your agenda??), and maybe we will include your facts and maybe we won't. Arbusto then manages to say something ridiculous like a blanket "law schools and universities DON't take unaccredited degrees. You guys did not debate the facts just fumbled around nitpicking around the edges. I even noted that although they are facts, the weight given them is debatable. Que cute!

I am going to wrap this up as there is little point debating this. The Wikpedia article almost reaches the height of distortion on the "Mill Allegations section" where it asserts that LBU has some makings of a mill because they offer life credit and because they are accredited by an agency that is not recognized by the US Dept of Ed, etc. First, I already mopped up the floor with the Life Credit/Military credit red herring (see above). Second, I am looking at LBU's catalogue (pg 17) and do not see them claiming any accreditation from ANY agency not recognized by the US Dept of Ed. In fact in several places they note they are NOT ACCREDITED and their degrees cannot be used for teacher certification or Counselor certification. They may be members of some associations but using that criteria (Life Credit & Membership in assocations that are not recognized by the US Dept of Education)....Holy Conspiracy Batman...we better let dozens of regionally accredited colleges know they are diploma mills for offering Life/Portfolio/Military credit and belonging to associations that are not recognized (in addition to their regional accreditors)...oh the humanity...do they not realize the peril. Seriously....that mill section is false. Now...either you guys don't check your facts (I realize you are education amateurs and probably doing the best that you can), if so for goodness sake just check the LBU catalogue for accreditation claims to know the statement IS FALSE. The other alternative is that you left these blatantly false statements in there because you wanted a distorted representation of LBU. If that is the case...where is your honesty. Also, shame on you for complaining about Jason and others when you are guilty of the same thing except you have the power to make your distortions stick.

This Wikpedia article is very unimpressive with part of it true and the other parts obvious biased distortions. No effort on whoever is running this to even check out basic facts. That is poor scholarship (can't even check the LBU catalogue)! Frankly, LBU does a better job of being factual and honest about themselves and their limitations than the writers of this Wikipedia article do. Not sure whether it is a lack of integrity or plain poor scholarship.

Nordundsud 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

Honesty? Scholarship? Try bringing up relevant points next time. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is all you can say to the blatant falsehood in the Wikipedia article, etc...... Shameful! I even pointed out a reference in my paragraph directly above for you and you are mad because it goes against what you want. Not "oops" but instead that something deliberately deceitful is "not relevant". I assume then that by relevant you mean that supports what you want whether it is true or not. My impression of Wikipedia is changed in terms of it being any kind of reliable source. As I say, there are folks that attack Jason and then you do the same thing he does maybe worse. As I note above, apparently LBU has far more integrity and honesty than is demonstrated here. I would say you guys are trying to be funny except that I assume you are serious about it. You could not even manage to any clarity answer the issues noted and when Arbusto did above he was factually false. Thank you for the interesting er....debat....er....discussion. Nordundsud 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)NordundSud

This is a serious matter and it is important to correct. So please name one "blatant falsehood" in the article. And cite a "correct" source for that incorrect claim. Be specific so this can be addressed. Arbusto 07:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, indeed there is little interesting discussion to be had. Wikipedia does strive to be a reliable source; we do that by providing meaningful referenced facts. Not supposition based on select factoids; what was the point of saying LBU grads got into accredited institutions... unless you can establish there was weight given to their LBU credits? Since people with little or no post-secondary education get in as mature/part-time students all the time. There is no need to discuss how those facts are currently nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. I'll concede I may have missed some issues above, but you are posting so much noise and irrelevance here... that is bound to happen. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? They got into accredited Masters programs when the only other degree they had to get into it was an LBU degree and according to you that does not prove they got in with their LBU degree. So, maybe in Canada (if I recall you are from there) it is common place for "mature/part time students" to be admitted to Masters programs (evidently) with no undergraduate degree but this is not the case in the US. There are a couple of programs where you may have a combined BA/MA situation (eg some architecture programs). The US needs to send our older highschool grads up to Canada so they can complete their Masters without Bachelors (good investment of two years and just skip the BA). Huh.....you really do not expect that your "argument" holds water. In the US we get a Bachlors then Masters then doctorate.

Nordundsud 19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Nordunsud

LOL, my argument? My immediate response to this meme was "And?" As in provide such evidence; a little slow on providing it... now you mention a masters program. Do I have to write a few more paragraphs to illicit the details from you? Or are you willing to volunteer them? Such as, what masters program(s)? Religious or secular? Prerequisites needed? (SAT's, high school grades, entrance exam) Combined BA/MA or not? Or you could simply find a reference stipulating LBU is recognized by said institutions. At this pace we should have this resolved in a few weeks. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question (though I posted this above without the quote) "Louisiana Baptist University matches several of the criteria for diploma mills, as defined by the US Department of Education (USDE). Primarily, if a university is accredited, but not by an agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), then it may not be a reputable institution. [6] LBU and the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools are not listed by CHEA, nor is the school listed as a charity. [7]" This is from the Wikipedia Article. It goes on to say that the AACTS (or whatever is not a recognized agency).

AACTS sounds similiar to a CHEA recognized group although it is not. That section is correct. What is true, but no mentioned in this article is AACTS "approves" some very shady schools and some that have been fined by the government.

You want to soften the facts to make your degrees look better. That is not acceptable. Arbusto 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The implication here is that Louisiana University claims accreditation by an agency not recognized by CHEA/US Dept of ED. LBU does not. As I mentioned above, Check page 17 of their catalogue. In fact when you review their catalogue they are so blatant about the fact that they are NOT accredited and that their education and counseling degrees will have limited utility because you cannot be licensed due to the lack of accreditation. The above paragraph and a couple of other things in the same section are misleading at best and out and out falsehoods at worst. Anyone could have checked this out.

Okay, so they mention they are unaccredited. So does the article. A diploma mill expert has called LBU a diploma mill. That is why its there. See the archive for massive amounts of discussion and debate. Arbusto 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I thought you were being genuine and you are not. You must be intelligent enough to follow and argument so I have to conclude your motivation is not good. You article clearly distorts the life credit experience issue and above it directly says "if a university is accredited, but not by an agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation" then it is suspect. I said the implication is that LBU is accredited by an agency that is not recognized. It is not and does not claim to be. Your intent is to therefore leave a false and misleading statement in. That is unacceptable (except to Wikipedia and you). Who is your expert...Steve Levicoff. He wrote the book "Name it and Claim it" before he became a truck driver and himself admits that it is so outdated it is so old. I respect Steve but for what it is worth on a couple of the disucssion boards if I recall correctly he called Regionally Accredited Northcentral and Touro U International diploma mills (or implied as much). Surely he is not the expert you refer to. Which is not relevant to the fact that you intend to leave false and misleading information in the article. Can we say A-G-E-N-D-A. Nordundsud 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

On another note, as an unaccredited school LBU has sought to operate with integrity (they had bumps in the road early on) and to establish some credibility. Their grads have been accepted on the basis of their LBU degrees at the schools I mention (as I said this in no way means blanket acceptance) but in my opinion is relevant (even if not for your article). A diploma mill would be unlikely to have that happen or to have the Attorney General of the United States speak at commencement. Nor would a diploma mill be getting accredited universities to attest to LBU's equivalence for purpose of the United States military Chaplaincy. The fact that the largest Christian Counseling organization in the world (50,000) members has LBU on their list of "affirmed and supported" academic institutions (institutions that strive for academic excellence and character ...or some language) is unlikely considering AACC's standing if LBU were a diploma mill.

Not true. You have failed to provide evidence that "their grads have been accepted on the basis of their LBU degrees at the schools I mention...". No evidence whatsoever. Arbusto 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not worth doing. You would not change anything if I did. It is verifiable but pointless. Regents has a web site listing LBU grads as accepted into their law school, a Liberty grad has info that clearly show his other degrees coming from LBU before his Liberty doctorate, etc. Not relevant though because if I went to all the work of proving this (you could do it as well), you would come up with some other half baked excuse for why this does not matter. Why waste my time.

Nordundsud 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

LBU is what it is...an open and honest unaccredited school proving education to meet denominational needs of the BBFI and beyond. They have taken great pains to establish some sort of credibility through all of the things I mention above. They are not saying they are accredited nor am I. I will say there is no proof of substandard education, etc and when I look at some regionally accredited schools like they University of Phoenix....I have to say LBU is superior.

Putting in that is superior due to your personal experience violates wikipedia policy. Arbusto 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

???I am not asking you to put it in the article. Are you saying that you cannot even post that in the discussion section???

Nordundsud 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

{As a side historical note (i.e. not necessarily relevant)......Union Institute, University of Sarasota (now Arogsy) and Capella were all accused of being diploma mills in their early days. I think Union may have had it happen while they were regionally accredited. All are doctoral degree granting institutions. All are regionally accredited now. Capella was attacked by Regents of the Minnesota Education system if I recall correctly}.

Nordundsud 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

Clearly, you have no interest in facts and simply minimize anything that does not meet the agenda you have. This has been amazing and amusing. You blindly ignore anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions about LBU. Even issues I mention with people and organizations etc that make LBU credible you disregard. Your argumentation has been unsatisfactory in that you usually fail to address what is in the paragraph and pick up on one little thing to dance down a bunny trail on. You make strange blanket statements like "you did not present any facts", when show you I did (regardless of whether you want to include them or not) you fail to address them. You make the wrong statement that law schools and unversities do NOT accept unaccredited degrees. I said they do occasionally but not as a matter of course (rare but it happens). You are wrong. It is verifable but pointless to do so. Couple of examples (in each case the LBU degree is followed by an accredited higher level degree degree). The Liberty example you can find if I recall in the LBU catalogue.

http://law.regent.edu/admissions/collegesrep.cfm

http://www.fbcd.net/StaffCodiK.htm

http://www.graceuniversity.edu/2006-07Catalog/Directories/AdjunctFaculty.html

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:pvhC4kxWJ-AJ:https://www.sagu.edu/academics/catalogs/undergrad/0506/personnel-directory.pdf+%22Louisiana+Baptist+University%22%22University%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=47

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:KHq6UGqtTucJ:www.brite.tcu.edu/student/bsg/brite%2520email%2520newsletter%2520mar.htm+%22Louisiana+Baptist+University%22%22college%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=139

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tps1tt7HJycJ:www.tbc.edu/cms/page.aspx%3Fpageid%3D295+%22Louisiana+Baptist+Theological+seminary%22%22Seminary%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=42

I don't even have to go as far as LBU to prove you wrong. BJU grads (unaccredited) have been accepted into some of the best grad schools in the nation for years. PCC grads have gone on to earn accredited degrees. I laughed when I saw your statement and niavete. GOOGLE man...GOOGLE........... :-) Don't feel bad...as most Americans do not understand the educational system here.

LBU isn't BJU. BJU has top ranked departments. BJU is currently a canidate for accreditation.[36] Arbusto 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Next time you consult a distance education expert, try someone other than Steve Levicoff. If he is the one calling LBU a mill give me a break (I am rolling on the floor laughing). As I mention above before he became a truck driver he wrote "Name it and Frame it". I have heard his research efforts and methodology criticized. On top of that he has called Northcentral U and Touro U International mills (or something implying that) on an education board I frequent. Both of them are Regionally Accredited doctoral level schools. His own Union (where he got his PhD)was once called a mill and has been under scrutiny recently but came through it. Please note I am NOT saying Union is a mill. I believe most (or a good portion) of his Bachelors was portfolio credit (Life credit) at an accredited under grad institution. Steve is a good guy but given to hyperbole and grandiose statements (like calling universities mills that end up Regionally Accredited). Next time I can recommend a distance learning expert with a more impressive track record.

Okay..so you ignore facts....argue around problems you don't like to address and have let what is blatantly wrong and misleading remain in the Wikipedia article. LBU displays far more character and integrity. The Wikipedia article is half done, misleading (and apparently based on our dialogue deliberately designed to be so). Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Nordundsud 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

You have failed to provide evidence that "their grads have been accepted on the basis of their LBU degrees at the schools I mention...". Arbusto 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also on a side note about LBU academics, what is your opinion of this LBU approved "dissertation"[37], which the author received a "doctorate" for. Is this the quality work of a regionally accredited school or the work one might see at an unaccredited distance school? Arbusto 01:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

i) I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Steve L. is indeed your "expert". As I said, I am laughing. Steve is a bright guy and given hyperbole (like calling accredited schools mills (or as much). His book written well before he became a truck driver is more than a decade out of date.

ii) Your statement that I failed to prove grads got into the schools with their LBU degrees is nonsense. I gave you SIX examples of people with a lower LBU degree (eg BA) then earning their next degree (accredited) at the Masters level. Come on Arbustoo! No, they got into the accredited Masters programs not based on their only other degree (LBU) but on the basis of their fresh breath and nice smile. Oh yeah..happens all the time here....people get into Masters programs because they had fresh breath...yeah...that is the ticket. To not accept this issue you are really reaching to defend an indefensable position.

iii) Wikipedia has a blatantly false implication (assertion) under the mill section claiming that LBU is accredited by an unrecognized agency (and therefore is a mill). You cannot prove this because it is wrong. I have suggested you look at their catalogue and you did not. They do not claim unrecognized accreditation. They are so honest about it it is not even funny.

iv) I question your motives as you are unable to defend your position. I notice on your page a link to a Skeptics page. Are you anti fundamentalist schools possibly? It would explain your dogged adherence to a postion in the face of facts. Personally, I am a rather liberal Christian but I believe in being academically honest. I know as does LBU their limitations and past mistakes. They are open about them.

As I said, their is no point arguing as I susepct that Steve L. was your "expert" (hee...hee), and your position as evidenced above may have little to do with facts and more to do with a political position or inability to admit you are wrong.

LBU is unaccredited - And Open About it. LBU's degrees have limitations and LBU is honest about them. LBU makes no claims of accreditation (Wikipedia article makes false implication under mill section and is easily provable as false...refer to LBU site). LBU is one of six colleges owned or endorsed by the 4000 Church BBFI LBU is on the affirmed and supported list (strive for academic excellense, etc) of the 50,000 member American Association of Christian Counselors http://www.aacc.net LBU has attracted a whose who in Baptist Circles as Commencement speakers. Attorney General Ashcroft was a commencement speaker, etc. LBU graduates range from Grant Jeffery to the head of the AWANA organization. LBU graduates are able to qualify as military Chaplains (not an easy task for an unaccredited school as they must get three letters from accredited seminaries willing to attest to the equivalency and acceptabilty. LBU grads have been accepted to further their education using their LBU degrees. This is likely a case by case basis so not to be taken as universal. See: http://law.regent.edu/admissions/collegesrep.cfm

http://www.fbcd.net/StaffCodiK.htm

http://www.graceuniversity.edu/2006-07Catalog/Directories/AdjunctFaculty.html

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:pvhC4kxWJ-AJ:https://www.sagu.edu/academics/catalogs/undergrad/0506/personnel-directory.pdf+%22Louisiana+Baptist+University%22%22University%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=47

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:KHq6UGqtTucJ:www.brite.tcu.edu/student/bsg/brite%2520email%2520newsletter%2520mar.htm+%22Louisiana+Baptist+University%22%22college%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=139

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tps1tt7HJycJ:www.tbc.edu/cms/page.aspx%3Fpageid%3D295+%22Louisiana+Baptist+Theological+seminary%22%22Seminary%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=42

So, Arbusto...you are welcome to continue to permit the inaccurate statement in the Wikipedia paragraph and ignore the facts for whatever purpose you have in mind. LBU has been honest about its mistakes, limitations and so on. It is not close to a mill. The Attorney General would not have been a commencement speaker were they, the AACC would not have endorsed them were they, the military would not have allowed the degrees use for the chaplaincy were they..and so on. Those grads would not have gone on to earn accrredited higher degrees evidently based on their LBU degree were they.

19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

Links to LBU

Their online form has a section for life credit: [38] and also here (Experiential Learning Credits). Assertion of "accredation" is implied here: Why Choose LBU, seventh bullet; "...As an approved school of the BBFI ..." Futher, their constant use of "degreed programs" etc gives the clear impression these are valid degrees. They are not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)