Talk:James Kirk diploma mills

unsigned comment

LaSalle University should not be considered a "diploma mill" because the students actually submitted course work in addition to tuition and fees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.79.77 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is important is what statements are verifiable TallMagic (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Are statements from former students, professors, and employees varifiable? I'd say you should see the references made in this discussion to the testimonies given by them. Although Kirk was convicted of fraud, it was in fact due to deception that LaSalle was accredited. The term diploma mill should be removed from this article and LaSalle should not be considered such, as has been stated, because students did not just exchange money for a diploma. Coursework was submitted, graded, and yes, sometimes not accepted. Texascrane (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Texascrane, statements by former students, professors, and employees are verifiable when they conform to the Wikipedia wp:verifiable policy. Which essentially means that they are documented in a Wikipedia:reliable source. The definition of diploma mill is varied and can reasonably mean many different things. What is important from a Wikipedia point of view is that LaSalle has been referred to as a diploma mill in reliable sources. Perhaps those reliable sources glossed over the issues that you raised or perhaps the authors of those articles chose to focus on other areas or a different context when choosing that wording? For example, perhaps they decided to use a definition of diploma mill to mean that the owner of the institution was convicted of fraud for the running of that institution? Is that fair to the LaSalle alumni? I don't know but the answer to that question, while interesting, is tangential to the question of did multiple reliable sources refer to LaSalle as a diploma mill? Wikipedia's purpose is to try and report on what the main stream opinion and ideas of things are, not really to provide a sounding board for minority views that are not generally accepted. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent multiple reverts

Hi Apparent Logic,

The references I believe that you've tried to add seem to have the following problems.

http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf This court case is not apparently relevant. This is a case about a newspaper versus someone with a degree from a university that was started up by James Kirk. You seem to draw unsupported conclusions that don't apply to the topic at hand. These statements appear to be a violation of the wp:NOR policy. It appears to me that the paragraphs on this court case are all undue weight when taken in the proper context which is James Kirk diploma mills.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2796404 is not a reliable source

Your comment seemed to claim seven new references or something like that. I only noticed two. Perhaps I missed a few though? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion on article to article talk rather than user talk

Hi, TallMagic. You indicated "see talk" on your last revert of my article, but I couldn't find your entry on my talk page. One of the difficulties of this particular topic is that after a decade, most proof sources are not existant, or exist on the web as opinion pages or blogs. I was hoping to include the one brick court reference as it is from a respected source (London Legal opinion website, http://www.onebrickcourt.com/about.asp), well researched, and helps to substantiate 3 important points that may bring fair balance to this article.

(1) Legality: LaSalle was legally registered as a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation licensed through the State of Louisiana under the title "World Christian Church". (John Bear notes this in his summary, and the 501c(3) status of LaSalle opened Kirk to prosecution by federal authorities)

(2) Quality of coursework: According to the central findings of the court case, Paul McKenna v MGN Ltd [7/28/2006] (and the reason damages were granted to the plaintiff, a graduate of LaSalle), LaSalle did not grant degrees simply in return for a cash payment (the truest definition of a "diploma mill"), students continued in some cases for several years, and although LaSalle granted limited credits for "life-learning", the institution required students to purchase textbooks and submit essays for grading. According to the findings of the court, LaSalle's "Masters" and "Doctorate" programs typically required the writing of a Thesis or Dissertation (although it is arguable how "good" many of these were). In McKenna's case, he was also permitted to do a "project" of recorded counseling tapes, which he submitted to LaSalle. Also according to the findings of the court, many of the students at LaSalle University were required (or chose to use) local Adjunct Faculty (Ph.D.'s from accredited institutions) to serve as their professor for coursework as well as advisor for Dissertations, Doctoral Projects or Thesis.

(3) The downfall of Lasalle, was that as a 501c(3), LaSalle University decided to create a fraudulent entity, the "Council on Postsecondary Christian Education," (COPCE) to illegally serve as its own accreditation body. LaSalle deceived students as well as employers (many employers requested proof of accreditation as a prerequisite to subsidizing education of employees, and students received a copy of the COPCE certification papers if they asked for proof of the university's accreditation). It was this fact that brought the institution down and resulted in the prosecution of Kirk, not because he was running a "diploma mill". This is also substantiated by the court case. LaSalle certainly was not accredited, but as Judge Eady noted in his legal findings "it was not a prerequisite for granting degrees in the US that a university should be accredited". (http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf) This is apparently not true in all states however, Texas being a notable exception and the location of one of the adverse findings against a LaSalle student noted in Orlady's (and others) original version of this article.

The way the article reads in your previous reversion, it paints the students with the same broad brush that paints Kirk. I believe that the Paul McKenna case must be included to show that the students of LaSalle were largely victims of this deception, not participants in it. Additionally, presenting 2 negative findings and ignoring one positive finding is not fair balance. I encourage you to let my edits stand. Apparent Logic (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my concerns in the previous section. In addition, I would like to mention that perhaps an acceptable use of the UK court case would be one sentence something along the lines that in one court case it seemed that at least one graduate did do some amount of work for their degree. The recent edits seem to assert more than what the case actually demonstrated. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: TallMagic, Since I have already put this much work into the edit, here goes: I will address each of the previously stated concerns. John Bear (used as current proof source on this article) cites no proof sources in his article found on diplomas.com, although almost all that he states matches with accounts found in the one brick court legal summary. These are the topics concerning which several reputable and trustworthy sources are in agreement, but are not clearly spelled out in the wikipedia article:

(1) LaSalle was legally registered as a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation licensed through the State of Louisiana under the title "World Christian Church". Page 2, paragraph 4: "owned by the World Christian Church, which had been incorporated in 1989 under the laws of Louisiana". http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf John Bear reference: "World Christian Church owned the university" http://www.degree.net/html/diploma_mills.html In 1996, Christianity Today reported Thomas Kirk was president of "World Christian Church a Mandeville, Louisiana-based Christian organization" that operated LaSalle, and that the FBI seized more than $10 million-including an $8 million investment account-from LaSalle University. The author clearly points out that it was not the fact that the organization was a "diploma mill" that brought about it's closure, but stated "An affidavit filed in U.S. District Court by FBI special agent Alexis Hatten cited mail fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering as the basis for the seizure". http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html

(2) The topic of this section is "James Kirk Diploma Mill" but there is clear evidence (below) that at least one of the institutions Kirk was associated with LaSalle was not merely offering diplomas for cash. The students of LaSalle were victims of the deception (this is absolutely omitted in your reversion): The author of the Christianity Today piece states that the students were victims of the deception: "[FBI Special Agent] Hatten's affidavit said during the past several years more than 100 LaSalle students have complained about various aspects of the school, including "its bogus accreditation," and the charging of significant hidden costs to students". http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html This is further verified by one brick court ducuments which state that LaSalle University decided to create a fraudulent entity, the "Council on Postsecondary Christian Education," (COPCE) to illegally serve as its own accreditation body. http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf (paragraph 5, page 3, top of page) which clearly substantiates from several sources, including an FBI warrant, that LaSalle deceived students using the ruse of this fraudulent accreditation scheme. One brick court substantiates that students were misled: "[in] November of that year [1996], [Kirk] entered a plea of guilty on the basis that he had misled students into believing that the institution was accredited for the granting of degrees when, in truth, it was not." (page 3, top) and that fraudulent claims of accreditation, not unlawful degrees was the central issue: "Mr Kirk’s problem was not that he, or the university, had been granting degrees unlawfully, but rather that he had been pretending that the institution had been accredited for the purpose when it had not." Many of the students of Lasalle were compensated by the Federal Goverment for this deception: "Department of Justice had explained to the House of Representatives’ Committee on Banking, “La Salle defrauded unsuspecting students by leading them to believe that they were accredited... [numerous students] submitted a claim form for compensation to the United States government in January 1998, because [they] recognised

that [their] degree had been devalued by the revelation that the university had not been accredited. In due course, [Mckenna] received compensation but only a proportion of the fees he had paid out." Another source, chirowatch also labels the students as victims and confirms that "In 1998, all monies seized by the FBI were forfeited, and returned to the victim-students as restitution". http://www.chirowatch.com/Chiro-fake-diplomas/ "One Brick court also substantiates that students had other reasons to believe that Lasalle was legitimate: "La Salle had been included in statistics collated by the National Centre for Education Statistics (a federal body), which recorded the fact that in 19941995 it had granted six doctorates in hypnotherapy. No suggestion was apparently made that these were in any way invalid..." And "[Lasalle] applied for accreditation, which was a matter still being considered at the time it went out of business in 2001" and "had been awarded a temporary licence" giving the university an appearance of legitimacy. http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf (page 3).

Additionally, the one brick court case points out that Lasalle followed published guidelines when assessing credits for prior life learning of students "Since 1974 there has been a supervisory body called the Council for Adult Education Learning (known as “CAEL”). This

publishes a guide book on the assessment of “prior learning” for obtaining exemptions from formal academic qualifications. La Salle followed this guide. This process can apparently be used either when obtaining entrance to a university course or for the purpose of obtaining exemptions from certain parts of the course itself."

(3) You stated that the One Brick Court case shows "at least one graduate [McKenna] did do some amount of work for their degree", but on the contrary Christianity Today states that "more than 100" students complained about various aspects of the school, including "its bogus accreditation," and the "charging of significant hidden costs to students". http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html These complaints to the FBI certainly wouldn't have been made if these students were merely paying for a diploma. Diploma Mills charge a fee. The fee is paid. The purchaser receives a diploma. These students were charged for their classes by LaSalle and expected that their work would result in an accredited degree.

Additionally, the One Brick Court document calls McKenna "one of many innocent victims of Mr Kirk’s misrepresentations" (p. 3) Additional proof from 3 other graduates of LaSalle that numerous students did work for their degrees appears on page 10, "Evidence from La Salle alumni or former staff": "I heard evidence from John Nemecek who is currently an associate professor at Spring Arbor University, Michigan, where he teaches both undergraduate and graduate students. There is a mix of distance learning and face to face teaching. It is an institution accredited by the North Central Association, although not yet for the granting of PhD degrees. In the course of his career he has been associated in one capacity or another with a number of American universities which were accredited. He was also awarded a doctorate at La Salle, which he earned by compliance with the LaSalle academic requirements, including the submission of a dissertation. This has apparently been recognised by Spring Arbor and he stills calls himself “Dr” Nemecek....What his evidence clearly confirms, however, is that the process was not a charade and that more was required than the mere payment of cash."

A second LaSalle student's testimony is also recorded (page 10): "Mr Orlowski ...had also obtained a doctorate from La Salle in the mid-nineties. His field was engineering and he had acted in the capacity of an expert witness in motor accident cases in various courts in the United States. He applied to La Salle in 1994 and duly received exemptions through the process of credentialization from the course requirements except that he had to take the compulsory paper on religious studies and to produce a thesis or dissertation. He was a student for over three years before obtaining his doctorate. This was because he was working and therefore not able to devote himself full time to the La Salle requirements. There were periods when he had to put that work aside. The content of his final paper was published in 1995, the year after he registered as a student, as part of a book. La Salle was aware of this and no objection was taken. The subject of his thesis was an analysis of how trucks are affected by shifting cargo loads. This evidence also confirms that the obtaining of his degree was not a mere formality."

A staff member of Lasalle also testified, "...Dr Dale Norris. He is currently Assistant Professor of Education at the Nicholls State University, which is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The significance of his evidence is that he was for a relatively brief period (about 18 months starting the summer of 1996) a part-time member of the staff at La Salle". He was able to confirm that there was some substance to the education offered by LaSalle and that he was "genuine in his supervision and assessment of students in 1996-97.". (page 3, page 11). The sworn testimony of Dr. Norris further confirmed that "He confirmed that he supervised his students and critically appraised their work. There was a significant proportion of students whose work was rejected. While that may arguably reflect on La Salle’s admissions system, it clearly confirms that it was not prepared to grant degrees merely in exchange for the payment of cash." (page 11) and that "some LaSalle doctorates were properly assessed (e.g. in the case of Dr Nemecek and Dr Orlowski)," (page 13).

A forth students story is found on the Las Vegas Mercury website: "Sally St. John, a longtime drug counselor and local television personality, says she was lured into getting her doctorate in psychology from LaSalle because it claimed to be a faith-based school. "I wanted a Christian-based college," she recalls. "I paid several thousand dollars and went to them for two years. I worked my ass off and was told LaSalle was a fully accredited college. I had 10 or 12 textbooks and had a dissertation to complete and defend. They made me rewrite it and rewrite it. Then I found out they lied about their accreditation, but I was told the Ph.D. was still valid." She says she hired a lawyer, who told her she couldn't sue since her degree technically was from an accredited school. ...When LaSalle was shut down, St. John insists it was the students who were the losers. "I feel for the people who were the victims." http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jan-01-Thu-2004/22879236.html

(4) The degree awarded by Lasalle was judged valid by Justice Eady. The finding of the court in this case was that "the PhD was unaccredited but lawfully conferred upon him, was earned by his own original work." http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf (page 14)

Apparent Logic (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Apparent Logic, thank you for the response. It appears to me that you feel the article should be titled "People that James Kirk diploma mills have defrauded". This is not the topic of the article. I believe that many of your statements are not really supported by the sources. For example, just because someone complained about the school it doesn't mean that they even received a degree. It doesn't mean that the work they did was up to standard. You seem to assert that the UK court decision proves that the degree was valid. This is absolutely not true. All that was proven was that the newspaper article had overstepped in their statement when criticizing the education of the hypnotist. It did not in any way prove that the amount of work done for the degree was up to standard. Most of your points are not relevant to the article, IMHO. Whether or not the school required work or not is not relevant to whether or not the school was called a diploma mill in wp:verifiable sources. It is not relevant to whether or not the school was a James Kirk owned school. What is important is the wp:verifiable information. Doing original research to expose the fine details to Wikipedia readers is a violation of Wikipedia policies. It goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia to even attempt such information. The purpose of an encyclopedia (at least this encyclopedia) is to collect together known, agreed upon, and already published facts. May I suggest that in future discussions instead of writing a large essay describing everything that you'd like to say, that instead we discuss small pieces, just a small piece at a time. I think that will help keep us focused on the Wikipedia article and make the communication more focused and clearer. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TallMagic. Thanks for your response. Lets discuss small pieces that I believe are necessary to give this article balance. IMHO, the article as it stands is not balance, nor is it well written. Merely reverting will get the article nowhere and will waste a lot of the effort we have already invested in this.

(1) LaSalle was legally registered as a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation licensed through the State of Louisiana under the title "World Christian Church". Bear points this out, as does the FBI special agent statement reported by Christianity Today and the one brick court legal document. This is unusal for a "diploma mill".

(2) Students were required to do some level of work as a requirement for earning their degrees. This is not the case with most diploma mills which grant degrees for cash.

(3) The article as it stands makes the students appear as "co-perpetrators" in the fraud committed by Kirk. This is apparently not true based on multiple sources as "academic" as the sources cited in the article in it's present form.

Response 1: You stated: It appears to me that you feel the article should be titled "People that James Kirk diploma mills have defrauded". Not true. But the way the article currently reads, it should be entitled "James Kirk Diploma Mills and the just recompense of "students" paying cash for his illegal degrees". Just needs some balance. The article quotes a page on a public website, and www.diplomas.com (Bears statement) where he uses no other references than his own opinion on the site. I don't disagree with Bear, but shouldn't the same standard apply here. We are depending on his memory of the incident. Is it first hand? My point is that it is an equivalent reference to the court document and Christianity Today article (a major and respected christian magazine and news source). I'll follow with more later. Apparent Logic (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Legal status is not really significant when judging academic legitimacy. Appealing to legal status for academic legitimacy is kind of like a business saying that they're a restaurant because they have a business license and they're selling pictures of food. It is not true that it is unusual for a diploma mill to have a legal business license.

(2) It is very common for diploma mills to require some level of work for a degree. For example perhaps the most notorious diploma mill from the 90's was Columbia State University that advertised "get your degree in 28 days" required a paper before the degrees were bestowed.

(3) I disagree that the current article makes the students appear as "co-conspirators". Students are only mentioned once as one example and the article doesn't besmurch that one guy, IMHO.

The article is not about people defrauded. Balancing that information doesn't need balancing because the article doesn't even really talk about that? Your reference to some quote from www.diploma.com is a mystery to me. I don't see the quote. If there was such a quote in a published source then it would be wp:verifiable and could possibly be used in a Wikipedia article somewhere. If something is not wp:verifiable and is at all controversial or questionable then it can't be in Wikipedia anyplace. I'm all for improving the Wikipedia articles but adding stuff to a Wikpedia article that is not wp:verifiable or is not really relevant to the article is best reverted. Perhaps if you suggested exact wording for some proposed article enhancements we can work some things out? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic: I'll post with references. Lets work from there. Got 4 hours invested in this research thus far, and I'm sure you've put a lot into it as well.

My responses to your points: 1) "Legal status is not really significant when judging academic legitimacy. Appealing to legal status for academic legitimacy is kind of like a business saying that they're a restaurant because they have a business license and they're selling pictures of food. It is not true that it is unusual for a diploma mill to have a legal business license."

I didn't say that...I agree that it may not be unusual for a diploma mill to have a legal business license, but the 501c(3) status is MUCH harder to achieve than a "business license". It was this status alone that exposed Kirk to prosecution when he created a fraudulent accreditation body. It's like defrauding Medicare. The penalties are MUCH greater than defrauding a private insurance company. You may not do time for the latter, but you certainly will for the former. Remember what Martha Stewart got for lying to the FBI? John Bear himself (the favored proof text in the original article) notes in his summary on www.Degree.net (by the way a website which is a website registered to an individual living on the island of vanuatu), [please note: I am NOT impugning John Bear or the Website...I agree with most of what is in it...just comparing wp:verifiable of that website to wp:verifiable of Christianity today and wp:verifiable of One Brick Court. John Bear's point (and I agree) that it is very difficult for these Diploma Mill organizations to be legally shut down. In that light, the 503(c) status of Lasalle is VERY important. Also, as mentioned in the report from the Las Vegas Mercury, it was a factor in causing students to believe in the legitimacy of the school.

(2) You stated: "It is very common for diploma mills to require some level of work for a degree. For example perhaps the most notorious diploma mill from the 90's was Columbia State University that advertised "get your degree in 28 days" required a paper before the degrees were bestowed."

Noted. But 2 proof sources and the sworn testimony of 2 students and 1 professor of Lasalle, (One Brick Court) and a report in the Las Vegas Mercury indicate that numerous students spent 1 to 2 years on their degrees, not 28 days. I can't believe that anyone who was told they'd get their degree in less than one month would believe it was legitimate. 1-2 years, maybe so. Even John Bear concedes that this might be so in up to half of folks receiving degrees from diploma mills. Certainly an organization requiring 1 to 2 years and significant amounts of academic work might be even more likely to deceive students regarding its legitimacy. The media sources quoted are wp:verifiable and certainly similar to wp:verifiable Dallas-Fort Worth Channel 8 and wp:verifiable News 8 Austin (two similar media sources currently in your approved version of the original article).

(3) You stated: "The article is not about people defrauded. Balancing that information doesn't need balancing because the article doesn't even really talk about that? Your reference to some quote from www.diploma.com is a mystery to me. I disagree that the current article makes the students appear as "co-conspirators". Students are only mentioned once as one example and the article doesn't besmurch that one guy, IMHO.". Meant www.diploma.net. Typo. John Bear reference. I wasn't refuting it. Even John Bear speaks to the defrauding of students and their employers by diploma mills. LaSalle is important because in my research of this article (I stumbled upon looking for info on James T Kirk), it appears to be different from the other diploma mills mentioned in this article started by Kirk in that it brought him down, and clearly affected tens of thousands of student-victims. Most sources I found point to this, and it sets this group apart from folks paying for a degree by mail. Really needs to be mentioned for balance. Also I disagree that an article about a Texas cop (who is called a gypsy cop) being fired from his job due to his degree is somehow not negative. I agree that the News Austin 8 article doesn't seem to be negative. http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=172545 It apparently is wp:verifiable and does substantiate several things that I would like to include in the article (1) A dissertation was required (he spent 6 or 7 months on a 150 page dissertation) and (2) coursework was required.

Apparent Logic (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Logic, you're obviously passionate about proving that LaSalle alumni were defrauded. Personally I suspect that most of them were defrauded by Mr. Kirk. However, this is not what the article is supposed to be about. Documenting people that claimed to do some work for a diploma mill degree seems like completely uninteresting trivia to me. I don't think it contributes positively to the overall article. It is mostly just people's claims. People sometime lie. I believe that when confronted with bogus academic credentials, that most people will probably lie about it. Perhaps another way of stating it is that they will tend to try to exaggerate the work they did. You seem to keep talking about a John Bear website as if it were a reference in the article. It is not a reference in the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Critic of Recent Edit

I thought it would perhaps be helpful to explain why all the recent attempts to edit the article have been reverted. To start off with, there are much fewer false statements in the current revert (done by Orlady) than in previous. I do appreciate that it appears that there's an attempt to try and be more careful with assertions being made. There are still problems that appear to me to likely be POV pushing. When one is editting an article that say calls a school a diploma mill and say the editor has a degree from said diploma mill then one must be extra careful when editting to make sure that there's no original research and that everything is wp:verifiable as well as being stated in a neutral point of view. The recent edits have been reverted because they did not adhere to these principles. Now for detailed examples from the most recent edit reverted by Orlady. Here's the edit I'm referring to. [1]

"Illegal activity surrounding LaSalle University was the reason Kirk was ultimately prosecuted and jailed." This assertion seems to ignore the fact that his activities associated with his other diploma mills also contributed to his downfall.

"LaSalle did not grant degrees simply in return for a cash payment (the truest definition of a "diploma mill")" This statement is an unsupported assertion. The references say that apparently some alumni claim to have done work and that there's really only ONE alumni where there was more than just the alumni's claim to back up the assertion. No where does it say that LaSalle did not at least sometime grant degrees simply for a cash payment. The paranthetical statement is personal opinion of the editor which is not allowed in Wikipedia.

"and although LaSalle apparently granted credits for "life-learning", the institution required students to purchase textbooks and submit essays for grading." No where in the references does it say that LaSalle required all students to purchase textbooks and submit essays for grading.

"Lasalle students were required to produce some level of academic work for their degrees," Same kind of problem, the assertions made in the edit are not really supported by the references.

Here was some examples from just the first 3 or 4 sentences of the added text. Almost every statement has a problem in that it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. That is why the edits need to be reverted. The edits are just wrong and so problematic that they aren't really salvageable. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

Tall Magic: Granted the absolute statements are unsupported by the proof sources. No where does a proof source say ALL of the students were required to produce what some of the students were verified to have done. Never had so much trouble contributing a single keystroke to any wiki article. How about substituting "some"? Regarding your response to the statement:

"Illegal activity surrounding LaSalle University was the reason Kirk was ultimately prosecuted and jailed." This assertion seems to ignore the fact that his activities associated with his other diploma mills also contributed to his downfall.

Kirks other activities with other Diploma Mills did not bring him down. The fraudulent COPCE accreditation as the owner of a 501(c)3 was his downfall. It is verifiable. It was the source of the fraud charges brought by the FBI. Request: How about adding in one brick court and the Christianity today references to give the article more depth. http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf and http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html The Christianity Today article states "FBI special agent Alexis Hatten cited mail fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering as the basis for the seizure". That's the reason for the closure and downfall of Kirk. One brick court has the statements of 3 students and 1 professor at LaSalle. Apparent Logic (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, there is no wp:verifiable statements as far as I know that provides any feel for the percentage of degrees bestowed after zero work (or no significant work) being performed. I mean it could be anywhere from 0% to 99%. Therefore, you can't make any statements that imply most or all. That is just an unverifiable assertion. I think you are looking at Wikipedia edit tasks as an essay or term paper. It might be better for you to look at it as more of a summary task. Provide a summary of wp:verifiable information. You seem to be overly prone to making unsupported assertions. Your edits also appear to have an agenda behind them. All edits must follow the wp:NPOV policy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I said: "How about substituting "some"?" Not "most" or "all". Let's move past that. No agenda. Hopefully you do not either. I suggested merely adding 2 verifiable proof sources. What is the reason to refuse to add 2 additional proof sources: Christianity Today and One Brick court as references? http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf and http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html

No additional wording added?Apparent Logic (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Apparent Logic, I had no association with Mr. Kirk nor with any institution that he was associated with. I was responding as much if not more to your revert of Orlady's revert in my last comment than comments on this page. For example, Orlady was speaking in general terms as I've been and you focused in only on the explicit example that she gave. I'm not sure what the "some" refers to but it might be okay? I don't have a problem adding another sentence about the charges that put Mr. Kirk in jail. Those references look okay to me. Although as Orlady mentioned, depending very much on primary sources like the court documents in Wikipedia should be avoided when possible. Please review the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources policy. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TallMagic. Sounds reasonable. lets take this step by step.

(1) "I'm not sure what the "some" refers to but it might be okay?" I understand that you are agreeing that the statement "some second party sources suggest that some students were required to submit some level of coursework" is OK based on the two references [One Brick court, and Christianity Today] since both of them contain verifiable 2nd party accounts regarding at least 3 students?

(2) "I don't have a problem adding another sentence about the charges that put Mr. Kirk in jail. Those references look okay to me." I understand that you are agreeing that a statement about the 501c(3) status and COPCE as bringing about Kirks downfal is OK (citing both sources)?

(3)Your final statement : "Although as Orlady mentioned, depending very much on primary sources like the court documents in Wikipedia should be avoided when possible." Can you help me out with this? I reviewed your suggested reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources and found no mention of the advisability of excluding legal or court documents. I did find information that, to the contrary, suggests that "analyzing legal issues (i.e. court documents?) makes the publication "more reliable". I couldn't find any statement suggesting that court documents be excluded. My read is that they are classified as secondary sources, since they record sworn testimony of primary sources (witnesses). Your view?

"Reliable sources"

“In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers".

Would this make the Las Vegas Mercury http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jan-01-Thu-2004/22879236.html, Christianity Today (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1996/september16/6ta14c.html) reasonable 2nd party sources?

"Reliable sources, (continued)"

"As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication”.

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event" (a court document recording multiple witnesses' accounts of an event is one step removed, and as I understand it becomes a secondary source. Your view?)

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources".

My read is that this makes "One Brick Court" a useable secondary source "analyzing legal issues" surounding the case that brought down Kirk.

Thanks, Apparent Logic (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(1&2) sounds okay to me

(3)The Wikipedia policy that I linked to says

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; videos; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

A court document is a primary source. Please notice that "public hearings, trials" are primary sources. Please notice that this document under discussion is direct documentation related to the trail that we're talking about here! It has never been interpreted in a secondary source by anyone. Notice that I'm not a lawyer. I doubt that you're a lawyer. As an example as to why primary sources should be avoided, it is because of the inheriant dangers of laymen trying to interpret any legal document, which are primary sources. A secondary source is like a newspaper article or a magazine article. These secondary sources are one step removed from the trail. They have been interpreted by someone else. A tertiary source is like an encyclopedia, which is an additional interpretation step removed. It really seems obvious to me that court documents are primary sources. If you don't believe Orlady and I though, please feel free to ask for help from others. TallMagic (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus, please

Life is too short to immerse myself in lengthy harangues about this subject, IMO. However, I believe that the direction of the recent edits by Apparent Logic is seriously off-topic. This is an article about diploma mills operated by James Kirk. It is not an article about findings in UK libel suits regarding people who claimed degrees from these diploma mills, nor is it an article about the motives and perceptions of people who received degrees from these diploma mills.

The article should be focused on the James Kirk diploma mills, and about 99% of the new content should go away.

As for the specifics of Apparent Logic's concerns, I have a few comments:

• Diploma mills are a form of fraud, and no thoughtful observer would dispute the fact that the primary victims of their fraud are the students who pay good money on the expectation of receiving something of value. It is clear from the "literature" on diploma mills that some diploma mill students think they are enrolled in legitimate educational institutions and do a sizeable amount of work for their degrees. (For example, Laura Callahan says she put serious effort into her diploma mill PhD, mainly because she assumed she was supposed to do so.) The fact that a student in the UK convinced a judge that he thought he was receiving a legitimate education does not change the fact that the institution was a diploma mill. If there are reliable sources on the experiences of diploma mill victims, this would be a reasonable topic for inclusion in the article diploma mill, but the details of any one victim's experience with one particular diploma mill do not add value the article about that diploma mill.

The second category of diploma mill victims are the people and institutions that are defrauded by diploma mill degree recipients who pass themselves off as having valid professional qualifications. The fraud is more dangerous when a person claims qualifications as a medical doctor or psychologist than when the claimed qualification is a degree in something like paranormal phenomena, but it's fraud in any case. It appears to me that laws against using diploma mill degrees are aimed both at protecting the public against charlatans and at discouraging prospective students from "enrolling" in one of these institutions.

• There is no single hard-and-fast definition of "diploma mill". The lead section of diploma mill includes several definitions of the term. (I've even seen the term applied -- outside Wikipedia -- to the fully accredited U.S. universities that specialize in training teachers.) The fact that an institution requires students to buy textbooks or assigns some academic work does not mean that the institution is not a diploma mill. Indeed, a diploma mill that requires no academic work is not likely to be successful in luring "student" victims.

• From Apparent Logic's assertions about 501-c-3 status, I infer that Apparent Logic is not familiar with U.S. law regarding nonprofit organizations. 501-c-3 status provides no assurance of legitimacy; it is an Internal Revenue Service classification related to taxation. A local birdwatching club or a book club can have 501-c-3 status, but that does not mean that they can or should confer academic degrees.

--Orlady (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well put, Orlady. thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whew. That was close. Almost conceded 2 references. Apparent Logic (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Focus, Please:

Orlady: Very well put Orlady. Thank you for your response, but you misinterpret my previous posts. I am not saying that diploma mills are not fraudulent, nor am I saying that Kirk did not commit fraud.

You stated: There is no single hard-and-fast definition of "diploma mill". I agree. This, however, would be nice to come out in the article. Some peddle degrees, and the students participate in the fraud. Some are sophisticated and deceive their students. Could we have this statement in the article?

As I said, the meaning of "diploma mill" is discussed in diploma mill. That article, not this one (nor the other articles about specific diploma mills), is the place to discuss the ways that students either participate in or are deceived by these frauds. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You stated: "The fact that a student in the UK convinced a judge that he thought he was receiving a legitimate education does not change the fact that the institution was a diploma mill". Not arguing with that. My point is that it would be useful to reference the case because it contains sworn testimony from 3 students and 1 former professor of LaSalle. This is unique stuff and it doesn't exist elsewhere. It sheds additional light on the topic of James Kirk Diploma Mills. (Before you respond "no primary sources", please see my note below)

The sworn testimony of three students and one professor has information value, but considering that the testimony related only to personal experiences as participants (not, for example, the findings of an investigation) and different witnesses apparently gave some conflicting information, the information value of the testimony is pretty limited. Most importantly, however, that court case was not focused on whether the institution's claims to legitimacy were accurate, but rather on whether Mr. McKenna perceived that the institution was legitimate and whether he had worked for his degree. Although the court document includes alleged facts about the institution, those facts are presented only as part of a background section that presents the long and convoluted history of the libel case, and they do not appear to be directly relevant to (much less part of) the court's judgment regarding Mr. McKenna's perceptions and motives. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You stated: "From Apparent Logic's assertions about 501-c-3 status, I infer that Apparent Logic is not familiar with U.S. law regarding nonprofit organizations. 501-c-3 status provides no assurance of legitimacy." I am quite familiar with 501-c-3 law. (I sucessfully registered and co-directed a 501-c(3) from 1976 to 1980.) I did not state that "501-c-3 status provides an assurance of legitimacy". But it does SUGGEST legiticimacy. I am simply trying to state that it was SPECIFICALLY the 501-c-3 status that (1) put Kirk in special peril of Federal prosecution when he committed fraud by creating COPCE and (2) Students were more likely to be deceived by a federal 501-c-3 status of LaSalle, or may have specifically chosen Lasalle because of that fact (For example, Laura Callahan). Not many diploma mills have a 501-c-3 status (of which I am aware). If so, they are at special risk of being shut down. That is all I was trying to point out.

Thank you for clarifying. In dealing with diploma mill articles in Wikipedia, I have seen that diploma mills often use various essentially irrelevant certifications as indicators of legitimacy. These might include membership in the local chamber of commerce, affiliation with a Better Business Bureau, and honorary titles bestowed upon the institution's president (often by tiny countries). For example, one diploma mill whose website I just looked at lists "recognition" by the Association Internationale des Educateurs la Paix Mondiale (claimed to be "a consultative organization to UNESCO") and membership in the United Nations Association of the USA, the Business Council for the United Nations, the World Wide Web Chamber of Commerce, the International Union of Economists (IUE), and the Union of Technical Associations and Organizations of UNESCO (UATI). Like 501-c-3 status, none of these memberships indicates that the institution is a legitimate academic institution, but the diploma mill does sure hope that prospective students (or employers evaluating the credentials of one of their "graduates") will think they indicate legitimacy. These claims sometimes deserve to be discussed in a Wikipedia article (for example, it is useful to point out an "accrediting organization" that has the same personnel and same mailing address as the institutions it accredits), but these types of rubbish claims do not deserve any emphasis. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You stated: The fact that an institution requires students to buy textbooks or assigns some academic work does not mean that the institution is not a diploma mill. THANK YOU. I agree, but this fact needs to be emphasized. It is not in the article as it now stands.

You stated: Indeed, a diploma mill that requires no academic work is not likely to be successful in luring "student" victims. THANK YOU. I agree if the students are seeking legitimate education. I disagree if they are interested in buying a diploma. This fact needs to be emphasized. It is not in the article as it now stands.

You stated: "The second category of diploma mill victims are the people and institutions that are defrauded by diploma mill degree recipients who pass themselves off as having valid professional qualifications. The fraud is more dangerous when a person claims qualifications as a medical doctor or psychologist than when the claimed qualification is a degree in something like paranormal phenomena, but it's fraud in any case". I agree. I was trying to point out the fact that employers were taken in by the fraud by referenceing the one brick court document.

You stated: "It appears to me that laws against using diploma mill degrees are aimed both at protecting the public against charlatans and at discouraging prospective students from "enrolling" in one of these institutions." Agreed. But...Do you know how many states have laws prohibiting or restricting the use of unaccredited degrees? It was in the previous article you reverted. There are 9 states with any kind of law like this on the books. This certainly could add to the quality of the topic. http://www.chugachconsumers.org/images/Degree_use_law_map_50_resized.jpg

Again, the previous four items are topics for diploma mill (some are already there), not this article about a single diploma mill operation that was shut down. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the use of primary sources:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

If we label the One brick Court transcript as Primary (even though it contains 4 primary or first-hand testimonies) perhaps it could be used "with care" as suggested and "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

I think I have wasted way too much time on this. I see by history the the article exists almost in its original form of two years ago. With nary a keystroke permitted by any other contributor. Enjoy. Apparent Logic (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Logic, I believe that you've misinterpretted much. For example, my comment to Orlady did not mean that I'd changed my mind on anything that I'd previously said. I believe that many of Orlady's comments were generally directed at previous edits. For example, on at least one point you added an edit that was one or two large paragraphs on just the UK court case. That I believe was far too much, undue weight to that tangential topic and the edit was supported only by a primary source and was full of unsupported assertions. That all doesn't mean that a reasonable sentence couldn't be added on the case. This is an example why I think it best to talk about specific proposed small changes to the article rather than in more general terms. That way it is more likely to avoid misunderstandings. TallMagic (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some specific comments on what you said. You said, "Some peddle degrees, and the students participate in the fraud. Some are sophisticated and deceive their students. Could we have this statement in the article?" That would be great, let's see the wp:verifiable source.

I've already previously said that a sentence on some books being used and work being done would be okay, IMHO.

I've already said that a sentence on the 501-c-3 law would be okay, IMHO.

You said, "I agree if the students are seeking legitimate education. I disagree if they are interested in buying a diploma. This fact needs to be emphasized. It is not in the article as it now stands." This sounds like it might be a good thing to me. Let's see the reference and the proposed text.

You said, "I was trying to point out the fact that employers were taken in by the fraud by referenceing the one brick court document." I don't think the court case states this. Although I agree with you, I don't think the court case supports that directly.

I'm sure that Orlady is aware of the nine states with good protections for accredited degrees. This would be a good addition to the article.

You said, "If we label the One brick Court transcript as Primary (even though it contains 4 primary or first-hand testimonies) perhaps it could be used". I agree although the paranthetical comment may contain a typo or something because it doesn't it doesn't make sense. Unless you don't understand that second hand doesn't mean it has been copied. What it means it that the meaning has already been interpreted. Third hand meaning that it has been interpreted into an newspaper article (or something) and then interpreted again into an encyclopedia (or something). TallMagic (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

nonsense apostille

There is a wp:SPA that sometimes edits this article and keeps wanting to add irrelevant information regarding apostilles. They think it has some relevance showing legitimacy in one of these useless diploma mill degrees. They have also referenced the Hague agreement like it proves that their degree from this diploma mill has value proven by their apostille. Hopefully the section about diploma mills use of apostille in the following document will finally lay this sometimes misunderstood issue to rest. http://hcch.e-vision.nl/upload/wop/2008pd05e.pdf Regards,TallMagic (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An anon account added the following to the article, referring to an apostille and what it was supposed to mean. "It also verifies the validity of the Degree." This is an unsourced assertion. This is a falsehood. See the above official document on apostilles and in particular regarding diploma mill use of apostilles. It does not verify the validity of the degree. What it does is verify that it is a diploma from LaSalle. The validity of a LaSalle degree is not touched upon by an apostille. Please read the above document. Please stop trying to add falsehoods to Wikipedia. As for the rest of the unsourced assertions, we can't really know if it is true or not. What I do know is that the addition violates at least the wp:V policy and had to be reverted. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to add unsourced assertions to the article. This is especially true for information that is known to be false like the false assertion that an apostille for a degree from this place has any value other than for being deceitful. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add the lie that an apostille for any diploma mill has any meaning. In particular an apostille for this diploma mill is meaningless and can't be allowed in the article. TallMagic (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Southland University

Ladies & Gentlemen:

Since Wikipedia cites John Bear as an apparent authority, which he is, you are referred to the following which he posted on "DegreesInfo, Distance Learning" regarding Southland University:

At 03:35 PM on 3-21-2005, John Bear, Senior Member stated:

Southland, founded and run by James Kirk (later known as Thomas McPherson), operated under California's very lenient state-authorization rules, and actually qualified its graduates to take the Bar exam. While the pass rate was low, there are more than a dozen lawyers in California who are alumni of Southland.

They were never shut down by anyone. When California laws got tougher, they moved to Arizona. The FBI raided them, but no indictments were ever handed down. When Arizona laws got tougher, Kirk/McPherson moved to Missouri and started LaSalle, using the Southland model and courses. When Missouri leaned on him, he moved to Louisiana, which is where the FBI raid took place, followed by 18 indictments for various kinds of fraud, followed by a guilty plea, 4 years in a federal prison (from which Edison University, later Acton University was run), followed by various other Louisiana and Mississippi school involvements.

At 07:59 PM on 3-21-2005, John Bear, Senior Member stated:

If they have a Southland degree, then they have a degree from a school that was operating legally under California, then Arizona law.

Please correct Wikipedia to properly reflect the above in lieu of the currently misleading information regarding Southland University. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.50.75 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Online forum posts aren't normally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The article cites Dr. Bear's publications, not his online posts. Regardless, having read the forum thread and then reread the article, I don't think that this information contradicts anything in the article. In the online forum, Bear indicated that Southland's law school operated legally in California (note that being legal is not the same thing as "fully accredited") during a period when California's legal requirements were unusually lax, its graduates were allowed to sit for the bar exam, and some of those graduates passed. That doesn't negate anything in the article, but it probably could be mentioned in the article somewhere if there is a proper source for it. --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jlra1984, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Southland, founded and run by James Kirk (later known as Thomas McPherson), operated under California's very lenient state-authorization rules, and actually qualified its graduates to take the Bar exam. While the pass rate was low, there are more than a dozen lawyers in California who are alumni of Southland. They were never shut down by anyone. When California laws got tougher, they moved to Arizona. The FBI raided them, but no indictments were ever handed down. When Arizona laws got tougher, Kirk/McPherson moved to Missouri and started LaSalle, using the Southland model and courses. When Missouri leaned on him, he moved to Louisiana, which is where the FBI raid took place, followed by 18 indictments for various kinds of fraud, followed by a guilty plea, 4 years in a federal prison (from which Edison University, later Acton University was run), followed by various other Louisiana and Mississippi school involvements.(1)

If they have a Southland degree, then they have a degree from a school that was operating legally under California, then Arizona law.(2)

(1) 03:35 PM on 3-21-2005, John Bear, Senior Member, DegreeInfo Distance Learning (2) 07:59 PM on 3-21-2005, John Bear, Senior Member, DegreeInfo Distance Learning Jlra1984 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See above. Also note that it would be a WP:copyvio (not to mention being poor practice) for Wikipedia to copy a verbatim statement. --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Denied for now, please gain consensus for this before entry (it does not appear to meet "non-controversial" requirement that must be met if there is not consensus on this page. Also as Orlady said please reword so that it is not a copyvio and find reliable sources. James (T C) 02:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jlra1984, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The author reviewed my previously submitted posts by John Bear from DegreeInfo on 3-21-2005 at 03:35 pm and 07:59 pm and has agreed that students of Southland University School of Law were permitted to sit for the California bar. However, the author fails to state such in the text of Wikipedia. As Mr. Bear stated, some of the students passed the exceptionally difficult California bar. Thus, the article continues to be misleading to those who may read it.

The author cites a Time magazine article but fails to cite Dr. Bear's posts on DegreeInfo's website. Are we to take it that printed matter is more reliable than that presented on the internet? If so, what does this say about Wikipedia in general? Jlra1984 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jira, also please re-read the guidelines on Reliable Sources You are constantly trying to reference statements made on a forum that is rarely accepted as a reliable source. James (T C) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jlra1984, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Since Southland University met the state of California's (1) requirements/regulations for degree programs, it neither meets the Wikipedia or the U.S. Department of Education's (2) definitions of a diploma mill. Accordingly, reference to Southland University in the 2nd line needs to be removed as well as the 1st paragraph under "History." Nowhere in the "Time" reference does it state Southland University was a diploma mill.

(1) California Postsecondary Education Commission (2) www.ED.gov Jlra1984 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of references use the term to describe it. This cannot be done as a semi-protected request unless a clear consensus can be demonstrated here, on the talk page. Chzz  ►  19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Recent removal of a reference

Some recent edits removed a couple of references to the following article. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=345 The edit comment stated that the source was unreliable. I'm unfamilar with the indicated source but after a quick review it looked like a reliable source to me. Would someone mind explaining what was wrong with the referenced article and/or source of the referenced article? Zugman (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1. As should be blindingly obvious from a number of examples listed on WorldNetDaily, they do not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- quite the opposite in fact. Whilst this is not one of the issues that they go out of their way to make ludicrously insane claims about, the lack of any substantive editorial oversight as to accuracy means that even their claims on 'ordinary' issues cannot be trusted to have had any reasonable fact-checking.
2. I would further point out that both in terms of "poor reputation for checking the facts", "lack meaningful editorial oversight" and "expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion", they very clearly meet WP:QS, so cannot (per WP:ABOUTSELF) be used for information about a third party.
3. My removal of this source was in response to it, and its widespread use, being raised at WP:RSN, where the general consensus was strongly against its use.

I will therefore tag the citation in the mean time, and eventually remove it, unless somebody can demonstrate why it meets WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Camarda Incident

I've fixed this up to ensure it is Wikipedia style and only relies on Wikipedia accepted references. This section was an instance of some significant (and somewhat interesting) original research, but only this amount is verifiable.Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Camarada Phrasing

I'd like to remove the word "fraud" from the part that discusses Camarada, as per BLP rules. The subject of this paragraph has never been charged with fraud, nor has he been investigated for fraud by any authoritative body. That during an employment dispute a former employee says he felt Camarada committed fraud, does not meet Wikipedia's standards for evidence of such an extreme charge. So, could this not be seen as unnecessarily damaging to the BLP mentioned in the paragraph? If I alter this sentence, would there be any objections here? Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Kirk diploma mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017030629/http://www.novus.edu/generalinfo/terms_of_use.htm to http://www.novus.edu/generalinfo/terms_of_use.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flippinchannels.com/Kole-resigns.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805094551/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GD20Ak01.html to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GD20Ak01.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)