Talk:Louisiana Baptist University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Where is the dispute? This is all an invention by Duncharris and should be ignored until he has some proof.--Big Lover 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The dispute, Gastrich under a pseudonym, is if this is really worthy of being an encyclopeia article. This is not an invention by Duncharris, it's an invention by you. Harvestdancer 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

accrediting

A few things:

1. LBU claims that they are listed in the directory, but they are not listed in the directory. I have changed the article to reflect this.

2. AACTS has no status with any federal agency. Whether or not it "desires" any status with any federal agency is their business. You can put it in the AACTS article if you like. If you can provide a source from AACTS saying they have not attempted to secure status with the government, then go ahead and put it in.

Sdedeo 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

The following paragraph needs some help. Not only is it enormous, but it needs to be edited for nPOV. I'm going to paste it here, then I'm going to make some edits, so that it will be improved.

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction. On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination. Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate.

New paragraphs:

Unlike accredited schools, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction.

Students of the institution cay that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination.

Why changes were made:

1. Removed "and even many that are not accredited". Need proof or else its POV.

2. Changed "Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices" to "Because the policy at LBU does not require these practices". Need proof that these practices are fairly standard for universities of its type or of universities in general or else its POV.

3. Changed "On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require" to "Students of the institution say that LBU does require". Changed "claim" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial - "Minding your nuances" for why)

4. Removed "Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate." because:

a) Who are these students?

b) Were they distance learning students or on-campus students? It would be understandable if distance learning students didn't know where the library in Shreveport, Louisiana was located.

c) Why should the university web site tell people the location of the physical, campus library? Is this unusual that it doesn't?

d) To say "this has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine . . ." sounds very POV. Who are these many people and can you verify this? --Jason Gastrich 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Paragraph was restored since it was already nPOV. The fact that many unaccredited schools have the same requirements as accredited schools is common knowledge and therefore does not require a citation. On the other hand, any claim about what LBU requires of its students with respect to publication and storage requirements, without a citation, is not permissible. In other words, "need proof or else it's POV." Consequently, I removed that entire section from the restored paragraph. It was well-written and informative as it was. The removal makes it more succinct, but still well-written and informative. Gastrich cannot "improve" it.

• • And yes, I did toss out bait to see if there would be an attempt to rehabilitate the issue of publication in order to paint the school in a better light. Needless to say, it didn't take long...

• Hysterically enough, Gastrich is one of the students who didn't know what building houses the library.

• • Let's have some more fun: When asked which building housed the library, Gastrich replied, "the library building." When asked for specifics, he couldn't say. He's the only "graduate student" I've ever met (and I've met hundreds) who couldn't tell me what building housed the library at his institution, especially since Gastrich claimed that this building contains both his thesis and his dissertation.

• • • It gets better: There is no "library building" on the LBU campus. All of the libraries associated with the school are electronic: http://www.lbu.edu/maclibraries.html

• • • • Better still: All of the mapping and satellite imagery that can be generated of the address, plus what I've been able to get from a contact living in Louisiana, is that the LBU campus consists of a single building.

• • • • • Gastrich's claims about what is stored and where is clearly fueled by his POV. Normally, that's okay...I have a soft spot for my colleges, too...but the school has issues and Gastrich's edits are intended to mask or mitigate rather than expose for examination. Any further commentary on the issue should be from objective investigation, not from a cheerleader.

• • • • • • The comments are about the LBU library and which building may house it, but Gastrich tries a run around that by writing, "it would be understandable if distance learning students didn't know where the library in Shreveport, Louisiana [emphasis added] was located." The issue is not about the "library in Shreveport," but about the LBU "library" - on the "campus" of the school that Gastrich, at least has been taking courses from for a couple of years. Either Gastrich was being disingenuous, or he's having issues with attention to detail...again.

• I could go on, but it's quite clear that Gastrich's comments in the article are POV-driven. He wants readers to think it's a good school or, at least, that there's nothing suspicious or wrong with it. I'm more interested in an objective evaluation of the school, regardless of its educational philosophies, since I am often asked to counsel young people on where they should go to school, depending on their interests, desires, and situation. Given the clear POV perspective that Gastrich brings to this article, and his lack of ability to be objective, there will be no arguments or discussion with Gastrich about this article. Gastrich is a graduate student of this institution and has defended it vociferously (and often emotionally) in a number of different venues. He cannot be nPOV about it. WarriorScribe 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's amazing to me that someone wrote "Need proof that these practices are fairly standard for universities of its type or of universities in general or else its POV." Go to the Library of Congress webpage to find out "Complete dissertations since the 1940s are available on film or fiche in the Microform Reading Room and, since 1997, in full text on computer terminals at the Library."[[1]] The point of doing this (with dissertations) and microfilming a thesis is to allow people to check up on credentials from any library/research location, which now includes the internet. LBU does not all this because they make you go to the school to read it or presonally request it from the author.

• • • Right, and by doing so, they violate standard practice. Of course, it's outrageous for Gastrich to ever complain about POV by anyone else, but clearly, if it casts his favored point in a bad light, or if he just thinks it does, it's POV, regardless as to how obvious it might be to, you know, those us whom must operate in the real world. It's a simple fact that the submission of a thesis or dissertation for publication and archiving (even if only in microfiche or electronic form) is standard practice in the academic community. It's also standard practice that these things are made available to the rest of the academic community and to the world, at large.

• • • Gastrich saw the criticism that was there, originally, with regard to this, and decided to try to mitigate it by claiming that LBU, nevertheless, requires students to submit a bound copy for the "library." That, of course (as far as Gastrich was concerned), didn't require "proof," but the standard practices of academia far and wide did require proof (if only to satisfy Gastrich). It's an interesting application of a double-standard that he often employs. If he agrees with it or likes it, it's nPOV and doesn't require proof. If he doesn't like it, it "requires proof or it's POV." WarriorScribe 04:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Even Harvard's Divinity school for the Doctor of Theology Degree (note: Harvard does not award PhD's for religion)requires that "Once sustained by the Committee, the original dissertation and the first copy in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI), should be submitted to the registrar."[2] As noted on the Library of Congress webpage, since 1999, the UMI submits dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online [3] --Mike

Diploma Mill

The following should be removed:

However, unlike diploma mills, LBU has degree requirements, including coursework, reading requirements, final exams, and for graduate degrees [7], writing a thesis or dissertation and maintaining at least a 3.0 GPA.

All diploma mills have "coursework" and "requirements," but it is that very work that is question. Diploma mills by defnition are unaccredited places that do not produce their "graduates" with serious documentation/research (dissertations for example) to prove themselves as having the equivalent of, say, a Harvard PhD graduate. In the sentence in question, "unlike" means "on contrary" or "opposed to." Since LBU is not accredited, the research is not publicly available, the coursework can solely be completed online, the school finances students' educations with tuition payments of $100 a month, if offers PhDs in the students subject making, there is only one email address to contact the entire school, ect., this sentence trying to downplay the similiarities to diploma mills should be removed. Visit the diploma mill page.

Degrees Offerred

The "Degrees Offered" section should be deleted, its long and provides no details. It is irrelevant and sounds like a commerical. Compare this page to Stanford University and Yale, no descriptions of individual degrees. If it is not deleted the section should be expanded on to demonstrate why the section holds value. Wiki does not need to generally describe unaccredited degrees, its on the LBU page if the reader cares.

• Good point. Also, a general comment about how to earn credit is good enough. Anything more specific than that (especially something as lame as "read this book and write a report") sounds like it's selling the school. Specifics of the payment plan (if only because it can change without notice) also read like a sales pitch. WarriorScribe 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect standing

I noticed an important section was deleted:

In LBU's 2002-2003 handbook, they said they were listed in the Directory of Postsecondary Institutions published by the National Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education jcsm.org/LBUpg10.pdf. However, according to their online system, they do not appear to be listed, now. [4]

This section should remain.

• Okay.

Criticisms section

Since this entry goes back and forth several times with regard to positives and negatives, I suggest we have a section for criticisms of the university. This way, we can keep things orderly with a section about the university and a section for criticisms about its standards and such. --Jason Gastrich 08:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but such a section should contain POV criticisms, not just factual info that is positive or negative. -Will Beback 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No criticism section needed it will become POV. The only "criticism" is from the US Department of Education and Library of Congress and should remain in the body. These are facts pointing to a diploma mill MO and should be in the bulk of the are when discussing "writing requirements" and credentials. Gastrich you should refrain from further edits. You have made it clear since you started the article that you are only here to mask the school's qualifications and do not care about the objectivity of the article or the requirements people go through for higher education. Gastrich wants to post about requirements of individual LBU projects and deleted the US Dep. of Education's descriptions, which match LBU, of a diploma mill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs) .

Page is a mess

The constant reverts and edits that occurred after I left last night turned the page into a mess. It's inconsistent and meandering. It'll get fixed today. For the record, Gastrich is a graduate student in the Ph.D. program at this institution, and cannot approach it with a neutral POV. His edits are designed to disguise the school's flaws and other criticisms, or at least to mitigate them, by trying to "sell the school" as much as possible. Mine are designed for an nPOV. See my comments under the "problem paragraph" section, above. WarriorScribe 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Gastrich should stop posting. His edits are choppy one sentence masks of missing qualifications, which have made the section a mess. His edits have caused a introductory section into several one-sentence paragaphs which are grammatically incorrect. Also the description of diploma mills by the US Dep. of Ed. should remain since many believe this to be a mill. Conversely, some of the "requirements" Gastrich posted do not fit and are details available at the schools webpage. They are part of his POV that fail to have actual relevance. By the way Terenceong1992 might be a sock puppet of his. Grastrich please sumbit your edits to the talk page first to avoid endless reverting (as seen with your edits in the page's history).

What WarriorScribe is saying violates Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. Furthermore, telling us that he is the one who is capable of nPOV is for us to decide. I will not be avoiding this entry. I'm willing and able to write from an nPOV perspective as anyone else. --Jason Gastrich 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I question that because of Big Lover and[log] and the revert you just made. If your POV edits don't stop this article should be deleted.

Meant to include this, but I'm again doing about six things at the same time: Gastrich is, of course, free to complain that I violate the policy of assuming good faith, but Gastrich has exhausted that. For most editors, I do assume good faith. For him, for good or ill, I cannot. Gastrich has repeatedly shown, through his POV edits, his vendettas, his attempts to sneak links to his domains, and his, well, rather creative accounts of past events, that there are issues when it comes to Gastrich and "good faith." For that, he has no one to blame but himself.

I've already covered the issue of Gastrich and his POV, and there's nothing he will be permitted to "decide." That Gastrich engages in POV pushing has been shown time and time again. Gastrich can whimper about violations of policy while engaging in violations willy-nilly all over the encyclopedia, but his own selective application of "good faith" and "POV" is available for all to see, and will become more and more clear. The fact is that it's Gastrich's non-neutral POV that has been exposed in this case, so again, there's no point even bothering with him. WarriorScribe 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted then. Wiki is not here to advertise for diploma mills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs) .

A fair point for discussion. The consistent attempts to "sell" this school, don't help, and neither do the surreptitious attempts to sneak in links to a domain owned by an "editor." Then again, one could argue that exposure of an institution as a "diploma mill" serves a good purpose, as long as that's truly the case. WarriorScribe 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the .edu domains seems to come out of left field, so to speak, with respect to the category in which it is contained. Can we put it somewhere else? Perhaps we should create a section that includes that information and the commentary about diploma mills. WarriorScribe 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe move to the .edu discussion to the section about the diploma mill. It should be left in the article because when I first saw the LBU webpage I assumed it was accredited due to the .edu usage. Clearly, as the department of education points out it still could be a mill with the .edu domain. Overall the article is cleaner so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.226.31 (talk • contribs) .

It could use a bit more here and there. I'm all about education and non-traditional education is a pretty good way to go for those who can't complete any other way. I'm no fan of LBU, and my own personal feeling is that all Christian schools of that sort (i.e., they don't educate so much as indoctrinate) are "diploma mills," but that's neither here nor there when it comes to an encyclopedia article. Consequently, I think that if the whole story is there, warts and all, people can come to an accurate view of what LBU is all about, even as they are trying to build a legitimate educational institution. I don't know that they'll ever get there, but I don't know that they won't, either. Anyway, the point, obviously, is to present the information fairly and evenly, without POV, of course, as Wiki requires. I believe that the institution can be accurately covered without "selling" it or dismissing it altogether. WarriorScribe 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete

Either the POV edits should stop or this page should be deleted. Before editing this page to fix the point of view, it would have been important to let it remain, but with continuous edits to promote an uncredentialed, fundamentalist Christian school whose facaultly themselves do not have degrees in the subjects they "teach" it should be deleted. If Gastrich wishes to stop reverting articles from the Dep. of Education and putting his own personal links, it should be reconsidered. Wiki is not here to be used by minions of uncredentialed schools to give creedence to their "mission." This article should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.17.89 (talk • contribs) .

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it did pass one such discussion, but I don't think that precludes another. The attempts to sell the school versus putting up a good, objective article about it will almost certainly mean that the article deletion discussion will get rather lively, at least. WarriorScribe 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now the section is much better and should not be deleted. However, should people continue to vandalize the page making an ad. for the school this might be reconsidered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.199.192.120 (talk • contribs) .

I tried to do some edits today, and wrote up and edited a good portion of the accreditation section, then I closed what I thought was just one browser window and it was actually all of them, during a preview. Urrrggg...I'll come back to it. I think we can still do a bit with that section. Right now, I need to do something about the caffeine plasma levels, I think... WarriorScribe 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it's polite to allow 3 months between AfDs. If an AfD was wrongly concluded, it can always be appealed. That's doesn't seem appropriate here - the AfD was quite clear. I still have to say, that the 'University' doesn't immediately appear notable and I'm not sure it's worth keeping the page just as some sort of record of how not notable it. Perhaps it could be merged into Diploma mill? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the merge idea. Arbustoo 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Point of View (POV) Section - Point of View Dispute

I've added the template, and so we can consider the points in dispute here:

There is some reasonable attempt to try to bring in all pertinent information about this institution, without cluttering the article with so much fluff and irrelevancy that it becomes unreadable. Wiki isn't here to sell students on LBU, but as long as an article on the subject exists within the "pages," it should be accurate and unbiased. WarriorScribe 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is still come fluff, but nothing that stands out as point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.226.31 (talk • contribs) .

We've removed quite a bit of it. WarriorScribe 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This entry needs a section to rebut the criticism in it. See Rapture for one way it can be done. If I write a rebuttal section, will anyone outright object? --Jason Gastrich 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why start a new section on this when you started one two posts ahead. There should not be one, it will open the flood gates for POV. As for your "rebuttal;" what's it going to contain, what's the main point, and what's "debatable." The credentials and expectations of the school are straight forward and a "criticism section" will change that.

The "rapture" is a strictly theological word and is debatable in that context. Debating credentials of a school is much different than debating what a biblical term means.

LBU month

The single sentence about LBU month needs to be expanded. A quote and an explanation would be helpful to the reader without making him/her have to click on a link to find out what it was all about. Single sentence paragraphs aren't good, in general, and certainly not here as this sentence doesn't explain much. --Jason Gastrich 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it does not look like there is much to add. - unsigned comment

Here is a suggestion: "In 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco declared April to be "Louisiana Baptist University Month". Referring to LBU, she said that Louisiana is proud of their many years of beneficial, hard work as they have offered affordable, University training for its numerous students. "Louisiana Baptist University is truly an important leader in innovative Christian education in the United States and in the world."[5]"

What's on the article page now is fine.

Unnotable alumni

There are some important/controversial people listed on the list and they should remain. Yet, there are people who lack credentials/fame and there is no need to keep them on here. Unsurpisingly, the person on here who created those pages of unnotable ministers is Gastrich, the same person as mentioned above.

The following people should be reviewed for deletion off Wikipedia.

• Mal Couch (Page created by Gastrich)
• Thomas Ice
• James McGowan (Page created by Gastrich)
• Chuck Missler
• Mike Randall (Page created by Gastrich's sock puppet Big Lover)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs) .

I have heard of Missler and he is probably notable enough to stay. The others i have not heard of although they may also have valid credentials. David D. (Talk) 03:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about that page is at least 1/3 (includes Big Lover) of the page history has his edits... assuming he hasn't use more deceitful sock puppets (which is the same as a lie). Doesn't he claim to be a minister-- a minister who deceives people with the name "Big Lover".

Noting that I created some of these pages is inconsequential; especially because Wiki requires us to assume good faith. If AOL IP address 207.200.116.9 wants to nominate these pages for deletion, he/she can (if IPs are allowed to do so). However, if and when the unbiased people who visit the pages nominated for deletion section on Wiki go and see one of them there, I'm quite certain they will vote to keep. Just take a look at their credentials. They're authors of countless books, presidents of colleges, etc. Instead of criticizing me and pretending like he/she has an angle, AOL IP address 207.200.116.9 should consider that I've helped the community by taking my time to create these articles on notable people. --Jason Gastrich 04:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actors of pornography who have been in over 30 obscure national films are not worthy of being noted on Wikipedia. Likewise, someone who writes a book, publishes it themself or through a ministry, and sells 300 copies while pointing to a unaccredited PhD received from LBU is not "notable." And commenting that you made the pages is very important, as people can understand why you post the things you post.

Good faith? sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. As others have explained, it was assumed intially, but you have made it clear (even without socketpuppets) why you aim to deceive people by hiding facts. The assumption of good faith has proven to be wrong in your particular case. The Wikipedia policy is a good and just one, but you will not regain the good faith with many here. You have choosen not to be fair to criticisms and slant the articles your way.

Lastly, I didn't try to delete the names because debate is important. Unlike you I am not "sure" they will or will not be deleted. I posted here for view points from people and not their sock puppets. If they are kept, fine. If not, fine. They do not seem noteworthy though. Anyone can write a book and start a ministry.

• As for "authors of countless books"... James McGowan one book and a link to his ministry. You created it. Zero edits. No discussion on the page. Education from an unaccredited school. (Maybe these facts will change by socket puppets after this is posted.) On the other pages listed (besides the "countless" one book of McGowan) many of those sound like pamphlets, not books. Even if they are books, so what? Being an obscure author does not make one notable anymore than starring in obscure national pornography makes one notable.
• Couting all the books on Mike Randall's page is zero, not "countless." No sources, no links. A claim to an unaccredited school. But then again even that isn't cited. There are four edits, which include the creation by Gastrich (he made three). The edit not done by Gastrich was deleted by him, which included the phrase "considered a diploma mill." Yeah, and he asks we "assume good faith" and says "noting that I created some of these pages is inconsequential."

• You're quite right to point out that, when it comes to assuming "good faith" on the part of Jason Gastrich, well, that ship has sailed. It's been pretty well established that he's here to push a specific POV--his. One need look no farther than his user page and his current talk page entries to see that. He claims he founded the "wiki4christ" domain to insure that Christians have a voice at Wikipedia...at least, that's his claim. (Of course, Wiki was around long before Gastrich ever heard of it and there are lots of Christians posting and editing--a few are even administrators. Of course, they're not all Gastrich's kind of "Christian," fortunately for the rest of us.) And if you check his talk page, there's a bit of discussion about the distinctions with respect to "Christian rock," and some comments and entries about that that were, apparently, not to Gastrich's liking. His response to the party whom he addressed on his talk page was to tell him that the artists in question qualify under "Christian rock." No other explanation was given, so the obvious implication is that they are so because Gastrich has said they are so, just as, below, he tells us that the parties he lists are "certifiably notable." Why? Because he says so. It really boils down to that.

• I couldn't help but chuckle at Gastrich tooting his own horn, so to speak, about he's "helped the community" and takes his time to do so. Yes, how lovely for the rest of us to be given just a glimpse of Gastrich's golden prose and how he has given us so much of his valuable time (mostly categorizing people as "christian" this or "atheist" that). Thinking of the sacrifices he must have made almost brings a tear to my "aged" eye.

• You criticisms of this silly list are also dead on the money. Gastrich's intent with the list of "notable" alumni is to pad the list in an attempt to do what he's been doing with this article all along--sell the school and mute or obscure legitimate criticism of it. And, of course, we are again regaled with claim after claim about these "notables," claims that usually result in demands from Gastrich for "proof" or "citations" were they to be made about someone with whom he doesn't agree. Take Mal Couch, whom, Gastrich claims, is listed in the "Who's Who of Professionals." And what's Gastrich's source for that? He doesn't say.

• As you have also noted, there's nothing special about publishing books and, as usual, Gastrich exaggerates just a bit. I'm very sure we can count the number of books published, even if we count those published by conservative or fundamentalist organs, which I know, from experience, aren't very discerning when it comes to what is good enough to publish and what is not. I was a Christian for quite a while and even had a close friendship with two Christian book store owners in the east county, San Diego, area. As a result, I had frequent occasion to read quite a bit of what was being published, and "wretched" would not be too strong a word to describe a great deal of it. It's no wonder so many of these Christian "authors" must use the smaller, more sectarian publishers. No self-respecting secular house would bother with most of it. At any rate, it's no trick to get published, especially these days, with all of the small, publishing houses and the many ways to self-publish. A publication record does not make one noteworthy. I suspect that Gastrich would tell you, in another argument, that he's published either three or six books (depending on how disingenous he might want to be in counting each "edition" of the rather pathetic SABCE as a separate book, or if they all constitute one "book"). He thinks that was important enough to make him "noteworthy" and of enough importance to have his own biographical entry in Wikipedia, so maybe it's not surprising the he'd make noises about the publication records of these "noteworthy" alumni.

• My first impulse is to consider that Missler and Baugh should remain. They are well-known enough (and the latter is notorious enough) outside of the small "Christian" circle that Gastrich inhabits. The rest can probably go. Wikipedia is not required to indulge Gastrich's hero worship. WarriorScribe 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks, but I will note that I don't use sockpuppets any longer.
• Mike Randall is the President of Baptist_Bible_College_-_Springfield,_Missouri.
• James McGowan is a professor, pastor, and author.
• Those facts make those people certifiably notable. --Jason Gastrich 06:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, Gastrich has convinced me. The whole list should go. Normally, when we're speaking of an article about a more noteworthy university (e.g., Harvard, Yale, USC, even some of the larger seminaries), we tend to speak of "noteworthy alumni" in a much greater societal context. But in this case, we're talking about a minority view even within a minority view, as it were. We're talking about people whom Gastrich thinks are noteworthy, within the relatively small microcosm of the born-again, Christian community. In light of the greater scheme of things, none on the list are noteworthy, except to Gastrich and those thankfully few whom "think" as he does. WarriorScribe 07:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the deletion.

It was deleted after a LBU page was found on famous alumni. A link was added under "links" for interested parties to read about alumni.

Notable alumni section

It's very common for colleges and universities on Wikipedia to have a list of notable alumni. Since all of the people mentioned are notable (e.g. they have a Wikipedia entry), they should remain on the page. --Jason Gastrich 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, the presence of a Wikipedia entry is not enough to determine notability, and the argument is disingenuous if only because many of the entries were written by the person (above) who then wants to claim that the presence of those articles make that person noteworthy. Other institutions list noteworthy alumni, but that point was already addressed, above. Tag Gastich with 1 revert. WarriorScribe 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Make that two reverts (that included a pretty hysterical "because I said so" kind of comment). Noteworthiness is not determined by a unilateral declaration of a single, POV-pushing individual, but some degree of concensus. WarriorScribe 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is common to have alumni who have made national press or routinely make national press on a Wikipedia article. Such as a best selling author, a famous Hollywood actor, a disease curing doctor, and a state or national politician. There are none of these people in here though. These are "obscure" "authors" who, assuming they have relevance, are relevant only as what Warrior said, as a minority in a minority.

If the list should be revised, demonstrate that these people are notable. IE, Mainstream press articles, NY Times best selling lists, ect... Your claim that these people are notable is POV unless you cite otherwise. Having a internet site and a book sold on that website is not enough.

• For the record, let's note that there has been no attempt to show that the parties listed are notable. WarriorScribe 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, all PhD graduates are authors by definition because they go into research and offer that research later in book form. Many get their research published by academic and mainstream publishers. Yet, not all PhD grads/authors are notable in this regard as an authorship.

As warrior said, explain how these peole are notable in a societal context. Please provide sources.

• If people agree, nominate the above pages for deletion. They fail to meet Wikipedia biographical standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies#People_still_alive

• Indeed, as they are clearly POV-based articles and the noteworthiness of each individual is in question, it would appear that we should start going through weeding some of this out. WarriorScribe 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Countless universities list notable alumni. Listing them is within Wikipedia's rules. Therefore, they should be listed. If you don't think one is notable, then nominate for deletion. While they have an entry, they are notable. --Jason Gastrich 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Be careful what you ask for. I would add that I think there are degrees of notability. One might be notable enough to be in wikipedia but that does not necessarily imply they are notable alumni. For example, would Mark K. Bilbo be a notable alumni from XX University? Maybe, maybe not. Is he notable enough for wikipedia? Obviously. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would also point out what I've pointed out, already. Notability is not determined by the rantings of a single, hero-worshipping, POV-pushing Jason Gastrich. It is determined by concensus. Even the "notables" listed on other college pages (and not all have been examined and are, therefore, approved by concensus, either, so that's an open and unresolved issue, as well). The fact is that if we allow just anyone to post a "notable" alumnus by unrestricted standards, as you illustrate, Mark, we can all just start fillng up university pages with lists of alumni. The list will be removed, again, with Gastrich's third reversion so noted. WarriorScribe 23:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've returned the alumni that i believe might be notable enough to warrant inclusion. i have removed the unknowns. What do others think of the spin off list at List of Louisiana Baptist University people? This seems to fit into the wp:not category of indiscriminent facts. David D. (Talk) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. There are only two that fit a wider context noterity in Christian and mainstream culture: Carl Baugh and Bill Gothard. And not for "notable" reasons. There is already a link to LBU's page listing proud alumni. If the reader wants to know the alumni they can go there. Or less, people like Gothard are going to mentioned mainly because he made the press with two sex scandals. This stuff is filler and has no relevance to the school itself. Keep in mind that is what the article is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

• It's useless information, meant to extend Gastrich's agenda of making sure that "Christians" (def., "Christians" like Gastrich) "have a voice at Wikipedia." LBU is not a notable institution and the presence of an article about it is questionable enough. WarriorScribe 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• None of those on the alumni list are notable (except to an extremely small microcosm of society) and Gastrich has yet to make a case that they are or that their inclusion is anything other than "hero worship." It would appear that Gastrich never got past the "baby Christian" phase of his "walk." During that period, when it is clear that there really is no evidence of intervention in the lives of others by Jesus or God, "baby Christians" and those very immature in the faith tend to lean on and idolize ministers, evangelists, even creation "scientists," in other words, people--at least, these can be seen, heard, and read, and they validate what the "baby Christian" has chosen to believe. What little argument he's tried to present for the inclusion of this list and these alumni has been exposed as vacuous and superficial, and "because I say so" isn't good enough. Once again, we see that Gastrich is more interested in quantity than quality, as well. WarriorScribe 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, took a closer look at the articles about these "notables" and they are loaded with POV-pushing commentary...they almost read like sales pitches. They are going to need lots of editing, and that's assuming we should even bother and shouldn't have them removed, altogether. We should thank Gastrich for bringing these articles to our attention. WarriorScribe 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• If they have a Wikipedia page, then they are notable. I'm returning the other alumni to the list, now. Just because you think they're "unknowns" doesn't mean they are.

The LBU list of people is like any other university list of people; certainly pertinent and informative. --Jason Gastrich 15:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is ridiculous to say that because they are in wikipedia they are notable. Did you forget that anyone can edit wikipedia? Also a list of unnotable people is not pertinent information. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The following pages should be deleted they do not meet Wikipedia crtieria:

Greg Baker (Created by Gastrich) (Two links to his church, no sources)

Daniel Dorim Kim (Created by Gastrich) (List of his education and churches, no sources)

John Moseley (Created by Gastrich) (Two books of unknown noterairty, one plug for his church)

Mike Randall (Created by Gastrich) (No sources, no links)

James McGowan (Created by Gastrich) (One book with no indication of sales, one link to ministry, no sources)

Charles Pack (Created by Gastrich) (Editor of small magazine, one link, no sources)

Bob Cornuke (Six books of unknown readership, no sources)

Jimmy DeYoung (A mention of a “sought after speaker,” no books, no sources)

Thomas Ice (Created by Gastrich) (A long list of books of questionable readership, no sources, one plug to buy those books)

Grant Jeffrey (Created by Gastrich) (A longer list of books no readership available, no sources, one plug to buy those books)

Chuck Missler (Created by Gastrich) (12 books, 5 videos, no audience numbers, 4 plugs to buy those works, no objective sources)

James Combs (Created by Gastrich) (No books, no sources, one link to LBU)

Neal Weaver (Created by Gastrich) (No books, no sources, one link to LBU)

List of LBU People (Created by Gastrich)

As noted before, these people do not meet the criteria for Wikipedia living person’s biographies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies#People_still_alive ). Unless Gastrich can demonstrate how with citations, as he has repeatedly refused. For example Wikipedia expects an author to sell at least 5,000 copies of a book. Also explained before, Good faith with Gastrich has been thrown out the window because of talk pages like this. It’s time to prove it, if and only if the pages are kept.

By the way, why are “guest speakers” on an alumin page? POV maybe?

As for the section, if Alumni is going to be kept: “Notable Alumni” should be changed to “Alumni” and the list should be shrunk to:

Carl Baugh

Bill Gothard The two sex scandals make him a noterious figure, but not “notable.” As well his fascistic views.

Do not keep the list.

If the list of Wikipedia alumni exists it is to the detriment of LBU and becomes POV. If people like Gothard are on the list it is because of contraversy caused by sex scandals. At which point it does nothing to benefit the article on LOUISIANA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY.

There is a link under external links if people wish to read a LBU POV alumni list. If the Wikipedia/Gastrich list is kept the link should be deleted because the alumni link is on the home page for interest parties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

• All of this nonsense with respect to the "alumni" additions is clearly a result of Gastrich's POV-driven, all-or-nothing approach, which we've noted above. Evidence that Gastrich is unable to accept his errors and mistakes, and is lacking in morals or maturity, may be found everywhere from Usenet and the examples in his stolen-domain names and other activities, so easily referenced by anyone who wants to look. A complete report has been put together and the finishing touches should be completed this weekend, after which it will be submitted to Jimmy Wales. If anyone has anything that they think should be added, see me at my talk page. WarriorScribe 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Are the sex scandals mentioned in the Bill Gothard page, if not its POV. If all these pages read like sales pitches then they should either be heavily edited or take the easier route of AfD, unless people think they are worth salvaging? It is up to the creator to make sure that articles are NPOV it is not the duty of the community to clean up POV articles of minor figures in the religious community. So I am fine with AfD unless these articles improve dramaticallty in the near future. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Recent revert comments referred to those replacing the whole list, not DayCD. Encouraging dialouge instead of reverts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) .

• Take a look at the Bob Cornuke article, check the history and compare what was there with my changes to make it less POV, and tell me if that's what you have in mind. WarriorScribe 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You copy edits on Bob Cornuke look pretty good. I don't think that is AfD material. David D. (Talk) 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• And part of the point is that I really don't think Cornuke merits an encyclopedia article, but there is a way to write about him without pushing a POV, and that article illustrates that way, versus what was there before. Those of us whom have engaged in investigations and have had to write reports, including reports that will stand up in court and therefore cannot be POV-driven , understand that. WarriorScribe 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see nothing to keep from the list above. If you all disagree, post the name(s) of who is Wiki worthy to discuss this. All I read on these is a used car salemen maming a pitch. I recommend AfD for the list directly above.

• I agree that most should go. At least 75%. David D. (Talk) 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I see no need to have the list there. It's fluff--an attempt to "sell" the school. There are quite a few schools that have articles at Wiki that do not list "notable alumni," including all of the schools from which I received degrees (and all are well-known, well-established schools), so it's a bit much for us to buy into the idea that there are "countless" schools listing alumni, and I've already addressed the issue of notability. Notability is not determined by a single, hero-worshipping, POV-pushing baby Christian. Notability is determined by concensus, which is usually arrived at because the "notable person" has engaged in some activity that has proven exceptional. When it gets right down to it, examining the parties named, there really isn't much that's even significant, let alone exceptional. I don't have a problem with leaving the list off. It's up to Gastrich, anyway, to explain just any of these people are notable, and the inclusion of articles on an open encyclopedia, especially when Gastrich wrote many of the articles so vaguely references is hardly compelling. WarriorScribe 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Only one of my schools has a alumni list, which has only a hand full of names, mostly famous writers. My other schools, which is known for having many famous bestselling authors, a few famous news commentators, and a few politicians does not. By the way, my schools have accredation and have more than one building as the campus unlike LBU.

• Understood. It would be easy for me to go to the articles for the schools from which I graduated and list people whom I know whom have started businesses, written books, composed music...hell, I cut two record albums in the late 70s and early 80s...I could list me under that kind of criteria if it were mor...uuuuhhhh...wait a minute...

• ...you don't suppose this is all a lead-in so that Gsstrich could, upon completion of what can only be laughingly called a "Ph.D." in May, come back to the article, and on the strength of a published "book" (in four editions), another "book" that is little more than a pamphlet (I got my hands on a copy just recently) and a "study guide," list himself as a "notable alumnus," complete with yet another advertising for web sites, "lectures," "debates" and "books?" Hmmm...the plot thickens... WarriorScribe 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also no Wiki school entry lists the speakers, bands, or guest professors like this page does. If universities did, then the vast majority would have a list so immense that it serves no purpose. The fact that Falwell is on there as a "notable" event, months before it even happens really shows something about this.

• Falwell addressing the event at LBU is admittedly notable, but again, only to the institution and those interested in it, which must still be, as I said, a "minority within a minority." What has happened here is precisely what I thought would if you allow even a little on these articles. Gastrich is, with respect to his development, still very much an adolescent, used to getting his own way, and often over-pampered and over-indulged. So we grant a little, and he demands more. We grant that Falwell visiting and giving the commencement address is worthy of note, and suddenly, or we grant that some part of Governor Blanco's citation should be quoted (I didn't do that to capitulate, but to make a point that appears to be supported, now), and the next thing you know, we're not only expected to grant an alumni list on the page, but to accept, without question, that these are "notable alumni" by criteria that Gastrich gets to define, i.e., that they have a page on Wikipedia. See what's happening here? It's all intended to build the case and present it to those with the ability to do what needs to be done. WarriorScribe 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole "notable alumni" thing is just a "back door" way to get himself in the Wiki. I'll bet money on that. Mark K. Bilbo 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An editor should be banned from Wikipedia

Thoughts?

Well, I guess I'm wondering what the heck is going on here. We have 207.200.116.10 taking out comments, calling them POV pushing, putting the comments back in, telling Gastrich to deal with it, and then the comments are taken out, again as POV pushing. As Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say, "reveal yourself," 207.200.116.10! WarriorScribe 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Warrior, check this out: [DurangoBill.com]

Bill's page is well known to me. WarriorScribe 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, given the behavior, yes, it's pretty clear that Wiki could to better without someone like Gastrich around. WarriorScribe 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Wimbleton, Batman! WarriorScribe 04:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Newest removal.

Gastrich's distaste for actual education in his POV has kept the following off.

Diploma mill

Some assert that LBU is really a diploma mill, as defined by the US Department of Education. First, one sign that a school might be a diploma mill is the "chosen university is accredited, but not by an agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA [6])"[7]. Louisiana Baptist University and the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools are not listed by CHEA [8]. Nor is the school listed as a charity [9]. Wherefore, making it an unaccredited school. Secondly, the Department warned to "beware of institutions that offer college credit and degrees based on life experience, with little or no documentation of prior learning" as a sign of a suspect school.[10] LBU does this very point, when they "take into account past professional experience and present occupational learning opportunities as we provide the academic courses for a unique educational experience." [11]

Dissertations

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. At accredited schools, a master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and doctoral dissertations are obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is required to be deposited in the United States Library of Congress (LOC), where it is made available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. (Since 1940, all accredited universities in the United States have deposited dissertations in the LOC [12]. The practice began in 1870, and many dissertations have been available online from the LOC since 1997 [13].). Yet, due to the fact that LBU policy does not require these standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction.

In comparison, the Harvard Divinity School, for the Doctor of Theology degree, requires that, "once sustained by the Committee, the original dissertation and the first copy, in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI), should be submitted to the registrar."[14] As noted on the Library of Congress webpage, since 1999, the UMI has submitted dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online [15].

• Who, here, believes with me that Gastrich has gotten himself an account at AOL, so he can revert comments anonymously and not be caught by the 3RR rule, and now finds himself in a revert and edit war with another user of AOL from the same area? I can't tell you how amusing that is! WarriorScribe 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The commentary on the 04:23 revert by 207.200.116.10 clearly is Gastrich. Gastrich is using an AOL account to get around the 3RR. Meanwhile, it appears that another AOL user is also on that address, perhaps there's some reporting error at Wiki? WarriorScribe 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sarine? David D. (Talk) 05:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• No idea. WarriorScribe 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• You can tell that over at the SAB article as well.

• Does it get any more bizarre (and entertaining) as this? WarriorScribe 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't it interesting, though, that we stop hearing from Gastrich and seeing him do edits (right about when he'd get nailed for violating 3RR, for one thing), and we suddenly see an anonymous IP poster from AOL, using language very similar to Gastrich's and engaging in very similar reverts and taking issue with the same things? WarriorScribe 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He'll be at it again. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15146.htm

Interesting. WarriorScribe 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably time someone charges 207.200.116.10 with violation of 3RR. WarriorScribe 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And schizophrenia. David D. (Talk) 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is locked until concensus can be reached

It seems to me that more rational minds here can come to some sort of standard of concensus with respect to notability of alumni. I will say, again, that we can't just arbitrarily decide what is notable and what is not, or that standard can spill across all of the college pages on Wikipedia and the lists will become unwieldy. As it is, Wiki seems to have some standards, most of which are not met by those Gastrich insisted on listing.

Meanwhile, the deletion of the diploma mill commentary was definitely out of line. Like it or not, it's a factor in the history of LBU and should be addressed. Wiki is not a sales platform for Gastrich or any other alumni of any other college. Hell, not too long ago, I went to the Pikes Peak Community College article and de-POV'd it a bit, and it's the first place that awarded me a post-high school degree. I have fond memories of PPCC, but that doesn't mean I can't see past that and make the article more POV. At any rate, encyclopedias are not about hiding stuff some of us might not like. LBU has had to deal with the issue, and it should be in the article. WarriorScribe 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about protected entry

LBU cannot be considered a diploma mill by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. It's a fabrication from one man and his one or two friends. The university:

1. Has 1100+ students

2. Has numerous faculty

3. Has a physical campus and a library

4. Has Jerry Falwell coming to speak at graduation (the biggest name in fundamentalist Christianity frequently speaks at diploma mills, just kidding)

5. Has numerous distinguished alumni

6. Has vigorous degree, course, and writing requirements

7. Has lengthy writing requirements for theses and dissertations

8. Was founded in 1973

9. Does not meet Wiki's standards for a diploma mill

The statement that LBU is a diploma mill has not been given by any reputable or professional source. It is simply the assertion of WarriorScribe and a couple of his cohorts; even worse than "personal research". More like a personal witchhunt.

The entry needs to include all of the alumni that are notable. If they have a Wiki entry, then they're notable. Plus, the entry needs the link to the List of LBU people. --207.200.116.6 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am as yet not taking a position on this; but the list will be reinserted as the diploma mill is there. In the end folks, both will likely end up staying. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but see Daycd's comments below and consider the other discussion on this issue before making any moderation decisions. If there is to be a standard for notability, it must always apply...or it can never apply. The parties listed to not meet Wikipedia standards for notability as they have been explained to me, so we may contest arbitrary standards created as a matter of convenience (e.g., a Wikipedia article exists, therefore, the person is notable). Of course, we also have the mediation and arbitration mechanisms available to us. WarriorScribe 07:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot get those people removed through good faith AfD's, then its notable enough for Wikipedia and of interest to this article. It's hardly surprising a fringe school would have fringe notable alumni... yet notable they are if their articles survive notability 101. On matters of how notable one has to be in order to be listed at their school as notable, a kept Wikipedia article is as good a standard as any. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...and perfectly agreeable. Thanks. WarriorScribe 08:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• NO. A wikipedia entry does not make someone notable. ANYONE can edit wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. Most of the biographies in wikipedia are border line deletion candidates. The reason they survive is because of apathy, most contributors don't want to waste time recommending articles for deletion. Another reason is because wikipedia is not paper and hence some people feel being verifiable is enough to be included. Being a verfiable person does not make one notable. Personally I am not against an alumni section but if they are unnotable I will be happy to axe them from the list. By your reasoning the list could grow to thousands before you are finished adding biographies of all your friends. Stop it now. David D. (Talk) 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• As usual, Gastrich shows that he just doesn't get it, and instead of trying to get it, he'd rather whine about witch hunts. Whether or not LBU is presently a diploma mill, the accusation is part of its history and there are many whom will publicly and privately maintain that it is a diploma mill. Since those are true, it makes sense to include that information in an article about the school. Encyclopedias aren't here to provide advertising for Gastrich's favored institutions and personalities. If the articles exist, let them exist in the light of truth, and not by Gastrich's standards, which cannot be cleared of bias.

The only "assertion" that I have made about LBU being a diploma mill is that it remains my personal opinion that any school that does nothing more than give out degrees for agreeing with a sectarian party line is a diploma mill. Students at LBU are not taught critical thinking or proper research skills. Gastrich's own participation in Wikipedia and his rather pathetic "rebuttal" to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, as well as several statements he's made on his web sites and in various discussion groups attest. Furthermore, LBU will certainly never issue a degree to any student whom does not adhere to the Baptist party line. There is no way Gastrich, or anyone else, can convince me that LBU would ever issue a Ph.D. to a doctoral student writing a thesis on something as anti-Baptist as, oh, let's say, for example, "Jesus never existed." While more and more historians are leaning toward that view, LBU would never permit it. They'd almost certainly expel a student whom tried to insist that that would be the subject of his dissertation or thesis. Having said that, my edits of the article have not been about that, so much, other than, as I have said, that the issue is a part of LBU history. Nowhere in my edits will anyone find any commentary on my own personal views of what is and what is not a diploma mill.

As to Gastrich's reasons why LBU is not a diploma mill, let's examine those one by one (and let's keep in mind that most are unproven and hardly-agreed-upon assertions by either Gastrich, the school, or both):

1. Has 1100+ students

A pretty fair number of known diploma mills have thousands of "students." In fact, one of the the hallmarks of the diploma mill has to do with the number of students processed quickly through the system. Numbers may impress Gastrich, as we often see with his boasting of web page at his domains and the number of Wikipedia "edits," but they are meaningless here. A diploma mill can quite easily claim thousands of students, and they often do.

2. Has numerous faculty

On the issue of "numerous faculty," again, a meaningless phrase. Show me a diploma mill that does not claim a faculty, even a fair-sized faculty. And characteristic of a diploma mill is the number of faculty members whom, themselves, received diplomas from the mill or from some other mill, or whom have unaccredited advanced degrees.

3. Has a physical campus and a library

The physical campus at Shreveport is, by all accounts, not altogether impressive...it is a single building, small by college standards. This does not make it a diploma mill, by itself, but it certainly doesn't prove that it isn't. Also, there is no physical library at LBU. When challenged specifically and directly with respect to this, Gastrich could not identify which building housed the library, even though he also claims that the library holds his "dissertation" and his "thesis." Sometimes a small college, just starting out, will have a small building or even just a few offices. I seem to recall that David Chigos started National University using small storefronts in strip malls and keeping the records in his trunk. These things do not make a diploma mill, and they don't keep an institution from being a diploma mill.

4. Has Jerry Falwell coming to speak at graduation (the biggest name in fundamentalist Christianity frequently speaks at diploma mills, just kidding)

Whether Jerry Falwell is the "biggest name in fundamentalist" circles is open to debate, but his attendance at a function does not keep LBU from being considered a diploma mill, nore does it mitigate the history of the institution, which claims that it is or was a diploma mill. The fact is that, outside of fundamentalist circles, Jerry Falwell carriees no weight and has little or no credibility.

5. Has numerous distinguished alumni

The existence of "numerous distinguished alumni" is precisely one of the points of contention and has been all along. Gastrich makes the statement as if we are to take it for granted. We do not. If Gastrich is any kind of example, the academic standards at LBU aren't much to brag about (and all one needs to do is read his "book" to get an idea about that, and then read one of the better rebuttal sites. Of the alumni at LBU, I know none that I would consider "distinguished." The publication of books within a narrow scope and, again, towing a party line is hardly qualifying.

6. Has vigorous degree, course, and writing requirements

"Various degree, course, and writing requirements." Fascinating. Diploma mills claim to have those, too.

7. Has lengthy writing requirements for theses and dissertations

Gastrich's "lengthy writing requirements for theses and dissertations" is likely a reference to the claim that these works must be of a given length; but that's an artificial standard that no decent academic institution would try to enforce. The value of a thesis or dissertation is not in its number of pages, but what is contained within those pages, and how it contributes to human knowledge, advances human knowledge, or benefits mankind. When I directly asked Gastrich how his own "dissertation" did any of these things, he would not answer, and eventually fled the discussion (and the discussion board on which it was occurring). Numbers may impress Gastrich, and diploma mills will occasionally appeal to their use at times, as well. But numbers don't mean quality.

8. Was founded in 1973

• Missed this one, but it's irrelevent. Being "founded" in 1973 doesn't keep it from being a diploma mill any more than being "founded" in 1974 keeps Gastrich from being a petulant child.

9. Does not meet Wiki's standards for a diploma mill

Whether nor not LBU meets Wikipedia "standards" is subject to debate, and regardless, the article at Wikipedia is not a "standard" for diploma mills. It is simply a general article about them. I am not aware of any standard or policy that Wikipedia has with respect to declaring an institution a "diploma mill" or not.

Gastrich's house of cards comes down so easily--the foundation is exceedingly weak. Again, the point here is not whether or not LBU is a diploma mill. By my standards, I believe that it is, but my standards are higher than Gastrich's. Since his whole existence depends on the value of the Ph.D. he expects them to hand him in May, well, that's his problem. Regardless, the point remains that the criticism is part of the institutional history, and the removal or attempted mitigation of that history is clearly POV-driven.

Finally, we have already dealt with and rebutted Gastrich's claims about the alleged notability of the alumni and what it is that makes someone notable. Gastrich has whimpered and whined, but in the end, as usual, his only answer is to repeat himself. The problem remains as explained--if we can all define our own standards of notability, the lists of alumni on pages can become unwieldy. Previous discussion on that matter has made it clear that the mere existence of a Wikipedia article is not cause to consider a person or institution as "notable," and each of the articles that Gastrich has composed in order to make a person or thing notable will be examined in light of general, societal standards of notability. WarriorScribe 07:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

*Roy, please add back in the following section, which Jason Gastrich has taken out:

Dissertations

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. At accredited schools, a master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and doctoral dissertations are obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is required to be deposited in the United States Library of Congress (LOC), where it is made available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. (Since 1940, all accredited universities in the United States have deposited dissertations in the LOC [16]. The practice began in 1870, and many dissertations have been available online from the LOC since 1997 [17].). Yet, due to the fact that LBU policy does not require these standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction.

In comparison, the Harvard Divinity School, for the Doctor of Theology degree, requires that, "once sustained by the Committee, the original dissertation and the first copy, in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI), should be submitted to the registrar."[18] As noted on the Library of Congress webpage, since 1999, the UMI has submitted dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online [19].

That was originally in there. ---QHYE (Not be confused with Jason Gastrich's same IP address above.)

Yes, it was...hey, Roy! Can you put back the commentary on dissertations? It was quite pertinent to the issues, at hand. WarriorScribe 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a pretty significant point when it comes to how we determine the real, intellectual value of a graduate degree from LBU. WarriorScribe 08:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep, you all should too. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some of us are night critters.  ;) Good night...thanks for your input and assistance. WarriorScribe 08:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: Is it really inappropriate to have the contact information for a college in the article (hey, surprise! I put that in there...not Gastrich, so it wasn't an attempt to "sell" the college, but simply to provide pertinent information...Gastrich just didn't like the format)? WarriorScribe 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Roy you might want to consider deleting the footnote that is on the page because it footnotes nothing and serves no purpose. --Q

Dissertations paragraph

Roy, as it stands, the dissertation paragraph has too many editorials, so it reads like one. The dissertation on dissertations needs to be scaled back. There is no need for a lecture or a lesson on dissertations.

The current paragraphs are also a bit POV without a concluding paragraph about what LBU does require, in regards to theses and dissertations.

How about this?

Dissertations

Unlike some schools, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. Due to the fact that LBU policy does not require this, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the university.

Some? ALL ACCREDITATED SCHOOLS THAT GIVE GRADUATE DEGREES HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS VERY PAGE! Those citations are what you removed to cut the paragraph and write "some." ALL dissertations are available from the LOC and through UMI so people don't have to travel the world to read dissertations for their own research. If its at the LOC ANY library in the US can get it and many worldwide or you can get them online through UMI from any computer in the world. Graduate education/work is transparent and can be check by ANYONE at ANYWHERE. That is the point of the paragraph. --Q

In comparison, the Harvard Divinity School requires students to submit "the original dissertation and the first copy, in bound form, together with their abstracts and an unbound, boxed copy for University Microfilms International (UMI)."[20] Since 1999, the UMI has submitted dissertations to the Library of Congress, which are then available for download online. [21]

While LBU does not participate in these practices, they do require master's and doctorate students to submit one hardbound copy for their campus library. This copy is available for viewing to anyone who visits.

--Jason Gastrich 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

* Jason, see the section labelled "problem paragraph" above that you had a problem with. That paragraph said all that stuff you want and you pulled it out. It is:

Unlike accredited schools and even many that are not accredited, LBU does not make graduate student research available to the academic community. This is considered unusual because the purpose of graduate work is to conduct research, write and publish the results in a graduate-level document (a thesis or dissertation) and add that material to academia, recording and storing the additions to human knowledge in a form readily available to other researchers and interested parties. A master's thesis is microfilmed and made available for loan from accredited schools, and a dissertation obtainable in similiar fashion. Doctoral work is also despoited in the United States Library of Congress, available to interested parties wishing to examine the work. Because the policy at LBU does not require these fairly standard practices, it is difficult to determine the quality of graduate work completed at the University, and it is, therefore, also difficult to determine the quality of the instruction. On the other hand, students of the institution claim that LBU does require graduate students to provide hardbound copies of the thesis or the dissertation to the University. It is then stored in the University library. Interested parties wishing to examine a thesis or dissertation are permitted to do so, but may not obtain or examine it by conventional channels. They must visit this library to conduct the examination. Oddly, however, LBU students questioned about this seem unable to identify the exact location or name of the building that houses the library or, failing that, the exact location of the building in which the collection of graduate documents is kept. The University web pages are no more informative with respect to this, rather important piece of information. This has been a major stumbling block for many wishing to examine the intellectual and academic credentials of an LBU graduate.

Note- This paragraph shouldn't be used because it is missing the sources and LOC explanation, but it goes to show that stuff was in there already to appease him and was taken out by Jason. Eventually he took that out to make a paragraph below it to downplay the requirements at other universities/LOC. And later on he deleted it all. Considering there is no library that sentence was misleading, but Jason was given an inch and he took a mile. Anyone notice a pattern here? --Q (Not Jason's IP address)

• The "dissertations on dissertations" needs to be "scaled back" because the article does not cloud the issue enough for Gastrich, whom has a vested interest in the school, especially on an emotional level. The inforamtion that is provided is pertinent to the issue and has to do, specifically, with not only the history of LBU, but with many of these church-run and church-founded schools that use these kinds of methods to avoid scrutiny by those willing to fairly judge the value of an education offered by them. The alleged requirement that students must submit a "hardbound copy for their campus library" is a claim made by Gastrich and not supported independently. Let's keep in mind that the school doesn't have a "library," per se--all affiliated libraries are electronic. Consequently, it is somewhat less than honest for Gastrich to make this claim. He, himself, when challenged, couldn't identify the "building" in which the library is housed, and attempted to get by that question with an answer that said, in essense, "the library building." The problem with that, of course, is that there is only one building on the campus--there is no distinguishable "library building," and Gastrich, as I seem to recall, admitted that he's never been on the campus and has never seen the "library." The school needs to be treated fairly. I see a school with problems in the past, but trying to build a legitimate private institution; but that doesn't mean that we whitewash pertinent issues just to satisfy the point of view (and the ego) of one, disgruntled Wiki user. WarriorScribe 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• So Jason wants the explanations and citations on the dissertations removed, which explain the facts that might question the graduate's education. It seems he has a problem with links from the LOC as well as anything cited with sources that doesn't hide the schools questionable degrees. Keep in mind the accrediation board has voted no for accrediation 7 years ago and has not taken up the issue since. The school is only allowed to give religious degrees as well and that's not in the article either.

• After deleting the section and realizing it's now going to stay he wants it clipped of all significance. This issue was already dealt with above on this talk page. Jason labelled it "problem paragraph" and you can see what he changed, why changed it, and what he added.

• Jason, was that you as a AOL IP making changes and reverts yesterday? Q (Not Jason's IP address)

An editor's talk page

I appreciate I'm the go to guy given I've protected the page and have made baby steps to compromise; but my talk page is not a place to have a debate... well at least I don't think so. :"D It makes more sense to do it here, that way I don't need to send messages to all involved parties. I'll remind everyone to try to be civil, as ultimately reality will be reflected in this article. As reality is complicated, LBU isn't merely a diploma mill, but at the same time it does not follow accepted practices for post-graduate accreditation. As I understand it, submitting things to the internal library (brick or electronic) isn't up to snuff. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I say...nuke the site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure [grin] WarriorScribe 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, you're right. LBU isn't "merely a diploma mill," though I might call it one by my standards (expressed and explained elsewhere), that doesn't mean that it need be declared as one at Wikipedia. All I'm saying on that score is that it's been a criticism in the past and it's part of LBU history, like it or not. So it can't be whitewashed. And the continuing issues with educational standards, as well as those things that are not standard, cannot be whitewashed, either. Honesty and the integrity of the encyclopedia demand that these things remain. - WarriorScribe 00:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LBU entry

• WarriorScribe is a jackass, so don't expect there to be a consensus. He's bent on trying to discredit LBU and remove the notable alumni. Overall, he's against religious people and their endeavors. The bottom line is there is no good reason, no reputable source, and no proof that LBU is a diploma mill. The accusation is a fabrication of WarriorScribe's making and it has been perpetuated by a couple of his friends. You would think SOMETHING could be found in Google if his lies were even remotely true. But nothing exists because he just made it up and he wants to push his opinion into Wikipedia. --207.200.116.72 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Brave boy, that Gastrich, hiding behind false names and IP addresses. And such a fine, Christian attitude, too!

Gastrich can whimper and whine about lies all he wants...the record speaks for itself and it wouldn't take much to provide more evidence that Gastrich is about self-promotion (even if it means lying, which he does often). Furthermore, I don't think I introduced the "diploma mill" commentary into the discussion, and it is not a "fabrication." Let's consider that there were reasons why even the state of Louisiana was, shall we say, a tad reluctant...to allow LBU a license to operate. Gastrich has a personal stake in all of this since he's a "graduate student" at the school. He can't separate feelings from facts.

Having said all of that, I don't have a problem with a concensus. In fact, if you'll check the edits, even after I said that the list should be fully gone, I actually put it back once, in reduced form, thinking that maybe a smaller list with some rather relaxed criteria would be okay.

I have nothing against religious people. For one thing, I'm Jewish. I attend shul on Saturdays and observe the High Holy Days as much as I am able. And Gastrich cannot demonstrate a single lie on my part, while I can demonstrate many on his. All you have to do is ask, and you know what? I may not even wait for that... WarriorScribe 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Roy! Take a look at this and check the history and the changes back and forth under the same IP. Any ideas? WarriorScribe 08:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just to make this more obvious I am going to paste this here. There is some very strange editing occuring on the LBU page. There areconflicting edits in the revert war coming from the same computer. There is no way a dynamic IP would keep shifting between two users this way. Judging from the time differences they are the same person or in the room together. This looks a lot like trolling hell from my perspective.

The following edits were made by IP 207.200.116.10 23:23, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv POV pushing (it's obviously not a diploma mill). lbu has a campus, library, sizable faculty, 1100+ students, legitimate coarse and writing requirements, lengthy thesis and dissertation requirements) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (A source of accusation cited. US Department of Education Cited. LBU's dissertation cited. LOC dissertation practice cited. Deal with it Jason.) 23:12, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv POV pushing) 23:11, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (A source of accusation cited. US Department of Education Cited. LBU's dissertation cited. LOC dissertation practice cited. Deal with it Jason.) 22:56, 14 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Louisiana Baptist University (rv - no professional source for Diploma mill accusation, only ludicrous POV)

I'm assuming the bold above is a different user to the normal text. Those edits are minutes apart. The weirdness continues, IP 207.200.116.6 made the following two edits 50 minutes apart [22] [23]. It does not get stranger than that. David D. (Talk) 08:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An editor's deceit and poor personal research

RoyBoy, I'm glad you're trying to help the entry. However, it's going to take some work with WarriorScribe's nonsense.

He wrote, "The alleged requirement that students must submit a "hardbound copy for their campus library" is a claim made by Gastrich and not supported independently. Let's keep in mind that the school doesn't have a "library," per se--all affiliated libraries are electronic. Consequently, it is somewhat less than honest for Gastrich to make this claim." However, he knows these are lies.

LBU has a campus library.[24] They require students to submit a hardbound copy for their library. This has already been stated in their own literature; a link that he read and even found! [25] See page 20 and point number 6.

WarriorScribe is a guy named Dave Horn who is both hostile to religion and religious people and a known liar. He is very single-minded in his online life and certainly in his Wikipedia contributions. Getting a consesus with him involved will certainly be impossible.

--Jason Gastrich 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, that's the first time I've seen that PDF, but it doesn't prove anything. Secondly, I still don't know where this "library" is, and neither does Gastrich. The campus, as far as anyone knows, consists of a single building. It is not a lie or deceitful to make a statement on something believed to be true. If one visits the LBU web site and clicks on the "libraries" link, one finds that the only libraries mentioned are electronic. Claims that Gastrich makes with respect to what I know are flat-out dishonest, intended to advance his own hate-filled, sectarian agenda here at Wikipedia.

• In the second paragraph, Gastrich again asserts that there is a campus library. Ask him where it is. Even if it's in the single building that exists on the campus, ask him which room. Now, you need to understand (and you probably already do), that it's possible that there is a special "library" room of sorts where a "thesis" or a "dissertation" might be kept, but when questioned about this, Gastrich couldn't answer it, either. And I suspect that referencing an alleged scan on a site under a domain that Gastrich owns is problematic, at best. Why can't his claims be independently verified at the LBU site or anywhere else? As near as I can tell from my examination of what is available to me, there is nothing that most of us would think is a "library" on the LBU campus. If there is, no one seems to know about it.

• In the third paragraph, Gastrich refers you to a Google Group that he created, using a domain name stolen from me ("maleboge"). It has a series of articles that were composed by someone named "Fraud Buster." This "Fraud Buster" went to great lengths to pretend that he and Gastrich were not one and the same, even to the point of putting up the illusion of sending emails back and forth and posting as if they are different people. But the evidence clearly shows that Gastrich is "Fraud Buster" and that was most recently confirmed by John Wolf, otherwise known as "Bible John," who also happens to be an erstwhile, though now former, partner in deception with Gastrich. In fact, after a bit of a falling out between the two, "Bible John" also exposed Gastrich's tactics at Wikipedia, which include recruiting him and another Usenet participant, "Uncle Davey," to praise Gastrich publicly. Davey apparently declined. The fact is that Gastrich, while pretending to "bust frauds," as it were (and allegedly including yours truly), perpetuated fraud on his readership, however small it might be.

• Furthermore, with respect to this issue, the real liar is Gastrich. His Google group is populated by, apparently, 4 "members," but only Gastrich, as "Fraud Buster," ever posts articles and it's likely that he is the only one permitted to do so. At the maleboge.org site, Gastrich is free to post any time he wishes. What he did was seek "membership" in the group under a false name, was denied, and created the stolen-domain-name group. Gastrich, as he usually does, then set up redirects and, even though I don't have a web site up yet under the maleboge.org domain (which I own), set it up so that if someone accidentally types dot-com instead of dot-org, they go to his group. Why? Because there is information at the maleboge.org group that he doesn't want people to see. It's just one method that he uses to silence opposition, since he is incapable of intelligently dealing with these issues, as well as the exposure of his attempts to perpetuate fraud and use Christianity as a self-promotional tool. At any rate, there are a number of articles at the maleboge.org group that have pointed out and questioned a number of Gastrich's tactics, and he even signed on for a membership in the group just after it was formed. He's never posted.

• The point here is that the malboge.org group allows rebuttal. His stolen-domain-name group does not. Consequently, I have responded to and refuted each of Gastrich's claims. Here are some of those rebuttals (and corrections of the many things that Gastrich gets wrong):

• • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

• I'll stop there...you get the idea, however, feel free to ask me any questions about this as you see fit.

• What's probably most amusing about all of this is that Gastrich has made a couple of speeches about how ineffectual the talk group is, how ineffectual I am, and how he runs this wildly successful ministry, and yet, he went to a lot of effort, even further damaging his credibility (since most of what he claimed was either made up, misunderstood, or misrepresented). In the end, Gastrich is a believer in his own peculiar form of once-saved-always-saved Christianity, which he uses to justify any act as long as he can at least represent that it's in the name of Jesus. That includes dishonesty and the hate so obviously exudes from every message. Check his history--not just at Wikipedia, but on Usenet, at web sites, in debates...you'll find a continuing pattern of dishonest, hypocritical (he once criticized me because I live in an apartment...an interesting criticism considering his, eh, let's call it his "history of residences"), and juvenile behavior. If you need any assistance, just let me know. WarriorScribe 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• One last point: I've already answered the issue of my alleged "hostility" to religions or religious people. I have no problem with either of those things. When someone uses religion to take advantage of others, well, that's another matter...and that's what Gastrich tries to do. As to being a "known liar," well, if we define a liar as one whom engages in deliberate deception, I will point out, and not for the first time, that Gastrich has never been able to point out any specific lies that I have told. I, on the other hand, can nail Gastrich on numerous lies, the most recently obvious being the identity of the "Fraud Buster." WarriorScribe 23:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich, I've seen that PDF file, you footnoted that as your "evidence" that the school is not a mill and its still at the bottom of the LBU page (even though its not referencing anything). Yet, that proves nothing. Give us three of the following (1) address of the library to show the campus more than one building, (2) a campus map that displays where the library is, (3) a librarian's name/email address, (4) a link to the school's library catalog, (5) a list of collections to search the dissertations on file (isn't that yoru claim the library keeps student dissertations on file) or (6) a school article about the history/founding of the library. If you can supply that information, basic information every library has like a link to the library catalog of the school's books/thesis/dissertations or a list of library collections/special collections that would better suit your argument.

• Interestingly enough, Gastrich popped in long enough to whine and withdraw his "compromise statement," as if it's all up to him, and didn't even attempt to answer these points. It's funnier, still, since I didn't write the paragraph above. - WarriorScribe 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As for you attacking Warrior over religion, what does that have to with anything? His religion or lack of should make no difference in you proving your case. The fact that you are graduating from LBU makes you more partisan than someone of a different kind of Christianity/religion wondering why the school does not sumbit to basic universal academic requirements. His religion has no bearing in wondering why the "university" has no library catalog. His religion has no bearing in citing that Louisiana has refused to give accredation to the school. His religion has no bearing in your inability to comprehend that ALL dissertations are available at the Library of Congress.

This is very sad. You are a proven liar. http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html And have a long history of deceiving people in Wikipedia articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich You should be banned from Wikipedia for your behavior.

Lastly, two enteries about LBU complain about Warrior on this page. An unknown AOL IP which reverted the pages and deleted criticism past the 3 revert rule and Jason who strangely revert the page three times then the AOL IP took over. What a strange coincidence. Jason, was that AOL IP you? --Q

You'll have to excuse ol' Gastrich. You see, he posted on the issue, and I wrote a short rebuttal (even though, according to him, I can't rebut anything) and since he's already given up pretty much all he has, he does what many intellectual-wannabes do...he takes it up a notch and makes it personal. The problem is that I can deal with that, too...and laughing at him the whole time. - WarriorScribe 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• You can bring those two topics to the talk page, but please remember that I was addressing you (as WarriorScribe addressed you) and I'd appreciate it if you'd reply to my message to you (as you replied to him). I certainly wasn't addressing WarriorScribe; even though he took it upon himself to address me and launch some more personal attacks. Talking to him is like talking to a wall. As you probably saw, he tried to rebut my valid points about LBU being a legitimate institution. With mind numbing responses and silly rebuttals like, "Fascinating. Diploma mills claim to have those, too.", who would want to bother with him? smile

• • For the record, I never address Gastrich. I may respond, rebut, and refute him, but my comments are not for him. As for Gastrich's "valid points," well, I'm still chuckling. If he can rebut what I said about them, let him try. The fact is that his claims are all things that are part and parcel of diploma mills. Quite a few of them use those same claims (lots of students, "distinguished faculty," and so on). And, as usual, the point of my responses sailed right over Gastrich's head. It bears repeating that my own criteria, which is much higher than Gastrich's when it comes to education, is that any school that does what LBU does is a "diploma mill." However, I don't think LBU should be declared on here, because those standards also don't apply to society, at large. I've said that more than once. My responses to Gastrich's, heh, "valid points," was not to affirm that LBU is a "diploma mill." They were generic responses to what were, really generic points. WarriorScribe 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The simple point is that such a wild and outrageous claim (e.g. LBU is a diploma mill) that isn't held by any professional or reputable source, should be removed. Plus, there must be a mention on the actual criteria of the theses and dissertations. Wikipedia entries are supposed to be factual and informative; not POV-driven by an extreme minority who has problems with the Christian religion.

• • Gastrich really needs to pull his head out of his ass and learn to read. If one really pays attention, which Gastrich is too busy throwing a temper tantrum to do, one sees that the comment does not declare LBU to be a "diploma mill." It says, "some assert that LBU is really a diploma mill, as defined by the US Department of Education." This has been a legitimate criticism and remains so, but the article does not say that LBU is a diploma mill. And that's not the best part. The best part is that I didn't write that paragraph or even that statement. Gastrich keeps whining about me and who I don't match up to his "morals" or "Wikipedia" ideals, but he's so worried about me (despite all of his brave speeches) that he seems to have missed that little fact. - WarriorScribe 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My specific question to you was regarding a compromise. However, I'm withdrawing that compromise because the assertion lacks proof and substance. It's merely one man's quest to try and discredit a Christian institution. Nobody besides the friends he can count on his hands agrees with him. It simply doesn't belong. --Jason Gastrich 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It's part of a general criticism shared by many with respect to LBU. It belongs. Maybe Gastrich should stop whining and expecting everyone on the planet to capitulate to his every, silly whim, get a real job...and get a life. - WarriorScribe 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While occasionally poorly worded WarriorScribe's perspective isn't merely held by him and his friends. Since LBU is unaccredited its entirely reasonable to question the academic credentials they bestow. I'm uncertain how WS & friends being in a minority or LBU statistics changes that. The entry indeed does not define LBU as a dimploma mill, but rather states "some assert" it is. Of course there is good reason to object to that as its a weasle term, and indeed no verified source is cited. And yes, I agree the actual criteria should be mentioned. Please make further suggestions on the article talk page... I appreciate you would like to correspond with me, but my talk page just turns into another battleground; which is okay, but little is accomplished and the discussion gets fragmented... which is not okay. cc'd to article talk page. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

* RoyBoy, your comments about "WS and friends" is uncalled for. I am in no way, shape or form connected to WS or anybody else. With Jason Gastrich's history of deceit and out right lies I think you should be cautious in accepting anything he says. He was repeatedly tried to hide the truth behind Kent Hovind's diploma mill education from Patriot University, a degree Hovind paid $3-500 for completing it in one year because Gastrich believes he is doing God's work.

We (WS and I) are independent people that don't like the loose requirements at LBU to be drawn on the same level of actual higher educational institutions. A degree mill is an institution that has loose requirements and a high graduation rate, that is LBU. The largest doctotal program in a big department may only accept 30 students a year without a 100% graduation rate. In constrast to a very high number of acceptance at LBU.

Gastrich has seen criticism on the web with many people citing the lack of education from this article so he wants to change that. One example [26] and a few more below.

LBU has been listed at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_diploma_mills before my interest in this article page. Many pages about it being a mill exist, of these some were part of citations removed from the article by Gastrich and his AOL IP.[27] [28][29][30][31]Here's an Ad proclaiming its a campus "without walls."[32], A debate amoungst baptists, one guy claims the online classes aren't even proctored [33] [34] [35]Here's an selling the life experience instead of credit/units at LBU Louisiana-Baptist-University,-Diploma-Mill.php[36]

* Most telling is this from a Dr. Jason Gastrich [37] dated 12-22-2003 in which Jason writes:

Do you need higher education that will teach you from the Word? I've been enjoying my Ph.D. program at Louisiana Baptist University. They also have undergraduate and Masters programs. LBU has a nice campus in Shreveport and they have a great distance learning program. Their faculty is helpful and godly.Plus, their alumni are top notch and in a number of successful careers. Here is an alumni site I made for LBU: http://jcsm.net/LBU/LBUAlumni.htm Louisiana Baptist University also has a great payment plan.It's basically an interest free loan where you pay $200 down and $100 per month. You can visit their web site for more information. Link: http://lbu.edu. This is just a plug for LBU because I'm enjoying their program and learning so much.

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich

The next post then reads:

I recommend against degree mills.

Clearly, with that example Jason can't say he never heard LBU be called a diploma mill. Or if he did he's a lied. Whether or not you think it is, it is a part of the discourse on thr school and Jason Gastrich knows it. In 2003 he knew peope thought it was a mill and now he wants to change that history with Wikipedia.

• Good point in that Gatrich cannot claim that this bit about the "diploma mill" is new, at all. Did you see the archived discussion when the article was up for deletion? Even most of the "keep" votes were because a good number of Wikipedians whom voted that way did so because they view it as a diploma mill that should be exposed! There might be six or so "keep" votes that wanted it kept, in part, so that it could be exposed as a diploma mill. I just find that rather amusing. - WarriorScribe 10:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In closing, "WS and friends" was uncalled and really diminishing of what's taking place here. Anyone who has contacted the school about credentials knows the truth about the school. The truth being LBU and dipmola mill, as Jason Gastrich knows since December 2003, are familiar terms. The fact that the school has one email contact and one phone number should really demonstrate the institution. You can't even send in email to professors from the webpage, there are no department webpages, no library catalog. Oh yeah how many non-diploma mills as Jason Gastrich descibed let's you pay $200 down and $100 per month. Does Harvard or any junior college? (LBU does expect payment in full to get the degree though.) ---Q

Fine. I tried to give Jason the benefit of the doubt, your clarification and objection is noted. Please recognize I'm trying to diffuse this situation. Continued philibustering just isn't helping. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was this isn't an us vs. him situation. If he wants to present his evidence we can discuss this together. You divided this into two groups, which I don't think is fair. And he's known about diploma mill rumors since 2003, which he denies and took off the article page. --Q

Thanks for the clarification, but the point was taken and I didn't disagree with it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all good, Roy, and I certainly take no offense, FWIW. "Q" is quite right, of course--there are quite a few people opposed to Gastrich and his methods. For myself, I've already said why I would call LBU a diploma mill (at the very least, it's a cheap, easy way to get an "advanced degree," and those of us whom actually work very hard for ours find that it cheapens the process and the end results). You might check the history for the page, which I'll grant is quite lengthy right now, and notice that, in fact, there was some commentary about a person quite well-known for being something of an expert on diploma mills (i.e., Steve Levicoff), but since this commentary was quoted in a Usenet message, I removed it per my understading of Wiki policies regarding such things. Here is that message. And here are my reasons for opposing Gastrich and those like him at Wikipedia. Certainly, many more references can be provided, if you need them. - WarriorScribe 09:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• More commentary from Steve Levicoff, an acknowledged authority on the issue of degree and diploma mills, provided simply to support the claims about the history of this issue with respect to LBU. In the comment referenced, we can see that it appeared to him, back in 1998, that even TRACS was not going to approve LBU. Here is another comment, from 2000. In this message, Levicoff responds to the question, "does anyone know much about Louisiana Baptist University" with "degree mill." Contrary to what is being claimed, the contention that LBU has never been viewed as a diploma mill by a "professional or reputable source" is not true. It's part of the history. WarriorScribe 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my compromise

I withdraw my compromise. The diploma mill section is false and doesn't belong. It has only been included because of Dave Horn (WarriorScribe)'s desire to troll me (follow me here) and discredit Christian institutions; especially ones that I'm affiliated with.

• I have no interest in discrediting Christian institutions, though I have no problem exposing those "Christians" and "Christian institutions" that do not engage in Christian behavior, honesty, integrity...or, at least, what should be Christian behavior, honesty, and integrity.

• As we can all see, I'm not the only party in this discussion and I'm not the only person interested in seeing that the truth is told. The "diploma mill" section is not to be included because I want it there. What I want is completely beside the point. If it were up to me, the diploma mill section would not only remain, but LBU would be declared a "diploma mill" outright, which the article doesn't do. It's not up to me, so it's best that the history be included, but current efforts by LBU to become a recognized, legitimate institution of higher learning should be included. WarriorScribe 01:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to talk to WarriorScribe or compromise with him on this matter. He is a small-minded person who has an agenda that contradicts my morals and Wikipedia's ideals. --Jason Gastrich 01:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, this isn't solely between you and him. Second, we all could care less what YOU want. Third, facts are facts. Fourth, Wikipedia is not here for students to rewrite the history of their schools to better promote their degrees. --Q

• As we have already seen in the Bilbo matter, there is no real compromise with Gastrich. One must either accept his view or no view; and that's just not the way the world works. Maybe it's how things went on at home, where Gastrich's every whim was (and probably continues to be) indulged, but the rest of the planet is not required to make up for his failures to understand just how things work on that planet. - WarriorScribe 01:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• It pleases me no end that my "agenda" contradicts with Gastrich's "morals," particularly since he has demonstrated over and over again that he has no morals, except those that start and stop with self-promotion. So far, as the evidence for his lack of integrity and honor mounts, we can see that there is very little to which Gastrich will not stoop, and those parts of the Bible--those that prohibit lying and cheating, and those that tell one that, if a man would bid you to go one mile, go with him two--those are all just words to the likes of Gastrich.

• The Wikipedia ideal is about as unbiased and impartial a treatment of the subjects within as possible. Articles must be as neutral in point of view as possible, but the overwhelming drive for Gastrich is POV. He's even created an "organization," such as it is, to insure that "Christians" have "a voice" at Wikipedia. His agenda--the one he doesn't to talk about--is to twist as much of Wiki to his own world view as possible, categorizing people and institutions as Christians or atheistic, and pushing is POV, either surreptitiously or blatantly, in nearly every article that he touches (beyond classifications, and sometimes even then). Gastrich has no interest in the "Wikipedia ideal." - WarriorScribe 01:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thiking the dipmola mill section is false or not false is POV. It fits the US Department of Education's description and has remained a part of criticism against LBU throughout its history. I do not see how that's debate. --Q

I just wanted to point out Jason has done the samething on Wikipedia a year ago with many articles, example Anthony Flew. Where he causes an editor to lock a page.--

• LBU is not a Diploma Mill. That's a bogus claim. Delete whole section or turn it into a paragraph.--God's child 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that this is not a legitimate user and is most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone else on this page. Anyway, LBU is a diploma mill. Do you know how I know? I ask one little question ... is it accredited? No, it isn't. And since it isn't accredited it has no standards to meet. Which means there's nothing stopping it from, say, giving you a diploma for money. I.e. a diploma mill. --Cyde Weys 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

An administrator says, it's "a weasle term"

• Agreed. This is precisely why the diploma mill section should be removed. There's no verifiable or reputable source (represented nicely by the pathetic attempt at linking conversations about LBU's courses above). Most of those links didn't even work. The one that did said the Ph.D. was comparable to the regionally accredited D.Min. degree that the student also earned!

FYI - I'm not going to waste my time responding to the outrageous personal attacks. I will remind readers that as soon as WarriorScribe created a Wikipedia account (which was created to troll me), an administrator named Duncharris told him to stop being a disruptive troll[38].

Forgetting for the moment that that's not exactly what happened or what was said (watch out for Gastrich spin), I'll toss in a reminder that I asked about those things and never got an answer. Isn't it interesting that Gastrich deliberately used a citation that does not include my subsequent comments on the matter? And as long as Gastrich wants to deal in these kinds of irrelevancies, I can always bring up the multiple times he and his dishonest methods were exposed, both here at Wikipedia and elsewhere. It doesn't take much looking. Gastrich has a significant history of disruption and trolling in many venues. WarriorScribe 08:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The diploma mill section should be removed, immediately. --Jason Gastrich 07:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually that means it should be tweaked. Done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Works for me. WarriorScribe 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The newest version is fine by me. On an unrelated issue, there is a footnote at the bottom of the page that is not referencing anything. ---Q

• LBU isn't a diploma mill. Its accreditations require work which takes years to complete. If you are denigrating religious tertiary education generically, then why are you silent about the catholic and Islamic Universities? They are the equivalents in other traditions, but you are simply in fundy-bashing mode again, as is your wont. I vote to remove that section from this entry. --Uncle Davey 08:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a significant tangent. If those Universities are in the U.S. and don't meet the standards repeatedly outlined here, then they too are suspect post-secondary institutions. However, by "other traditions" can I assume we are talking about places both in, and outside North America? If so, they are not pertinent here, especially if they submit material to the Library of Congress either directly, or indirectly using University Microfilms International. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Davey is a British subject living in Poland. I suspect that if we ever actually bothered to challenge him to tell us exactly what "accreditations" LBU is working on (which I won't do here...I'll simply add another article to my list to be posted elsewhere--tick, tock), he, doubtless, wouldn't know. The fact is, of course, that LBU certainly isn't working on conventional, secular accreditation, unless someone can present some evidence to the contrary. The "other traditions" comment is a fairly mild statement that represents his anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim bigotry, more strongly expressed in many Usenet posts (one of his favorite, denigrating names for followers of Islam, for example, is "muzzles," which he claims is common in Europe, and he calls Islam a "gutter religion." He is, of course, quite wrong that anyone here is really trying to denigrate "religious tertiary education generally," so there was no need to answer the question. - WarriorScribe 16:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what my being non-American has to do with this. As far as I was aware, wikipedia is a world project. Up till now I didn't see anyone making non-American contributors out to be unwelcome or second-rate. But whatever. You have simply avoided the question of where it is that you have made an analysis of all religious degrees and tertiary education institutions and decided that the Fundamental Christian ones need to be singled out for special concern. You may not be comfortable with religious institutions awarding degrees and doctorates, and place a higher value on secular ones, but bear in mind that most of the most prestigious Universities in the Western world started out as uniquely religious institutions also. Uncle Davey 08:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh look, Gastrich brought his poodle! Mark K. Bilbo 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another helpful comment from village person Marky Bilbo.Uncle Davey 08:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • UncleDavey/Jason Gastrich what happened to not using sock puppets anymore? Someone add this new name to the list of Jason Gastrich puppets.

Someone add this new absence of name to the list of anonymous people who need to learn to read. Uncle Davey 08:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not only should the whole section be removed, this paragraph is unnecessary nonsense:

"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. [39]"

This paragraph highlights the very problem here. All these words are not tied into the actual school. They're just walking alongside the school implying they could be relevant, or they could be irrelevant. Without a reputable source, you guys are just writing an editorial or gossip column. Either find a professional source, or just delete the diploma mill section. With all due respect, you guys aren't professional sources, so all of this is just musing about diploma mills.

Try this on for size. Let's see how many of the following diplima mill criteria that LBU meets.[40]

1. Your chosen university is not accredited. yes

2. Your chosen university is accredited … but NOT by an agency recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation, http://www.chea.org. The majority of Internet degree mills are "accredited." Problem is they are accredited by bogus agencies that they themselves have created. These bogus accrediting agencies often have prestigious sounding names. Contact CHEA for the names of valid accreditors in the USA. yes and no (not accredited by CHEA, but by a non-bogus agency)

3. Admission criteria consist entirely of possession of valid Visa or MasterCard. Previous academic record, grade point average, and test scores are deemed irrelevant. no

4. You are offered a college degree based on a "review" of your faxed resume. Credit for career experience is a valid option at many universities that deal with adult learners. But the process of evaluating career experience for college credit is complex. No valid distance learning university in the USA will award a graduate degree (Master’s or Doctorate) based solely on a review of career experience. Undergraduate programs are more flexible. Accredited undergraduate programs typically limit credit for experience to a maximum of 10 courses or 30 semester credits. (One year of a four-year degree.) One notable exception is Thomas Edison State College of New Jersey. This publicly-funded distance learning university makes it possible for adult learners, in theory, to earn Associate or Bachelor degrees entirely through career portfolios, military and corporate training, and challenge exams. no

5. You are promised a diploma within 30 days of application regardless of your status upon entry. Degree mills are in the business of selling paper. Ergo, they’ll get that piece of paper to you as quickly as possible. no

6. You are promised a degree in exchange for a lump sum – typically $2,000 for an undergraduate degree, $3,000 for a graduate degree. Universities do not commonly charge flat fees. They typically charge per credit or per course tuition and fees. no

7. Your prospective online university has multiple complaints on file with the Better Business Bureau. The BBB records consumer complaints about online degree mills. Visit the BBB online at http://www.bbb.org. no

8. Your online "admission counselor" assures you that online universities can’t be accredited by CHEA recognized agencies. This is a lie. no

9. The school’s Web site either lists no faculty or lists faculty who have attended schools accredited by bogus agencies. no

10. The university offers online degrees almost exclusively to United States citizens but is conveniently located in a foreign country, quite often a tiny nation that lacks any system of academic accreditation. Don’t be fooled by online degree and diploma mills. Many maintain impressive web sites. All of them advertise heavily online. Look beyond flashy graphics for the name of the school’s accreditation agency. Take the time to verify accreditation by an agency that is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. no

Yes = 1.5 No = 8.5

I still move that the diploma mill section be deleted. Keeping it would be absurd. LBU doesn't fit the criteria of a diploma mill. No professional or reputable source can be cited that says they are one.

--Jason Gastrich 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been very fair here, but these incessant long posts are really trying my patience. You could have just said LBU only meets the first two criteria, and I dispute the second criteria. One or two sentences is all that was required to make your point. Wikipedia is not a newsgroup. Now I require another few sentences from you, what is this "non-bogus agency"? If they pass muster I'll change the link to something else; but I doubt it will for two reasons, its not CHEA and you didn't volunteer it... unless you're thinking I should know as its listed somewhere in this mess of a talk page. Anyway, if its not a reasonable accreditor, I consider those two criteria sufficient to keep the link, and section, as is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't been fair at all. I'm sorry if these "incessant long posts are trying (your) patience." The post I made had 10 prime ways to identify a diploma mill. As I showed, LBU meets only 1.5 of them. Therefore, telling you the name of the accrediting agency is irrelevant. Of course, you can find it on the actual page, but it's not a diploma mill because the only criteria it meets is that it's unaccredited; which is quite common in regards to Christian institutions. Many do not want the government involved. No reputable source calls LBU a diploma mill and it doesn't meet the criteria above or the criteria on Wiki's entry for diploma mills. Besides caving into WarriorScribe's crusade, you should take an honest look at the facts. Dominating this entry with nonsense and false, hollow allegations is ridiculous. --Jason Gastrich 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"1.5" is purely POV. Try this list: Christian College Mills Just give him the source to prove it is 1 or 2. That's all he asks. Then you'll refute WS' argument.

Heh...well, for whatever it might be worth, the only real argument I'm making with respect to the regular understanding of what is and is not a diploma mill and the article is that LBU has been considered one in its history by an authority in the field, and so the section should remain. I think it's a diploma mill for the reasons I've stated. My point in providing that link was that we can probably all go out and find some article, somewhere, that is more supportive of our particular view than other articles on the subject. Gastrich simply selected the "test" that worked best for propaganda value. - WarriorScribe 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let me clarify: Because Gastrich doesn't appear to be getting his way and either can't or won't fulfill a rather simple requirement, Roy is not being fair. That's how it works in Gastrich's world.
• Note for the record that Gastrich continues to complain about the article as if it declares LBU to be a diploma mill. It doesn't...not really. However, as noted before, the criticism is part of LBU history.
• As a matter of course, it's fair to speculate that many Christian schools "don't want the government involved" because of comparatively stringent requirements for accreditation or, at least, approval, just as it's fair, as a matter of more direct focus, to speculate that Gastrich dropped out of the program at Liberty University, an accredited institution, and signed on at LBU because LBU has more, shall we say, "relaxed standards" for their "advanced degrees," including the lack of a requirement for Greek or Hebrew. Regardless of speculation, when a school makes it a point to avoid accreditation because of those things, there's reason to suspect the quality of the program, at the very least.
• While there is no current reference to LBU being a diploma mill, a known authority in the field (Steve Levicoff) is on record as declaring it so, and, to date, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he's reversed that opinion. Consequently, it is fair to say that a "reputable source" has referred to LBU as a "diploma mill."
• Wikipedia does not have a "criteria" for diploma mills. It has an article about the subject. It is disingenuous to appeal to that article and call it a "criteria" that is presumably to be officially imposed at Wikipedia. WarriorScribe 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your position is noted, as is your avoidance of the facts. Frankly now that I think about it; isn't 1.5 logically impossible since it is admittedly unaccredited by CHEA 1, then claiming any other accreditation makes for 2 automatically. (and of course you understand these are listed first as they are the most important, and easiest to verify) Anyway, you're welcome for the Notable Alumni list. Please be aware Wikipedia has a long memory, and further disruption will simply result in bans, maybe after a warning. (I could have banned all of you for edit warring, but being the unfair guy I am, I decided to step in and help.) Next time I doubt I'll be so unfair. Toodles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Since I've proven, further above, that it's false to claim that "no professional or reputable source can be cited" that says that LBU is or was a diploma mill, I'm wondering if we can engage in another intellectual exercise. Gastrich carefully selected one of many sites that provide a bit of a test for diploma mills. I'm wondering if he's courageous enough to put LBU to the test with these questions. I know that, based on what I know of LBU, I already have. - WarriorScribe 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That Levicoff link should be on the article page. Excellent research:

More commentary from Steve Levicoff, an acknowledged authority on the issue of degree and diploma mills, provided simply to support the claims about the history of this issue with respect to LBU. In the comment referenced, we can see that it appeared to him, back in 1998, that even TRACS was not going to approve LBU. Here is another comment, from 2000. In this message, Levicoff responds to the question, "does anyone know much about Louisiana Baptist University" with "degree mill." Contrary to what is being claimed, the contention that LBU has never been viewed as a diploma mill by a "professional or reputable source" is not true. It's part of the history. WarriorScribe 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence In 2000, author/teacher Steve Levicoff allegedly accused LBU of being a diploma mill [41] was pulled out by someone recently. For those interested see the old LBU version [42].

I pulled that, actually, because, as I understand it, a second-hand quote or reference in a Usenet message is not a valid reference for a Wikipedia article. At least, that's my understanding. On the other hand, there's direct commentary on the subject available, and it verifies what's in that first reference. Fortunately, Roy is an admin, so he can give us a ruling on that. - WarriorScribe 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WarriorScribe has said above he pulled it because it does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a source, he is correct and since it stipulates "allegedly" it doesn't even add much to the section. But I have started an author stub on Steve Levicoff. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I've worked to counsel others on education and educational opportunities for many years and so, for whatever it's worth, Levicoff is considered something of an authority on the subjects of online and non-traditional education methods as well as diploma mills. His reputation isn't very far below that of John Bear's. Since he's a Christian, as well, we can "nip in the bud" any attempt to claim anti-religious bias, at least on his part. - WarriorScribe 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have a specific reference (doing more than alleging) from his book (page number etc) he can be fit into the DM section with a footnote. It would be nice if Amazon had the book on its searchable catalogue... meh, eventually Google will do it. I hope. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the second-hand reference to his comments in the reference that was removed from the article, there are a couple of Usenet posts that Levicoff wrote, himself. In those, he makes the statement pretty clearly. However, those are noted only as a matter of record, as I understand the policy regarding Usenet articles, and I have no qualms or disagreement with that policy. I know where there's a copy of the book. I'll check for it tomorrow. - WarriorScribe 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable and link suggestion

Two suggestions. One: "Notable alumni" should be changed to simply "alumni." People like Robert Morey and Bill Gothard are known for scandals, but are not "notable." The term "notable" is POV and does LBU no favors in demonstrating why some of their alumni are publicly known. Nor does being a minister for 22 years make Mike Randall "notable." Two: LBU's page should have a link to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning because LBU appears on the list and the readers can learn more on the subject and compare to other schools.

Notability is a tricky issue, but if those articles remain on Wikipedia I would deem these people to be notable. Also notability doesn't just mean generally notable; but also notable within their own community. On top of that if it just said alumni then the list could get very large very quickly. List added. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• It should be noted all but three of those pages where created by Gastrich/sock puppets including the "People Page" that is why the list has grown and the majority of the reason the list will grow. As you stated they are notable if they are on Wikipedia and should be included on the article page. If they are on Wikipedia it is assumed they have a broader fame/notablity. So isn't it redundant? One word/title "Alumni" removes redundancy.

Yes, it's quite true that there's "notable" and there's "notable within their own community." Consequently, and barring the input of additional information, I could only, in good conscience, select and write up one from the list to nominate for deletion. The rest do have some degree of notability (or notoriety, if you prefer). - WarriorScribe 03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If they are on Wikipedia it is assumed they have a broader fame/notablity. So isn't it redundant? One word/title "Alumni" removes redundancy.

That's a fair point. - WarriorScribe 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, "Notable alumni" is the standard heading for colleges. This list certainly does not contain all alumni, and "famous" has problems of it's own. Those alumni who are not notable shouldn't have articles in Wikipedia. -Will Beback 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers accuracy over redundancy. Also some notable alumni may not yet have articles. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Tha majority of schools do list at as "notable." Others University of Notre Dame call it "noteworthy," Harvard has a list titled "People associated with Harvard University," and Tulane University (near LBU) and Duke University do not have a list. I'm pretty sure Harvard has more "notable alumni" than LBU. If the majority of the people here want to keep it "notable" its fine with me.

Yeah...gotta go with that. Will Beback Johnson and RoyBoy Johnson are right! - WarriorScribe 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done with this thread, it stays. ----Q

Removed .edu paragraph

The following paragraph has not been tied into the entry. It's reaching and simply a wishful editorial. It should also be removed, immediately.

"While the school is unaccredited, the url contains the .edu domain. This may mislead some to think the school has some standing with US government approval. Yet, the usage of the .edu domain was explained by the US Department of Education as "not all institutions that use an .edu as a part of their Internet address are legitimate institutions. Before the U.S. Department of Commerce created its current, strict requirements, some questionable institutions were approved to use an .edu. The current requirements allow only colleges and institutions accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to use the .edu, however, some more suspect institutions have maintained the .edu addresses." [5]"

In the entry, it is mentioned several times that LBU is unaccredited. This is plenty of information, so that the speculation and insinuations above aren't necessary. --Jason Gastrich 02:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1) What makes it an editorial? 2) Where is there speculation and insinuation? Define your terms and explain. There is NOTHING about it being a mill. There is no speculation, it just explains the .edu straight from the USDE, which now requires accrediation to get.

Maybe changing "mislead some" to "lead some?" Or maybe change the sentence to read something such as, "may give the impression that" or "may imply that?" - WarriorScribe 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay modify that then. Whatever... "mislead" is different than "purposely mislead" or "deceive." So after those three letters are taken off, what else? ---Q

• In fact, the paragraph should remain, even if in reduced form and perhaps with less insinuation, because it is accurate. To obtain an *.edu domain name, these days, has certain specific requirements that LBU does not meet, yet the fact that LBU operates using an *.edu domain name certainly may lead someone to believe that the school has some sort of official approval when it does not. Again, this is part of the history involved, and encyclopedias don't exist to help those with an agenda whitewash facts that they don't happen to like. - WarriorScribe 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. When I first visited the webpage I made the mistake of assuming of it had accrediation until I read that part. Jason Gastrich's removal of it is purely POV.---Q

Reply

Hi RoyBoy. I hope you're well. You wrote some things to me above and I wanted to reply here.

I'm tired, so expect some tough love.

I do appreciate the gesture.

"Your position is noted, as is your avoidance of the facts. Frankly now that I think about it; isn't 1.5 logically impossible since it is admittedly unaccredited by CHEA 1, then claiming any other accreditation makes for 2 automatically. (and of course you understand these are listed first as they are the most important, and easiest to verify)."

This isn't logical. You are assuming that all unaccredited universities are automatically diploma mills. You or whoever asserts such a thing has the burden of proof. As of now, the burden of proof has not been met; and either has the other 8/10 criteria.

Correction, I know unaccredited universites which maintain they are accredited in some form meet the first two criteria of diploma mills given by that website (there are plenty of others I could use to bolster a case against LBU, but frankly I think the section is sufficient... I will remove the link in question because it does unfairly imply LBU meets those criteria). Ultimately, is LBU a diploma mill? I wouldn't know. But it does meet some key criteria; as the article specifies. You're on notice this is not only logical, but factual, NPOV and will remain.

In this case, an unaccredited university is not a diploma mill. I should know. In 1 1/2 years, I earned 27 credits at Liberty Baptist Theological seminary and transferred them to Louisiana Baptist University. It took me from August 26, 2002 until June 7, 2003 to complete the rest of LBU's requirements for my Master's degree.

On July 4, 2003, I began working toward my Ph.D. degree. I will receive it on May 6, 2006.

Umm... for a PhD it takes between 4-6 years, sometimes longer without already having the MA. Three years including a dissertation is fast, if not, impossible at a normal school due to the language requirements, research requirements, revisions, class work and study time.

By the way are you saying to began classes/enrolled on the 4th of July?

Does this really sound like a diploma mill to you?

No. But you should be cognizant of the fact a "diploma mill" can have relatively high standards for certain programs, especially PhD's, but not for other degrees. For someone with so many credits, it annoys me a great deal you cannot disaccociate your experience with broader issues here. Your doctorate program could be totally legit, and your dissertation could be up to accredited standards. This reflects well on LBU, but does not change their status in the least.

"Anyway, you're welcome for the Notable Alumni list."

I don't feel I need to thank you for this. First, this isn't me against you or me against someone else. We both need to be working to make this article like the others and even better than the others. Don't cater to me. Cater to the facts and the truth.

That's part of the point, I was congradulating myself for doing so.

And it seemed clear you were still unhappy and weren't going to do it yourself.

Next, I also don't feel like I need to thank you because a notable alumni list is par for the course for Wikipedia university entries. It's a bit crass to even suggest I should be thanking you.

It was, yet for some strange reason I think I deserved it.

"Please be aware Wikipedia has a long memory, and further disruption will simply result in bans, maybe after a warning."

Yes, we all have a long memory. I don't appreciate the threat, though. Like you said, I haven't even been warned. I'm an honest and dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. If I do something wrong, then let me know. General saber rattling like this is uncalled for, though. I don't even know what you're talking about.

It was a little saber rattling, but for the benefit of all. For me so I don't have to ban people, and for you not getting banned. Let you know? I have from time to time, but here is an executive summary:

• No edit warring.
• No personal attacks, be civil.
• No sockpuppets.

And my own personal policy:

• No "I've proved my point, so do this and that and the other thing."

In short, a dissertation on why LBU could possibly be a diploma mill (a dissertation that dominates the entry) is uncalled for. The facts are wanting. The reputable references are absent. The statements are speculative and general.

OMG. If by speculative and general you mean, factual and specific, then I agree. This isn't a NG, I'm not here to debate you, we are here to indeed work together on the article. The diploma mill criteria are very specific and not up for debate, nor is your personal experience terribly inclusive of LBU's standards and/or history.

I already listed a number of facts about the school that preclude it from diploma mill status. I also mentioned my personal experience as a student. You'll have to pardon my demeanor if I'm not impressed with how you've elaborated on something that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Just to put this to bed, you have done nothing of the sort. As the list does not require all criteria to be met for the school to be a diploma mill, this isn't an all or nothing list. ARGH!!! Until its accreditation status changes it meets key criteria as noted in the article. This won't change no matter how much personal experience you have there. The great effort you put into your PhD does not necessarily reflect LBU's standards; and its one POV in large forrest of POVs. What we are concerned with is verified standards through accreditation. Wikipedia tries to avoids personal perspectives in articles, that's what blogs are for. As such, there is no reason to bring it up here.

Finally, I'd like to know your opinion of the conversation about LBU from the internet forum. Someone mistakenly tried to use it to show that LBU was a diploma mill. In reality, it revealed quite the opposite. User "Jabbezzz" said, "The rigor between the two programs was quite similar. Keep in mind the DMin is a professional (oriented toward the practice of the ministry), while the PhD is a research degree. The individual courses were similar in course content, requirements, etc. My PhD dissertation was double the length of my DMin dissertation. And while the PhD is unaccredited, much more "blood, sweat & tears" were invested in this dissertation than its DMin counterpart." He also said it took him 4 years to finish his unaccredited LBU Ph.D. and three years to finish his regionally accredited D.Min. Take a looksee[43]. It's also notable that this conversation took place in October and November of 2004. Therefore, the accusation that LBU used to be a diploma mill and is just beginning to straighten itself out is also nonsense.

Are you beginning to see a pattern yet? Any idea why the ones that oppose removing the diploma mill section have launched numerous personal attacks against me? It's because they hate me and want to thwart my efforts; not because they're interested in the truth.

A pattern, yes, you are selective about your evidence. For every good PhD how can we be confident others put in that study and effort and outputted comparable material. This will sound very brash, but how do I know that person isn't stupid/busy and took 3 years what others could have done in 1-2 years. Anyway giving the benefit of the doubt, which I am more than able to do, a few hard working PhD's does not exonerate the university as a whole; it certainly improves it's status and things like that may lead to eventual accreditation, but until that day they are testimonials. Nothing more, and nothing less... and of little concern to Wikipedia. My opinion is it is not compelling evidence and makes it clear you are too close to this subject to be objective and/or see the bigger picture.

As you said, Wikipedians have a long memory. We hope you make the right decision. A word to the wise: including such an absurd section and siding with those that have an obsession with me, and care very little about Wikipedia, is a bad idea. It has already been shown that Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) only came to Wikipedia to troll me and if this doesn't reveal his heart and motivation to you, then nothing will.

--Jason Gastrich 05:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is some truth there, it seems they have an obsession with you because you have obsession with pushing your perspective. It takes two to tango... and your selective evidence makes it abundantly clear you have a narrow perspective on this, and likely other issues. (something Wikipedia can do without, regardless of how much you love it) I hope you understand the greatest PhD of all time coming out of LBU does not change its accreditation status and dissertation policy; both of which are specifically not in line with accepted practices. It's very simple, that needs to change before its status can be significantly reevaluated. (ie. diploma mill section removed/or relegated to the history section) Repeatedly requesting its removal, is... hmmmm, how do I put this... un-Wikipedia... and yes, wrong. (you asked me to tell you) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how Gastrich cannot stick the facts without getting petulant, engaging in whining, and eschewing even common courtesies (seeing no reason to thank RoyBoy being just one of them).

Let's start from the end and work our way up. I've already explained that I oppose Gastrich's efforts here--that's no secret to anybody. I oppose his efforts and will oppose those of anyone whom tries to influence Wikipedia to engage in a POV that is anything but neutral. Neutral points of view deal in all of the facts, not just those that some of us find comfortable. Gastrich obviously has a problem with that, as several encounters and his record of disruption and POV-pushing show. The fact is that it will not continue unchallenged--ever. Having said that, let me also suggest that if one wants a word from the wise to the wise, Gastrich is the last place to look for it. The fact is that nobody hates Gastrich and, as far as I know, no one ever has, except those that might actually know him (a couple of whom I have spoken with, personally, easily done since he's from my neck of the woods). It's precisely because of a love for the truth that some of us (there's more than me, though Gastrich keeps forgetting that) oppose him and that is why we thwart his efforts, because Gastrich has no concern for the truth. His frequent lies are evidence enough of that, and we've seen some of those lies in these discussions. And I think we all know that Gastrich has no business complaining about "personal attack" being conducted by others, since he engages in it so readily and, as I can also show, often without provocation.

Gastrich decided to check a couple of links and, not surprisingly, used commentary from the discussions that suited his purpose. He completed ignored other commentary that was not so flattering--commentary that has already been provided and even discussed on this page. We have already seen that, as far as can be presently verified, the claim that LBU has not been referred to as a "diploma mill" by any reputable source is false. Steve Levicoff, a Christian and a recognized authority in the field of non-traditional education, has done that in at least two messages for which I provided references elsewhere on this page. But notice how Gastrich is not even willing to grant what at least I have written elsewhere, that is, that LBU had issues but it's trying to build a legitimate educational institution. Gastrich dismisses that as "nonsense," but it isn't nonsense. The record is pretty clear that LBU has had issues and has had to make changes in the way in which it conducts itself in order to gain some credibility. For some of us, it's not quite enough yet. For example, how can one get a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies and not be required to take Biblical languages? Yet LBU does allow that (there's some speculation that this is why Gastrich abandoned Liberty University for LBU, that is, the more lax standards at LBU).

Now if Gastrich is insulted by all of that because it's where he's going to school, well, like the man says: Life sucks. Get a helmet. My first degree was from an approved school that was later shut down by the state of California (even though my diploma was issued before the school started having troubles). As a result, it's not worth it to me to bother to cite it on a resume. Oh, well...I'm not whining about it. I fixed it by making it better, elsewhere. I don't expect the world to bow to me and my now useless degree. That's the way it goes. Bottom line: LBU had issues with credibility that continue to this day, in large part because of lax standards, the refusal of the state to approve of the school, the fact that the school does not adhere to established standards for the publication of graduate work, and the fact that an authority on the subject did declare the school to be a diploma mill--twice in Usenet, as we have seen. That we can find some people on some discussion boards whom will tell us that it was still hard work is not surprising. For one thing, not all people are cut out to engage in any level of academic or research work (Gastrich's own SABCE illustrates this). What some of us might find very easy, others will find difficult and challenging. That, too, is life.

I've already addressed the issue of disseration length. The requirement, such as it is, at LBU is arbitrary and meaningless. It means that the school does not stress quality. Some of the best dissertations that I've ever read (most of which would leave Gastrich puzzled and scratching his head before he got much past the abstract) were relatively short. It's ridiculous to tell us that the page count is what matters when it comes to a dissertation or a thesis, and having such a requirement is the mark of a poser institution.

I think everything else has been covered enough. Probably what should happen now is that the article should remain as-is and locked. Gastrich got his alumni list, and I'm even persuaded that it should be there (even if pared down a little) and that seems to be concensus. Everything else has been explained. - WarriorScribe 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RoyBoy, to summarize your statements, because LBU is unaccredited and because it doesn't microfilm its dissertations, it's a degree mill. If I'm "selective about my evidence," (and I've included everything under the sun as evidence and there still aren't any reputable or professional sources to accuse LBU of being a diploma mill) then you are selective about your criteria. However, your criteria isn't the same as Wikipedia's criteria or the professional standard criteria for diploma mills. --Jason Gastrich 07:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, RB, I got a completely different reading from your comments. But hey, you already nailed it. - WarriorScribe 07:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction, could be a degree mill - or - could be alledged to be one. If CHEA and the US department of education aren't a reputable source (as in not be listed and having life experience options as red flags respectively), then I don't know what is. I have requested that WarriorScribe provide a specific source; however, until then the section will remain as "allegations" and I hope the section is situated as circumstantial evidence. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will do that tomorrow. I'll be looking, specifically, for a non-Usenet source for the Levicoff comments--his book, actually. I'll let you know if it's in there. If I don't find it, I'll tell you that, too. - WarriorScribe 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried pretty hard to find a solely government/offical source calling LBU a diploma mill, I couldn't and it seems states gets sued by "schools" for the vague definition[44]. The degree mill is broadly defined as "An unaccredited institution of higher education that grants degrees without ensuring that students are properly qualified." [45] There is generally a lack of information about LBU on the webpage, a current Yahoo! search brings less than 2,000 results for "Louisiana Baptist University." While some contain the words "degree mill" no government webpage does and no government/educational resource comes up at all.

On a side note, LBU prior to 1993 was called "Baptist Christian University" (in Denver, Colorado) according to its own webpage from 1999 [46] (Knowing this should make looking at the professor page very interesting [47])Perphas an email/Wikipedia posting by John Bear (FBI/diploma mill expert) would be helpful (his contactat the bottom [48])---QH

So all the faculty got their higher education qualifications from LBU? Seems a little incestuous. Are there any faculty with a higher degree from an accredited institution? This seems like a very bad case of ignorance begat ignorance that leads to a never ending spiral mediocrity. No wonder they have no accreditation. It seems the only thing going for them is that they have a swanky web site. I can't believe we are wasting so much time on this page I wish I had voted to delete this page first time around. It is nothing more than a page that will be used for marketing. Wikipedia should never be used as a tool for promotion and this page is about as bad as it gets. David D. (Talk) 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RoyBoy, The article needs to be updated to let the reader know the school used to be called Baptist Christain University (corrected school name)[49] and the facts about the professors needs to be updated. 36 of the 44 "professors," (not including the "support staff") that is 82%, finished LBU. Knowing the schools former name might make a difference in researching it.

Is "Baptist Christian College" also associated with LBU? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction fixed. Yes. The quote for April 17, 1999 is "Louisiana Baptist University is an outgrowth of Baptist Christian University. That University was founded in 1973 by the Baptist Tabernacle in Shreveport, Louisiana under the leadership of its pastor, Dr. J. G. Tharpe. He and other dedicated Christian educators and church leaders recognized the need to train Christian leaders in the finest traditions of conservative Judeo-Christian education."[50]

I don't think you'll find much on the web, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way. I'll hit the library and check the periodical literature, as well as Levicoff's book, and I do have a note in to John Bear to see what he has to say about it. Meanwhile, for another example of Gastrich POV pushing, see the Bob Cornuke page and its associated talk page. - WarriorScribe 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And I should add, as exacerbated as I've been from time to time, everyones feedback (especially Jason Gastrich) have improved the article... even if I dislike the NG styling and length. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Roy, for whatever it's worth to you, I think you did a great job. I didn't agree with all of the decisions and edits, but I understand why you did them, and I think the article is better and more reasonably informative as a result of it. Gastrich got two of the three things he wanted:

• 1. The commentary about the edu domain is gone.
• 2. The alumni list has been restored and remains.

Like the song says, "two out of three ain't bad."

None of us made this easy for you, though I'm sure that I can speak for one or two when I say that it wasn't intentional. Regardless, as I wrote above, you did a great job. Thank you. - 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion is peppered with words like "therefore", "because", "so" and other terms that imply conclusions or logical deductions. Original conclusions are original research. We are not here to conclude anything. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this case, if there are sources which have made critical comments about the subject then a summary of those criticisms should appear, along with any sourced rebuttal (not just our own rebuttal). We should mention verfiable, uncomfortable viewpoints, but not sensationalize them either. Keeping ourselves to reliable sources will greatly limit the scope of the article. This is just an encyclopedia entry, so let's not get too worked up about it. Let's work towards consensus instead. We don't have to like the outcome, just tolerate it. Be nice to your fellow editors and treat them as you'd want to be treated. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Colorado?

Why did Louisiana Baptist University have their address/contact as "8333 Acoma Way ~ Denver, Colorado 80221-4831 303-429-4409 ~ 303-450-6897" in 1997? This should be noted in the article. http://web.archive.org/web/19970412083437/www.lbu.edu/choose.htm So Louisiana Baptist University hasn't been around since the 1970s as it is today because it was called Christian Baptist University and based in Denver Colorado. http://web.archive.org/web/19990417142448/www.lbu.edu/front.htm

Also according to the website (1997/1999) they give credit for life experience/learning. Is all this strange to anyone else? Another school in the 1980s and 1990s, Patriot University, operated out of a home in Denver and offered credit for life experience.

Objections and further tweaks?

I've added "Baptist Christian University and sister institution Baptist Christian College." that to the article, is that accurate? Morever, is there any further objections, recommendations, tweaks that should be done to the article? Personally, I'm thinking of reducing the Dissertion sub-section to the point where its just another paragraph within the Dimploma mill section. My thinking is the section DM+Dissertation as is... is slightly too big in relation to the article as a whole, and could be summarized more into encyclopedic speak. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should be updated to let the reader know 36 of the 44 "professors," (not including the "support staff") or 82%, finished LBU.[51] Someone wrote they have 64 faculty (staff is not faculty), but this is incorrect, according to the webpage[52].

Where the "64" number came from is interesting. According to the school's quick facts:

" LBU has over 35 adjunct and full-time professors holding doctorates in their fields who are committed to offering a first class off-campus program."[53]

Understood, but generally we should try to avoid facts and figures that can change quickly. It's enough to say the majority of the faculty have degrees from LBU. And please sign your posts using four tilde ~~~~, thanks. I have replaced the numbers with "majority". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Underscores

The List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning link in the See also section has underscores. These need to be turned into spaces. I would do it myself, but due to the article's status, I cannot. --Cyde Weys 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

507 words

Admin, do you still think we need 507 words on diploma mill allegations? Or do you think that might be a little overboard considering the size of the entry? --Jason Gastrich 08:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its a little long, but that's primarily because I think I can summarize it a bit... rather than it being any specific length. Trying to figure out the number of words it "should be" is a pretty arbitrary exercise. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There, that's a bit better. Man, I can Wikify like a mofo. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Campus? Faculty with Doctorates from Accredited Schools?

Where is the campus? Looking at the LBU Web site it appears to be one building (http://www.lbu.edu/maccampus.html) in a strip mall. Is that correct? Also, I was looking through the credentials of the faculty and it looks like almost all the faculty that hold doctoral degrees earned them at LBU, which is not accredited (http://www.lbu.edu/macfacultyandstaff.html). That's not a good sign. I think this article is completely notable but probably not for the reason the original authors had in mind. Crunch 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are hitting all the nails on the head. They also offer credits for 'life experience'. It seems to take 3 years or less to get a Ph.D. There is no doubt that there is 'some' work involved but I suspect that is just to spin along the customers to get more money from them (sorry but I am very cynical about this place). David D. (Talk) 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I do think it's a valid article. These type of pseudo universities are a real entity in America (and off-shore, etc.) and definitely should be described and included in Wikipedia. I don't know if they're scamming the students. It doesn't look like the students have to do much work to get in, pay much in tuition, or do much real work while they're enrolled, but it's a PR scam and an abuse of the word "university." The argument, obviously, centers around how to describe such a place in a NPOV way. Crunch 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PR scam might be a better description, although certainly POV in the artcile itself. I might add I voted to keep this article when it was up for AfD. I agree there should be an article but I was not expecting all the spin off articles based on LBU's "notable" status in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of editing by administrators

I understand that administrators are allowed to edit a locked page, but it seems to me the point of locking a page should be to "freeze" it until disputes can be settled, not to allow free reign in editing by someone who represents one side of the dispute. I believe the continual editing that has taken place of this page by one admnistrator (clearly evident in the page history) who has a particular stand in the debate over this page represents abuse of the administrator role Crunch 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (edited -- not signed in)

I too thought it was strange although Royboy has been soliciting from all parties involved. I had assumed he was getting the page into a state where compromise discussions can begin. However, with the current Gastrich RfC distraction those discussions have not begun. Primarily the Gastrcih RfC was caused by the activity here since Gastrich made a fork on the disputed LBU notable alumni. That led to the string AfD's. Hopefully when the dust settles a community consensus can be found for this page. Once we have defined the content of this page everything else will fall into place. And everyone will live happily ever after? David D. (Talk) 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that now. Still, I'm not sure it sets the best example to make all these edits while the AfD is still open and the page is locked. Crunch 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider everything on this talk page as "compromise discussions", even though they regularly diverged and were combative; and I believe it is a good example of how to reach compromise in an edit war situation. As the protection template states, the lock is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. If you find the edit(s) unsatisfactory, or you think someone can edit this article without taking sides, then your input is welcome. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think it's a good idea but the process you're taking hasn't been made very clear. What I first saw is that the page was locked and that edits were being made. I really had to spend a lot of time going through all your discussions and then starting this topic to get an idea of what was actually going on. I hate to suggest adding yet another post here, but it might be worth it to let people know that's it's being done in an attempt at a compromise without turning the page into a battleground. Some of us, like me, have come to this page after getting involved in the AfD issue involving related pages and haven't been up to speed. As for the edits themselves, I think most editors on Wikipedia could edit this page without taking sides. The perception of taking sides is in the eye of the reader and that's very difficult to control. Thanks again for your efforts at collaboration and compromise. Crunch 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and I anticipated this influx; and you are absolute right... I should have added in my edit summaries "as per talk" with a link to the appropriate section. While "taking sides" may have been a poor choice of words, it does outline that I fundamentally disagree with the notion an editor can become knowledgeable enough about the issues, and proceed without forming some opinion on the article. (while I haven't taken a side per say, I do have my own position) To not have a position (or a "side", which incorrectly infers only two sides) on an article you edit is, as I see it, a paradox. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree. I think I could edit this article in so it reads as an NPOV piece, though I'm not offering. Do I have an opinion about the subject matter? Absolutely. Still, I think I am capable of putting that aside and doing an NPOV edit. I think there are plenty of editors here who could do this as well. It's not so much about "taking sides" or not taking sides, it's about seeing the essential factual elements of the subject matter and getting them down on paper (or pixels). Obviously some subjects are trickier and more controversial than others. Crunch 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Crunch, are you a true blue Wikipedian? :"D In my partial defense talk page headers were being renamed frequently, and a significant amount of discussion started on my talk page; making references initially tricky. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what "true blue Wikipedian" means. I'm still kind of new around here and don't have all the lingo. Sorry to sound so stupid ... Crunch 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problemo, its not a set definition... but rather an offhand comment by me to encompass those who really believe in the viability of this project. And nothing here indicates you are stupid in any capacity. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just like to its real-life def! Sorry, again, I'm a tad dim right now. Not sure if I'm true blue or not. Some days yes, others not so much. Have had some good experiences on some articles. Others have gotten out of hand -- surprisingly not so much in this particular case, which I think has turned a good corner. I think "the project" is in the very, very early stages of something that will evolve a lot, so I'll hang around a bit. Crunch 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

250 ground-based courses

I find the statement that the university offeres "250 ground-based courses" perhaps a bit misleading, since this page: http://www.lbu.edu/maconcampus.html from their web site lists only 10 courses to be offered in the Spring 2006 semester and further says that if there are not more than 5 students enrolled in a class it will not be held. This latter statement indicates that there may be a history of low enrollment. I understand that even at a large, fully accredited institution not all courses are offered every semester. But the ratio of 250:10 seems extreme and misleading. If there are indeed a possible 250 ground-baesd courses available to be taught but not all are taught each semester, I would suggest this change:

LBU offers a curriculum of over 200 ground-based [or on-campus] courses, with approximately ten different courses made available to students each semester.

Unless I'm missing something from the web site, I don't see a differentiation between undergraduate and graduate course offerings. Are these all undergrad courses? Am I correct in interpreting that all masters and doctoral students complete course work independently outside of the classroom? The information on course work required at the graduate level is very vague. Crunch 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)