This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Google groups is not a valid citation. Google groups is a place where people can talk, spoof identities, spam, argue, etc. I'm removing the section with no valid citation. -- Doe, John 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
The material can not stay in per WP:RS, which strictly prohibits quoting from usenet: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. -- JJay 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Removal
Why was this, in part, removed and a complete copy of the TRACS doctrine copied from the website added? And a good critical link was removed too.
While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987.
[2] Yet, in 1987 "recognition was denied, but in 1991, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite the fact that his advisory panels repeatedly recommended against recognition."
[3]
Then in 1993 Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law.
Among the questionable practices, TRACS gave "immediate accreditation" to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions." [4]
Also in 1991, TRACS granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR." [5]
Then in 1995 a "federal review" was conducted and resulted in probaton "which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors." It has been noted that these imrpovements have been made "including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing Chairmen." [6]
Currently, Timothy Sandefur argues that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school," which had caused controversy 1991 when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation. [7] He argues that if MSACS had to drop this criteria TRACS should too.
The link have a good sources and had plently of criticism and information about its exitence prior to 1991 was deleted. Why did you remove that? Then why did you add in something that was just copied from the webpage?
I mean what does this mean: "God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience."? What does that add?
It doesn't even make sense. It more or less says they believe in god. That is pretty obvious to begin with. Why copy an entire something that is already on the official page?
Remove it all. Don't include one, don't include 11. Stuff like "infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all" adds nothing.
It adds nothing to the article when the quotations don't make sense.
Example is:
"The Trinity. The triune, Godhead—one eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, personal God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." So it says the father, son and spirit. Then it goes back to it "The Father. God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience." Again stating it is god. Then it moves back to the son "The Son. The Perfect, sinless humanity and the absolute, full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, indissolubly united in one divine-human person since His unique incarnation by miraculous conception and virgin birth." Okay so its Jesus, a "deity," again god. Then back to the spirit " Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who convicts, regenerates, indwells, seals all believers in Christ, and fills those who yield to Him. The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all believers; however, the manifestation of any particular gift is not required as evidence of salvation." Okay like a god it gives salvation.
This stuff adds nothing to the article. Also orthodox Jews don't believe Christ was the son of god. But that is beside the point
It this a joke? You are calling documented criticism point of view and yet adding in this double talk isn't?
Should wikipedia include the long illogical ramblings of Charles Manson because it makes sense to him and its important to him?
I think it does apply here.
This coming from someone who removes the criticism links and changes the wording to soften criticism.
You are removing quotations surrounding direct quotes. Please stop messing with the wording. With your edits it looks plagiarized and incorrectly phrased.
Not perfect what a laugh. What you meant to say was "I'm not neutral." Stop with your edits. You imply it is only Levicoff's opinion when the quote is from another author. You have added in the biblical foundations when the author mentions four particular ones.
He references Levicoff and came to his own conclusions. That's what people do. Go remove more links and soften criticism with YOUR best interest in mind. This wikepedia thing is pretty out of control if there is not a way for people like yourself to be prevented from doing what you're doing.
Now you're name calling in the commentary box.
I've semi-protected the page, so things can be discussed on the talk page. It appears that we have a troll in our midst. --
No Jobs 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a
sockpuppet
I've added the NPOV tag to the criticism section. With the exception of one usenet post, the section seems to be based entirely on the work of Timothy Sandefur. All the citations are to an article written by Sandefur (which I have not been able to confirm was actually published). We need broader sourcing for this section to eliminate the appearance that we are acting as a soapbox for Sandefur. -- JJay 15:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As TRACS is a national accredition agency, I have removed the unnecessary notice that it is not a regional accredition agency, and added a link (at the end) to the U.S. DOE's list of Accrediting agencies (sorted by type.) -- Tim4christ17 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read the paragraph below. It contains lots of implied statements that are not stated expressly. "Sandefur argued ..." So what? Did he criticise the practice? If so, then we need to say so. "He cites..." What did that incident involve? What happened to MSACS for requiring racial diversity? Why is it in support of Sandefur's position (whatever it is)? I cannot edit this section because I do not know the underlying facts but the paragraph does not currently make sense.
Two thirds of the article is about what 2 men think. There's no presentation of counter-arguments or opposing viewpoints. Both men seem seem to have axes to grind with those who believe and practice fundamental Christian doctrines. Sandefur seem befuddled by the concept, stating that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Any reasonable person would assume TRACCS doesn't require "people" to believe their doctrines, but organizations who claim to hold to those doctrines. I sincerly doubt a Jewish, Secular, or Muslim college would want accredidation from TRACCS, so I'm really doubt the legitimacy of his critisisms as presented here. The article sincerely lacks any balance whatsover in presenting the criticisms. Yes, it has sources, but all the sources establish is that these men said these things, but we aren't told why they are qualified to criticize. Does the Dept. of Education agree with them? Do most college and university presidents in the US agree? How many schools were they kicked out of for being nuts? One of the cites is from a blog. I totally question their credibility here. They may well BE credible, but they certainly are not objective! - BillCJ 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed your response 3 days ago. As stated above, I see no evidence of the sources' credibility. I've asked for it, but you haven't given it. Yes, I am free to add counter points, but my inactions have not made the article less biased. The article's bias has been pointed out; please try to actually address the issues in the article before removing the tag. - BillCJ 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You stated, schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That that you don't see the bias in your own statement is why there is a neutrality tag on the article. You are equating evolution with science, ie. fact, when it is far from that. I understand you accept evolution as science fact; that's your right and choice. But you need to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone accepts that, but that it does not make them unscientific or stupid (my word). It means they have different beliefs. And to call an organization controvertial simply because they accept "young Earth creationism" (which you did with TRACS accredits schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That is, partly, what makes them controversial and rife for criticism) is not a neutral point of view. THat's all I want you to realize. The issue is controversial for reasons of its own, and really don't belong in the article in detail.
Let me say this: I came to this page after reading an article on a Christian college where the text stated they had received accreditation from the "controversial" TRACCS organization. So I came hear to see what the controversy was all about. I thought: Did they have poor acadameic standards? Were they passing D students? Were approving of schools with professors who hadn't graduated sixth grade? (Yes those are ridiculous, but you're supposed to smile - I don;t know would truley be controversial, but those would certainly be.)
Now the article does mention the "Associate" accreditation, and that is a genuinely smelly issue. It was later quashed, as you pointed out. But to spend the rest of the article focused on creation controversy? If TRACCS meets all the standards set forth for an body of its type, and tries to ensure that its memeber schools are functionaing as they should, what difference does it make if it's Christian? Really? Do Christians not have the right to attend a school that shares their world view, but receive a good education on non-religious subjects too (evolutionary science aside)? Does it really matter in the real world if a police officer or English teacher, or even a DOctor who went to a Christian college, and was taught "young Earth Creationism", as to how good they do their job? - BillCJ 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to ignore my concernds fine, but this you need to pay attention to: I write/edit aviation articles, and we have to be careful of this one also.
Your use of "some" here is a weasel word (I assume you know that one, given the other guidelines you've been quoting). You must be specific about who said something, and who they are. I have to take lines like this out of aircraft articles at times. It's like the proverbial "they say" - well who's "they"?
A good aviation example is the F-22 Raptor. We have editors who want to say, "the F-22 is the greatest fighter in the world". Or even, no kidding, "Some consider it to be the greatest fighter in the world." We can't leave that in! It's non-specific.
Yes, you have a quote, but you need to identify in the text who is making the assertion, and qualify the scope of the statement. "Some" can be anything, from one man to 300 million people. I can't do that myself, other than to mention Steve Levicoff's name. - BillCJ 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed all your quotes from Steve Levicoff come from pages 24 and 25. You could easily just use one cite for that, as you do with Sandefur's listings. I can't see any obvious reason why you didn't do it that way, unless you weren't sure at the timehow to do it. I'll glady help if you want it changed.
I just now read the article on Steve Levicoff. I should have done so earlier. I now realize his main beef is against "diploma mills". I assume the book against TRACS is aimed at that issue, and at high educational standards. Including one line on who he is would be helpful in establishing his "credentials" in the article. In using him and Sandefur, you do have two divergent views, which is good on your part; however, that is not clear from the article itself. Also, you did say Sandefur is a fellow at the Clairmont Institute. My bad for missing that.
One other note: In 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. THe institute is his own organization, according to his Wiki bio. Either say through "his" Institute on Religion and Law, or take it out, in my editorial opinion.
I've rewritten the Lead paragraph to include a breader description of TRACS form below. I've also rewriten the "some" line, and included a Sandefur ref.
Since the Falwell quote is also in Levicoff's bio, I don't think it's needed here. It sound's too much like a slam at Falwell, which doesn't need to be here, esp with out his side of the convo.
I left in a lot more than I thought I would, including Levicoff's statement that approval "can be construed as advancing a particular form of Christianity. I totally disagree, but it's a valid viewpoint. Some would see it more as legitimizing the viwpoints right to equal access to the educations approval. This is a an "establishment of religion" vs. "prohibit the free exercise thereof" argument. A counter quote would be good here.
However, the last paragraph on Sandefur is, as discussed above, absurdly biased. Again, Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accreditation mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Editorially, this is not in quotes, so I assume you edited it somewhat, I assume for good editorial reasons. As I recounted above, no one who doesn't share their beliefs want their accreditation. So I really don't get this part, except seeing it as part of his bias. I will give him credit for saying "some of their beleifs, not "all". If I'm totally missing his point here, and it's not what I think, then pelase expalin it to me. And if I totally missed the point, then I'd say the sentence needs to be rewritten to make it clearer.
Anyway, that's my rewrite. Honestly, I do believe I can do some non-controversial pure editing (which I did do in my version). THere are some sentences that could use tightening up. I could have done some of that anyway, but got caught up in the "neutrality" discussion, and my other editing tasks. I apologize for that. Having written and reworked my own articles, I know the benefit of another pair of eyes, and I doubt you see much traffic here from other editors, as it is an obcure subject. As I said, I've made some pure editorial changes and tweaks, and you're welcome to use what you like, or I can put them in for you without changing anything else. - BillCJ 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried not to white-wash it either, just to keep the criticism as fair as possible. Thanks for being receptive to criticism, even if we don't agree on it. But that's all part of the compromise of putting together a Wiki article. And in the end, the articles are usually better for it.
After you do your rewrite, I'm going to move back to my aviation articles, and probably won't be checking here on a consistent basis. If you do get some more sources and want a second opinion, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks again. - BillCJ 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the users removing Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Institute for Creation Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Philadelphia Inquirer, and other sources to stop or else they'll be blocked.
Steve Levicoff is a scholar on mail order schools and is mentioned as such in many sources. Do a newspaper search. He is an expert and his work is cited. You do not remove a source just because its critical. Tgreach ( talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Source | Says | <notes> |
---|---|---|
Example
| ||
Scott Jaschik (1995-6-16).
The Chronicle of Higher Education. "Christian Accrediting Group Faulted in Federal Review" |
TRACS fails review/put on probation | Article |
Ignored
sources
| ||
Source | What it says | |
Source | What it says |
This article is an obvious hit-piece by someone with an ax to grind. The hope is that clear-minded individuals interested in facts will look beyond the "article" and understand that the subjective nature of "peer" editing is unreliable at best and can be intentionally misleading at worst. Go straight to the source (TRACS) to receive reliable information.
I would simply encourage those with editing privileges for this article to compare the kind of information that is available for other accreditation agencies such as ABHE, ATS, SACSCOC, HLC, etc. You will note that these are simply informational about those agencies and do not contain a listing of any grievance that individuals may have had historically with those agencies. It has never been my intention to slander anyone, just simply to have fair and current representation on Wikipedia. Also, if the list of our member institutions is to remain on the article, someone will need to monitor this and keep the listing updated. Tracsstaff ( talk) 19:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the sources cited in this article and thus the reliability and validity of the article;
Relying on this article in its current form to understand TRACS, would be like saying that a researcher in 2021 could open an Encyclopedia Britannica from the 1980's and expect to find current and relevant information on the internet. Tracsstaff ( talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)tracsstaff
Is there no one with editing privileges willing to address the unreliability of more than half of the sources cited for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Does that take care of the deadlinks? Naraht ( talk) 14:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Cmartinmo Alerting... Naraht ( talk) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Naharat - I checked the new links and all seems in order with the exception of 3 which still leads to an inactive link. Perhaps https://tracs.org/tracs-distinctives/.
Although citation 5 is accurate in that it points to a historical requirement of TRACS (and is thus appropriate), perhaps referencing TRACS own "statement of faith" ( https://tracs.org/statement-of-faith/) and the agency's current application / recognition requirement in this area would be appropriate as well. The TRACS Accreditation Manual (p. 10) states "Institutions are not required to duplicate the TRACS Biblical Foundations Statement, but the institution's Faith Statement should identify it as part of the evangelical protestant tradition in higher education.) ( https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf)
One final note, according to the TRACS website, the physical address for the agency is 15935 Forest Road rather than 5935 Forest Road as the article indicates. thx Cmartinmo ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The earliest TRACS Accreditation Manual that removes the requirement to adhere to the doctrinal position of the agency that I can locate on Way Back Machine is 2012. ( http://web.archive.org/web/20120519045015/http://www.tracs.org/files/Accreditation_Manual,_January_2012.PDF) 1.1 in this version does not have that previous requirement. This may have changed earlier, but I could not access any Manual prior to that year that indicated a change in expectations.
Section 8 of the agency's current Accreditation Manual ( https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf) deals specifically with expectations for Educational Programs, including curriculum. Of particular interest may be Standard 8.9 which states: "The academic programs offered by the institution impart a common core of knowledge, which enhances students educationally and/or vocationally. The programs are consistent with commonly-accepted standards and are appropriate for their educational level". This would seem to indicate a level of academic freedom regarding curricular matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for misspelling your username. I'll try to do better. Cmartinmo ( talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This article notes that TRACS is currently up for renewal by CHEA, and Swamidass (disclaimer I'm the author) argues that their renewal be contingent on clarifying and improving their position on scientific creationism: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537
Bob Jones University has responded to this (they are accredited by TRACS): https://www.wsj.com/articles/science-and-creationism-in-serious-colleges-11615490100
Sswamida ( talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The section of the article regarding the decision of then Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander to grant the agency initial recognition seems to indicate that the appeal hearing which proceeded the Secretary’s approval was initiated by Mr. Alexander. (...Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing,"...) Actually, the agency filed an appeal of the Secretary’s previous denial of recognition based on a provision within 34 CFR 602.3(d). It was on this basis that the Secretary granted the appeal request from the agency. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. The way the article is written could lead one to conclude that the Secretary’s decision to grant initial recognition to the agency was based on personal bias and was simply “political”. Might I suggest a rewrite of this section something like this:
The agency’s first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991 under President George H. W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition”. This approval came when, following the agency’s denial of recognition, TRACS filed a request for an appeal of the denial based on provisions afforded to such agencies as detailed in 34 CFR 602.3 (d) and the Secretary granted the agency’s appeal based on this provision. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. Based on these recommendations, the Secretary granted the agency’s petition for recognition. Critics of the Secretary’s decision insist that Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and further insist that the move was about politics. The agency’s approval "worried" some accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor, and the Secretary’s approval was criticized by some education officials.
I removed the original citation footnotes in the above narrative simply because in rearranging the items in the narrative, the footnotes would have been out of order. Certainly, the original sources should be placed back in the article. I have not been able to find on-line citations for the new information in the narrative, so I know that is problematic and the information is unverifiable without such citations. PDFs of letters, the appeal hearing transcript, etc. can be obtained, but how to reference them on-line is something that I am not familiar with. Any guidance in this regard would be welcomed. Cmartinmo ( talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Google groups is not a valid citation. Google groups is a place where people can talk, spoof identities, spam, argue, etc. I'm removing the section with no valid citation. -- Doe, John 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
The material can not stay in per WP:RS, which strictly prohibits quoting from usenet: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. -- JJay 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Removal
Why was this, in part, removed and a complete copy of the TRACS doctrine copied from the website added? And a good critical link was removed too.
While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987.
[2] Yet, in 1987 "recognition was denied, but in 1991, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite the fact that his advisory panels repeatedly recommended against recognition."
[3]
Then in 1993 Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law.
Among the questionable practices, TRACS gave "immediate accreditation" to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions." [4]
Also in 1991, TRACS granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR." [5]
Then in 1995 a "federal review" was conducted and resulted in probaton "which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors." It has been noted that these imrpovements have been made "including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing Chairmen." [6]
Currently, Timothy Sandefur argues that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school," which had caused controversy 1991 when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation. [7] He argues that if MSACS had to drop this criteria TRACS should too.
The link have a good sources and had plently of criticism and information about its exitence prior to 1991 was deleted. Why did you remove that? Then why did you add in something that was just copied from the webpage?
I mean what does this mean: "God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience."? What does that add?
It doesn't even make sense. It more or less says they believe in god. That is pretty obvious to begin with. Why copy an entire something that is already on the official page?
Remove it all. Don't include one, don't include 11. Stuff like "infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all" adds nothing.
It adds nothing to the article when the quotations don't make sense.
Example is:
"The Trinity. The triune, Godhead—one eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, personal God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." So it says the father, son and spirit. Then it goes back to it "The Father. God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit — sovereign, eternal, unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor, adoration, and obedience." Again stating it is god. Then it moves back to the son "The Son. The Perfect, sinless humanity and the absolute, full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, indissolubly united in one divine-human person since His unique incarnation by miraculous conception and virgin birth." Okay so its Jesus, a "deity," again god. Then back to the spirit " Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who convicts, regenerates, indwells, seals all believers in Christ, and fills those who yield to Him. The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all believers; however, the manifestation of any particular gift is not required as evidence of salvation." Okay like a god it gives salvation.
This stuff adds nothing to the article. Also orthodox Jews don't believe Christ was the son of god. But that is beside the point
It this a joke? You are calling documented criticism point of view and yet adding in this double talk isn't?
Should wikipedia include the long illogical ramblings of Charles Manson because it makes sense to him and its important to him?
I think it does apply here.
This coming from someone who removes the criticism links and changes the wording to soften criticism.
You are removing quotations surrounding direct quotes. Please stop messing with the wording. With your edits it looks plagiarized and incorrectly phrased.
Not perfect what a laugh. What you meant to say was "I'm not neutral." Stop with your edits. You imply it is only Levicoff's opinion when the quote is from another author. You have added in the biblical foundations when the author mentions four particular ones.
He references Levicoff and came to his own conclusions. That's what people do. Go remove more links and soften criticism with YOUR best interest in mind. This wikepedia thing is pretty out of control if there is not a way for people like yourself to be prevented from doing what you're doing.
Now you're name calling in the commentary box.
I've semi-protected the page, so things can be discussed on the talk page. It appears that we have a troll in our midst. --
No Jobs 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a
sockpuppet
I've added the NPOV tag to the criticism section. With the exception of one usenet post, the section seems to be based entirely on the work of Timothy Sandefur. All the citations are to an article written by Sandefur (which I have not been able to confirm was actually published). We need broader sourcing for this section to eliminate the appearance that we are acting as a soapbox for Sandefur. -- JJay 15:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As TRACS is a national accredition agency, I have removed the unnecessary notice that it is not a regional accredition agency, and added a link (at the end) to the U.S. DOE's list of Accrediting agencies (sorted by type.) -- Tim4christ17 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read the paragraph below. It contains lots of implied statements that are not stated expressly. "Sandefur argued ..." So what? Did he criticise the practice? If so, then we need to say so. "He cites..." What did that incident involve? What happened to MSACS for requiring racial diversity? Why is it in support of Sandefur's position (whatever it is)? I cannot edit this section because I do not know the underlying facts but the paragraph does not currently make sense.
Two thirds of the article is about what 2 men think. There's no presentation of counter-arguments or opposing viewpoints. Both men seem seem to have axes to grind with those who believe and practice fundamental Christian doctrines. Sandefur seem befuddled by the concept, stating that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Any reasonable person would assume TRACCS doesn't require "people" to believe their doctrines, but organizations who claim to hold to those doctrines. I sincerly doubt a Jewish, Secular, or Muslim college would want accredidation from TRACCS, so I'm really doubt the legitimacy of his critisisms as presented here. The article sincerely lacks any balance whatsover in presenting the criticisms. Yes, it has sources, but all the sources establish is that these men said these things, but we aren't told why they are qualified to criticize. Does the Dept. of Education agree with them? Do most college and university presidents in the US agree? How many schools were they kicked out of for being nuts? One of the cites is from a blog. I totally question their credibility here. They may well BE credible, but they certainly are not objective! - BillCJ 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed your response 3 days ago. As stated above, I see no evidence of the sources' credibility. I've asked for it, but you haven't given it. Yes, I am free to add counter points, but my inactions have not made the article less biased. The article's bias has been pointed out; please try to actually address the issues in the article before removing the tag. - BillCJ 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You stated, schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That that you don't see the bias in your own statement is why there is a neutrality tag on the article. You are equating evolution with science, ie. fact, when it is far from that. I understand you accept evolution as science fact; that's your right and choice. But you need to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone accepts that, but that it does not make them unscientific or stupid (my word). It means they have different beliefs. And to call an organization controvertial simply because they accept "young Earth creationism" (which you did with TRACS accredits schools that teach young Earth creationism, which is opposed to evolution/science. That is, partly, what makes them controversial and rife for criticism) is not a neutral point of view. THat's all I want you to realize. The issue is controversial for reasons of its own, and really don't belong in the article in detail.
Let me say this: I came to this page after reading an article on a Christian college where the text stated they had received accreditation from the "controversial" TRACCS organization. So I came hear to see what the controversy was all about. I thought: Did they have poor acadameic standards? Were they passing D students? Were approving of schools with professors who hadn't graduated sixth grade? (Yes those are ridiculous, but you're supposed to smile - I don;t know would truley be controversial, but those would certainly be.)
Now the article does mention the "Associate" accreditation, and that is a genuinely smelly issue. It was later quashed, as you pointed out. But to spend the rest of the article focused on creation controversy? If TRACCS meets all the standards set forth for an body of its type, and tries to ensure that its memeber schools are functionaing as they should, what difference does it make if it's Christian? Really? Do Christians not have the right to attend a school that shares their world view, but receive a good education on non-religious subjects too (evolutionary science aside)? Does it really matter in the real world if a police officer or English teacher, or even a DOctor who went to a Christian college, and was taught "young Earth Creationism", as to how good they do their job? - BillCJ 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to ignore my concernds fine, but this you need to pay attention to: I write/edit aviation articles, and we have to be careful of this one also.
Your use of "some" here is a weasel word (I assume you know that one, given the other guidelines you've been quoting). You must be specific about who said something, and who they are. I have to take lines like this out of aircraft articles at times. It's like the proverbial "they say" - well who's "they"?
A good aviation example is the F-22 Raptor. We have editors who want to say, "the F-22 is the greatest fighter in the world". Or even, no kidding, "Some consider it to be the greatest fighter in the world." We can't leave that in! It's non-specific.
Yes, you have a quote, but you need to identify in the text who is making the assertion, and qualify the scope of the statement. "Some" can be anything, from one man to 300 million people. I can't do that myself, other than to mention Steve Levicoff's name. - BillCJ 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed all your quotes from Steve Levicoff come from pages 24 and 25. You could easily just use one cite for that, as you do with Sandefur's listings. I can't see any obvious reason why you didn't do it that way, unless you weren't sure at the timehow to do it. I'll glady help if you want it changed.
I just now read the article on Steve Levicoff. I should have done so earlier. I now realize his main beef is against "diploma mills". I assume the book against TRACS is aimed at that issue, and at high educational standards. Including one line on who he is would be helpful in establishing his "credentials" in the article. In using him and Sandefur, you do have two divergent views, which is good on your part; however, that is not clear from the article itself. Also, you did say Sandefur is a fellow at the Clairmont Institute. My bad for missing that.
One other note: In 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. THe institute is his own organization, according to his Wiki bio. Either say through "his" Institute on Religion and Law, or take it out, in my editorial opinion.
I've rewritten the Lead paragraph to include a breader description of TRACS form below. I've also rewriten the "some" line, and included a Sandefur ref.
Since the Falwell quote is also in Levicoff's bio, I don't think it's needed here. It sound's too much like a slam at Falwell, which doesn't need to be here, esp with out his side of the convo.
I left in a lot more than I thought I would, including Levicoff's statement that approval "can be construed as advancing a particular form of Christianity. I totally disagree, but it's a valid viewpoint. Some would see it more as legitimizing the viwpoints right to equal access to the educations approval. This is a an "establishment of religion" vs. "prohibit the free exercise thereof" argument. A counter quote would be good here.
However, the last paragraph on Sandefur is, as discussed above, absurdly biased. Again, Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accreditation mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. Editorially, this is not in quotes, so I assume you edited it somewhat, I assume for good editorial reasons. As I recounted above, no one who doesn't share their beliefs want their accreditation. So I really don't get this part, except seeing it as part of his bias. I will give him credit for saying "some of their beleifs, not "all". If I'm totally missing his point here, and it's not what I think, then pelase expalin it to me. And if I totally missed the point, then I'd say the sentence needs to be rewritten to make it clearer.
Anyway, that's my rewrite. Honestly, I do believe I can do some non-controversial pure editing (which I did do in my version). THere are some sentences that could use tightening up. I could have done some of that anyway, but got caught up in the "neutrality" discussion, and my other editing tasks. I apologize for that. Having written and reworked my own articles, I know the benefit of another pair of eyes, and I doubt you see much traffic here from other editors, as it is an obcure subject. As I said, I've made some pure editorial changes and tweaks, and you're welcome to use what you like, or I can put them in for you without changing anything else. - BillCJ 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried not to white-wash it either, just to keep the criticism as fair as possible. Thanks for being receptive to criticism, even if we don't agree on it. But that's all part of the compromise of putting together a Wiki article. And in the end, the articles are usually better for it.
After you do your rewrite, I'm going to move back to my aviation articles, and probably won't be checking here on a consistent basis. If you do get some more sources and want a second opinion, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks again. - BillCJ 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the users removing Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Institute for Creation Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Philadelphia Inquirer, and other sources to stop or else they'll be blocked.
Steve Levicoff is a scholar on mail order schools and is mentioned as such in many sources. Do a newspaper search. He is an expert and his work is cited. You do not remove a source just because its critical. Tgreach ( talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Source | Says | <notes> |
---|---|---|
Example
| ||
Scott Jaschik (1995-6-16).
The Chronicle of Higher Education. "Christian Accrediting Group Faulted in Federal Review" |
TRACS fails review/put on probation | Article |
Ignored
sources
| ||
Source | What it says | |
Source | What it says |
This article is an obvious hit-piece by someone with an ax to grind. The hope is that clear-minded individuals interested in facts will look beyond the "article" and understand that the subjective nature of "peer" editing is unreliable at best and can be intentionally misleading at worst. Go straight to the source (TRACS) to receive reliable information.
I would simply encourage those with editing privileges for this article to compare the kind of information that is available for other accreditation agencies such as ABHE, ATS, SACSCOC, HLC, etc. You will note that these are simply informational about those agencies and do not contain a listing of any grievance that individuals may have had historically with those agencies. It has never been my intention to slander anyone, just simply to have fair and current representation on Wikipedia. Also, if the list of our member institutions is to remain on the article, someone will need to monitor this and keep the listing updated. Tracsstaff ( talk) 19:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the sources cited in this article and thus the reliability and validity of the article;
Relying on this article in its current form to understand TRACS, would be like saying that a researcher in 2021 could open an Encyclopedia Britannica from the 1980's and expect to find current and relevant information on the internet. Tracsstaff ( talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)tracsstaff
Is there no one with editing privileges willing to address the unreliability of more than half of the sources cited for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Does that take care of the deadlinks? Naraht ( talk) 14:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Cmartinmo Alerting... Naraht ( talk) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Naharat - I checked the new links and all seems in order with the exception of 3 which still leads to an inactive link. Perhaps https://tracs.org/tracs-distinctives/.
Although citation 5 is accurate in that it points to a historical requirement of TRACS (and is thus appropriate), perhaps referencing TRACS own "statement of faith" ( https://tracs.org/statement-of-faith/) and the agency's current application / recognition requirement in this area would be appropriate as well. The TRACS Accreditation Manual (p. 10) states "Institutions are not required to duplicate the TRACS Biblical Foundations Statement, but the institution's Faith Statement should identify it as part of the evangelical protestant tradition in higher education.) ( https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf)
One final note, according to the TRACS website, the physical address for the agency is 15935 Forest Road rather than 5935 Forest Road as the article indicates. thx Cmartinmo ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The earliest TRACS Accreditation Manual that removes the requirement to adhere to the doctrinal position of the agency that I can locate on Way Back Machine is 2012. ( http://web.archive.org/web/20120519045015/http://www.tracs.org/files/Accreditation_Manual,_January_2012.PDF) 1.1 in this version does not have that previous requirement. This may have changed earlier, but I could not access any Manual prior to that year that indicated a change in expectations.
Section 8 of the agency's current Accreditation Manual ( https://tracs.org/Documents/AccreditationManual.pdf) deals specifically with expectations for Educational Programs, including curriculum. Of particular interest may be Standard 8.9 which states: "The academic programs offered by the institution impart a common core of knowledge, which enhances students educationally and/or vocationally. The programs are consistent with commonly-accepted standards and are appropriate for their educational level". This would seem to indicate a level of academic freedom regarding curricular matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartinmo ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for misspelling your username. I'll try to do better. Cmartinmo ( talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This article notes that TRACS is currently up for renewal by CHEA, and Swamidass (disclaimer I'm the author) argues that their renewal be contingent on clarifying and improving their position on scientific creationism: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537
Bob Jones University has responded to this (they are accredited by TRACS): https://www.wsj.com/articles/science-and-creationism-in-serious-colleges-11615490100
Sswamida ( talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The section of the article regarding the decision of then Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander to grant the agency initial recognition seems to indicate that the appeal hearing which proceeded the Secretary’s approval was initiated by Mr. Alexander. (...Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing,"...) Actually, the agency filed an appeal of the Secretary’s previous denial of recognition based on a provision within 34 CFR 602.3(d). It was on this basis that the Secretary granted the appeal request from the agency. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. The way the article is written could lead one to conclude that the Secretary’s decision to grant initial recognition to the agency was based on personal bias and was simply “political”. Might I suggest a rewrite of this section something like this:
The agency’s first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991 under President George H. W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition”. This approval came when, following the agency’s denial of recognition, TRACS filed a request for an appeal of the denial based on provisions afforded to such agencies as detailed in 34 CFR 602.3 (d) and the Secretary granted the agency’s appeal based on this provision. The appeal was heard on July 9, 1991 by retired Judge Ernest D. Canellos who, at the time of the appeal hearing, was serving as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Student Financial Assistance. At the conclusion of the appeal, Mr. Canellos recommend that the Secretary approve the agency’s request for recognition. This recommendation was also endorsed by then Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Michael J. Farrell. Based on these recommendations, the Secretary granted the agency’s petition for recognition. Critics of the Secretary’s decision insist that Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and further insist that the move was about politics. The agency’s approval "worried" some accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor, and the Secretary’s approval was criticized by some education officials.
I removed the original citation footnotes in the above narrative simply because in rearranging the items in the narrative, the footnotes would have been out of order. Certainly, the original sources should be placed back in the article. I have not been able to find on-line citations for the new information in the narrative, so I know that is problematic and the information is unverifiable without such citations. PDFs of letters, the appeal hearing transcript, etc. can be obtained, but how to reference them on-line is something that I am not familiar with. Any guidance in this regard would be welcomed. Cmartinmo ( talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)