Talk:Pacific Western University/Archive 3

Article Proposal

Hi. I worked up a new version of the article, which is based on verifiable data. The new version of the article is at Talk:Pacific Western University/Proposed. If we come to a consensus, I believe we may move it to the main article page. Please place all comments regarding the proposed article under THIS thread. A conclusion on the consensus will be posted above this paragraph by an administrator in five days, specifically on or after 17:14, 20 December 2006 -- Jreferee 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move - The proposed article complies with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines and addresses all known concerns.--Jreferee 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• A really great job! - Wow! That is a really great job! Is it OK for other editors to make a few additions/changes on that scratch page, or would you prefer to discuss it as is? My concern is that once it is live on the article page, it will not be editable until it is unprotected. Some of the proposed changes I have are minor (splitting the intro into two paragraphs), but others are a little more complex, like sourcing the many institution names. There are a few other things we could source, too, but I am really impressed with the amount of work done on it! Jokestress 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (reposted here from user talk page. -- Jreferee 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

• Is it OK for other editors to make a additions/changes. Please discuss changes below as appropriate. -- Jreferee 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good New Version - Thank you, Jreferee!!! I propose the following changes, remove Ph.D. from the offered degrees. PWU has discontinued all of their doctorate programs. Add in something to the effect that PWU(California) = PWU(Hawaii) - Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning 15th edition, John B. Bear, Ph.D. & Mariah P. Bear, M.A., Copyright 2003 by Ten Speed Press, ISBN 1-58008-431-1 page 213, Under the paragraph for institution Pacific Western University (California), "Same ownership as Pacific Western University (Hawaii), which is run by the same people from the same building." Bill Huffman 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• The state of California says the University may offer Ph.Ds link. I have not found any Wikipedia reliable source to indicate that they have discontinued all of their doctorate programs or at least not a source more reliable than the state of California. In my view, its the most important item to keep in the article. As for adding PWU(California) = PWU(Hawaii), the article is clear on that matter. Personally, I don't feel you need to hit people over the head. Lay out the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion. I didn't review Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning 15th edition and any new information it has would be a good addition to the article. You may also want to add the citation to each footnote in which the book confirms information already in the acticle. You can't have too many sources. -- Jreferee 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jreferee is pushing POV. For example, where does it state the place is not accredited? Where does it state these degrees may not be acceptable to employers? I see he left out the unaccredited category. FFGGGFFFF 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would be the first one to put those items in. However, in the 500+ sources I read over to prepare the article, I did not find sources to support such entries. The article was created based on what reliable, published sources presented. I merely took the information and structured it according to Wikipedi policies and guidelines. Also, I noticed that you listed List of Pacific Western University people as an article for deletion and stated the reason for it was that I was biased. Until I read your post here, I could not tell which direction you thought I leaned. In any event, I created that list in the same way as I created the present proposal (took all available, reliable information and structured it according to Wikipedi policies and guidelines).-- Jreferee 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are several pressing problems with the version as posted, some of which I am fixing now. Among these are the special pleading used to obscure the lack of accreditation, links to the "PWU bookshop" and other such nonsense, the BPPVE category (I have also deleted the categories), the use of sources hosted on Angelfire, that sort of thing. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the work put into this article. Jreferee invited me to look at the proposal and comment. Here goes:

• I assume you will run this by the Foundation before replacing what's there. I think you should, otherwise, you'll just end up wasting a lot of time while still getting cut back to a stub [1] [2] for a third time. The first two stubbings pointedly omitted PWU's accreditation status
• I recommend protecting or semi-protecting the article, requiring changes be discussed on the talk page first. I invested many hours after the first Foundation intervention to write an encyclopedic, documented article, starting with a draft for discussion on a user subpage of mine. Eventually, this draft finally replaced the previous stub, but soon started drifting away from the agreed-upon earlier article. That, in turn, led to a second stubbification plus an OFFICE action.
• The fact that the school recently changed ownership and leadership should be mentioned.
• The article should touch on the Marcus Einfeld and Barry McSweeney scandals since many Irish and Australian readers will consult this article in connection with those controversies. Any Einfeld comment should also include the school's denial that they could find any record of a degree for Einfeld.

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss changes you made to the proposal here

• Different names need citations (Jokestress)
• Article from yesterday: "Pacific Western is an unaccredited, for-profit institution of distance learning" Paul D. Thacker (December 15, 2006). What’s in a Name? Inside Higher Ed Retrieved December 16, 2006. (Jokestress)

• Bingo. Solid gold source, well done. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tried to group names in intro by entity for clarity, sourced one so far (Jokestress)
• added the word "unaccredited" to the introduction of the article, Bill Huffman 21:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• added a reference that shows that PWU(Hawaii) is same as PWU(California)Bill Huffman 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• I added a valid reference and text that clearly show that approval from that California Bureau is not accreditation. Now, the article is ready to be moved to the main page. I have to say, I really did not appreciate all those who implied that my motives were bad and that I was biased towards PWU all because I insisted on valid sources to justify the unaccredited statements regarding PWU. However, I do like that most of my hard work was kept and will be moving on with no hard feelings. -- Jreferee 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You did a great job, IMHO. Diploma mills bring out very strong emotions especially on the part of the owners and the victims that are in denial. So, you need to have a bit of a thick skin when working on an article like this. :-) Bill Huffman 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Just quickly, does anyone see the need for the POV tag any more? Guy (Help!) 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that PWU was/is a diploma mill. I won't believe their claim that new management is trying for accreditation until I see some real evidence that it is true. I've just seen too many substandard institutions make the same empty claim year after year after year with no real progress towards accreditation. Anyway, the current article no longer insults my sensibilities. So from my perspective the POV tag can be removed. It is currently WP:NPOV. Bill Huffman 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mill. A fairly uncontroversial point for anybody with a proper degree. Get rid of the POV tag. Famousdog 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag should be taken off. James Kidd 05:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Branch campuses?

So where's the evidence that they have "branch campuses" anywhere, like Tokyo? --Calton | Talk 04:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "campus" is a pretty POV way to describe a rented suite in an office building. Jokestress 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions on potential category:

After reading that Inside Higher Ed article cited earlier in this page, I noticed that the previous version of Pacific Western University was almost certainly the category of "For-profit colleges and universities". Should it be added? Would someone more knowledgeable with this whole controversy business want to add it if it is appropriate? --Bobak 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposed article does mention that that PWU is a private university. I don't have a problem if that is supplemented with the term "for profit". Bill Huffman 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed version moved in

I have moved the proposed version in. It has plenty of solid references and makes no statements which cannot be substantiated. It is fair in pointing out that some courses at least offer adequate tuition. One exception: I merged the final para of the lead with the similar para in the first section after the lead, which was mainly about flow but also to be conservative about the weight given to these incidents. Overall, I think we now have an acceptable article, even a good one. If any representative of the university still has a problem with this version, they should contact me directly via email since I have corresponded with Jimmy about this article. I am prepared to take the shit if shit arrives, but if anyone spots an inaccuracy or maybe a clumsily worded phrase which could be misconstrued as more critical than it in fact is, please let me know on my Talk, which I will spot much quicker than I will spot a comment here, since it's my account on the line here. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job! a couple of minor things

I suggest some reference indicating that CCU has become accredited since the investigation.

The three unaccredited schools -- Pacific Western University, California Coast University (accredited since investigation), and Kennedy-Western University

extra "other" typo

In 1988, PWU offered a "nine-months-to-a-Ph.D" degree for US$1,675.[15] A California state committee investigated the University and found that some of the graduates completed a substantial body of new work before their degrees were conferred while other, in other instances, either inadequate or no instruction is given, and the degree is issued based entirely on life experience and prior publications.[16] In 1989, Pacific Western University agreed not to seek licensing for its doctoral program

Bill Huffman 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I reverted to 12/28/2006 WP:OFFICE version

I just returned this article to the prior version. The latest draft by User:JzG was not approved by the WMF office, and contains at least one really significant error concerning the present status of PWU(CA) with the State of California, see [3]. After an hour-long phone call with Seth Bobroff, the counsel for PWU(CA), it is clear to me, at least, that the proposed rewrite should tackle head on the distinction between PWU(HI) and PWU(CA), which are different legal entities, and which should not be confused, given the present state of affairs with the State of Hawaii and the State of California. PWU(HI) is in serious trouble, as the references show; however, PWU(CA) is not the same thing, and is entitled to a fair chance at accreditation. I will leave a note for JzG as well, but I encourage the discussion from this point forward to address the two institutions as different. I would propose disambiguation as to Pacific Western University and new article pages for Pacific Western University (Hawaii) (not a redirect) and Pacific Western University (California).--Brad Patrick 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• At least we now know what their complaint is. I wonder why Bear's says they are the same people running out of the same office, if they say this is not true? Unfortunately they do not seem to be willing to come here and help. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear said that because it was true. They would offer about any kind of degree that one could wish for. All but the business degrees were bestowed by the Hawaii branch. Anyone calling for degree verification would not be told the difference between the two campuses which likely left many trying to verify someone's credential with the false impression that it was California approved. This went on for years and was one of the things that seemed to indicate to me that the operation practiced some deceit and obfuscation. I guess the current operator's argument is that he only bought the California operation. Or maybe the current owner bought both campuses but "dropped" the HI campus when the HI lawsuit made it a liability? So even though it had essentially been operated as one school for many years he wants to separate the history. The current article accuratately describes the situation, IMHO. A reasonable approach might be to separate the historical description from the current situation better. Perhaps explicitly state that the current ownership only bought the California campus? From the historical perspective, it would seem to me that totally separating the CA and HI campuses (which apparently is what is being demanded/requested/suggested) and pretending that they have always been totally separate would be inaccurate. There are excellent references that support that the two campuses were run as one and they were in the article. Apparently that is no longer the case under the new ownership. Bill Huffman 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At least we know one of their complaints (there could be others). I've got no problem with having two separate PWU articles as I see the task of getting this article removed from WP:OFFICE. However, I'm not sure what the one really significant error concerning the present status of PWU(CA) with the State of California. -- Jreferee 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm suspicious that perhaps PWU doesn't wish to be clear on any details that they may disagree with because unfortunately, dragging their feet seems to be accomplishing their goal. Bill Huffman 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We might need to change the article name to California University or California Miramar University. -- Jreferee 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

I ran across this, and thought it might be of interest to those working on sourcing this article: "David Reardon continues to research the psychological effects of abortion, and he no longer makes beginner’s mistakes. He is said to have a doctorate in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school, according to Chris Mooney, the author of “The Republican War on Science.” from "Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?" January 21, 2007, from the New York Times.[4] Mak (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Can the editor who added this please explain it?: "This page is currently under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office and is protected. If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first. Do not remove protection from this article unless you are authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to do so." Badagnani 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the editor who added the tag even reading this talk page? The failure to even have the courtesy to respond here is most disheartening. Badagnani 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, I didn't add that tag. However, I think that above in this talk page is some discussion that might explain it Talk:Pacific_Western_University#Why_I_reverted_to_12.2F28.2F2006_WP:OFFICE_version. Also, here's some info on my talk page User_talk:Bill_Huffman#Pacific_Western_University. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. It is disrespectful and wrong to the community for the individual who added the tag to go on to other things and ignore their duty to explain what is going on here! Let's bring this to a logical conclusion. The progress of knowledge must march on. Let's have a response, please. Badagnani 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now a week later and nary a word of explanation! Can the editor who added this please explain it?: "This page is currently under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office and is protected. If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first. Do not remove protection from this article unless you are authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to do so." This lack of response is disrespectful and unprofessional to say the least! Badagnani 05:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to agree, so I'm copying this to the WP office talk page. Hopefully something will happen... Famousdog 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk to User:Danny or BradPatrick. The issue is probably that PWU has called the Wikimedia offices and complained, or else threatened to sue if certain information in the article is not removed. Generally the information is factual, but the removal is generally motivated by a desire to make people happy, and to not represent the interests of people who just want to know about the subject. -Ste|vertigo 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Office actions policy says:

Sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation may have to delete, protect or blank a page without going through the normal process(es) to do so. These edits are temporary measures to prevent legal trouble or personal harm.

so it is probably legal problems. Pages protected by Office Actions can only be unprotected by the Wikimedia Foundation, of which User:Danny is a full time member. --h2g2bob 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Animosity

It seems the majority of respondents to this discussion page have a strong antipathy to PWU - and there appears to be very little support for the institution in question. How many of the current 'wolf pack' I wonder have any real experience of the kind of people PWU gave academic credentials to, and how many can be said to have actually shamed the academic standing and accreditation the PWU provided. I have seen several people vilified for having PWU doctorates, thus, supposedly, making all that they say or do implausible. But the same can be said for academics from other, ostensibly credible, centres of learning. No two PhD's from so called legitimate institutions are likely to agree on everything, nor be free from bias or necessarilly have superior knowledge to others in the same field. Holding a so called 'legitimate' PhD does not absolve you from any of the negative traits and weaknesses that all men of learning are prone to. So what's wrong with a PWU qualification? Those of my acquantance who followed through on PWU doctoral programmes in the early 1990's had to write full length theses. They could not get on to the PhD course until they had prior academic qualifications of sufficient merit to meet the entry requirements. As to whether the programmes were 'accredited', exactly who was to say that the people involved expected accreditation? This is an especially valid point when the US has a plethora of second rate colleges and Universities, many of whom could never match the skills, ability, learning and drive of the PWU doctoral candidates I met and worked with. Those who are quick to criticise what was originally a very valuable and well intentioned institution should ask themselves on what basis they resent it so. True, it became discredited - because the early adherence to good practise become distorted by the suspicion thrown at it by its critics who damaged its credibility. This, in turn, cut down the number of quality applicants thereby reducing registration fees and leaving a residue of indifferent or poor students. Nevertheless, the PWU awarded Masters and PhD's to a long list of very able people most of whom I am certain would, under more advantageous circumstances, be equal to any doctoral student elsewhere. As for me, my PWU PhD was awarded on the basis of published research papers and an in-depth dissertation which still required a viva voce. Anyone care to dispute peer reviewed research papers and a well vetted dissertation? 81.156.95.150 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

Did you happen to see KTLA's investigation into PWU? They walked in with a hidden camera and filmed an interview with the person there (I assume the owner) who told them how to "earn" their degree from PWU without doing any work. He told them how to cheat the PWU online tests. Do you think that is something that one would expect from an academic institutions with rigorous academic procedures or not? When this was shown to the head of the BPPVE she exclaimed, "PWU is nothing but a diploma mill!". Since PWU has changed hands, I wouldn't have a problem with burying PWU's past. However, it is the new owner of PWU that claims that PWU has been in business for many years. Since the new owner of PWU is unwilling to bury the past, how can anyone else reasonably bury PWU's disreputable past? I'm only dealing with the reality of the situation. I think your claim that people have animosity against PWU is showing a lack of objectivity. I have no axe to grind against PWU. I have no involvement with PWU. I came to my conclusions very objectively. Bill Huffman 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if people with PWU degrees take offense, but what you call "vilifying" I, and others, call upholding academic standards against those who would pervert them for monetary gain. Because of the way PWU operate, all PWU degrees should be viewed with suspicion, even those which appear to satisfy accepted academic standards. The level of "animosity" that you detect is simply the frustration of academics who have obtained their degrees through proper channels. Famousdog 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As any right thinking person would, I can see the sense in ensureing that the current PWU operation is prevented from unethical and dishonest practices. Indeed, a failure to criticise allows an ill-wind to blow, doing no one any good, not least those that knew the former PWU when it had a very credible reputation. However, if I protest, it is to create a barrier between what was good about PWU (historically) and what appears to be bad (currently). We should keep in mind that unrestrained and unmoderated criticism may mean that everything and everyone is likely to get tarred by the same brush. If the critique on PWU doesn't conceed an equally honest and resonable perspective about what PWU once represented, and doesn't make clear the fact that the complaint is about PWU as it is now, then you may cuase irreperable damage. Don't pull down the house just because the new residents are selling the furniture!86.146.195.169 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

---

Ditto!!!! Nicely said

Hi, please sign all entries on talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~.

Regarding the content, any institution can lose credibility. An unaccredited institution is in especially grave danger of losing credibiltiy. Since the organization has not opened itself up to third party scrutiny by the accreditation agencies, its credibility is fragile. There is no good way to tell that PWU was ever an institution that followed rigorous academic policies. I'll take you at your word that you feel that they did in your particular case but I have no way of knowing that perhaps the rigor was your own internal rigor rather than being forced by PWU. There is no way that I know of that any period of time can be pinpointed where PWU followed accepted academic rigorous policies. If you have any suggestions that could be documented by a reliable source then please suggest it and let's include it in the article. Thanks, Bill Huffman 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill,

You make a a strong argument for trying to establish the period in time when PWU's academic standards would not have attracted criticism - in short, a time when it could have met all the necessary criteria for accreditation! But this was never going to be the case, because it would also have meant that PWU's admission policies for higher degrees would have been scrutinised by external authorities - all of whom would have demanded a very tight hold on the way these degrees were awarded. Recall, please, that it was not only academic rigour that played a part in determining the awards by PWU - an individual who could show a career record of seniority, or a significant and attestable contribution to a major industrial or technological discipline, would be eligible for the award of a higher degree. This is in no way unusual - honorary degrees are awarded for the same reason, and engineering fellowships in the various engineering institutes are routinely awarded for those having made a recognised contribution to their field of endevour. That said, if there is to be an unequivocal demand for a time when PWU could count on a recognised internal rigour, a time when it gave its awards grudgingly, and only to those who would be a credit to it, it was pre-1994. However, this is only my opinion, and has to be seen as a perspective from someone who made an assessment at a certain time based on other academic experience. To find an independent, unaffiliated and irrefutable source who would be viewed universaly as 'reliable' is I think unreasonable. 86.148.15.97 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

Thanks for your opinion. Give the idea some thought, perhaps do some searches and if you can come up with a realiable source to support your opinion on PWU I will back it up. Although I find your argument in support of the typical diploma mill tactic of awarding degrees for "life experience" to be rather weak argument that I don't support. I disagree with honorary degrees in general but admit that it is a fairly common practice at accredited schools. The way most diploma mills implement it is that there is no real differentiation between "honorary degrees" and earned degrees, which I consider deceitful. Bill Huffman 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As you present it, yes, its deceitful if there is no differentiation made between degrees 'earned' and degress 'bought'. I believe there was a definite time when PWU required that degrees were 'earned' and set not only a high standard but scrutinised the candidates credentials for the award very carefully. Nevertheless, in your request for a reliable source to give convincing evidence of this, I am not going to be set an impossible task, and in failing provide the ammunition for another round of brick throwing. Sorry, but you must either take what I say as a moderating argument for the defence or disregard it. I stand by what I say and I am sure there is a silent cohort of PWU graduates that would agree if they didn't feel so victimised by the establshment. I would like to conclude by saying that whatever my accomplishments might be, they would have been the lesser had it not been for my association with PWU.81.152.238.32 10:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman.

Unfortunately, WP:ATT is one of the core rules of this place. If some (or better, several) established researcher looks back at PWU's history and says their degrees really should have been treated as accredited, then we can put that in. Until then, to make some determination ourselves would be original research, which is strictly forbidden. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct as far as any information in any article goes. On the other hand, if Barrie just wants to discuss on the talk page how wonderful he thinks PWU is (or was) then he can but it really has nothing to do with any Wikipedia article anywhere. This is really the place to discuss the article rather than the subject. If you think there is too much animosity to discuss the article then I believe that you're mistaken. Thanks,Bill Huffman 16:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know these pages are frustrating, and I agree completely that this is the place to discuss the article, not the subject. However, I'd encourage you to find more amiable ways to get your point across, as some might feel personally attacked by that. Thanks, William Pietri 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. thanks, Bill Huffman 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a footnote, it's not the current article per se that is in contention, what is at stake here is a balanced interpretation of what PWU is, and was. My comments are not only intended to reflect on what previous respondents had said, and to offer a less cynical perspective but, more importantly, to prevent unfair changes being made to the article. I would be very disappointed if too much antipathy leaked into the article simply because of the scandal associated with the later management of PWU. I am not seeking to gag these sorry episodes, I simply want those who are keen to see them featured in the article, and thus using them as the basis for the total discreditation of PWU, to realise that they would be guilty of an equally biased point of view. I see a kind of triumphal glee in the exposure of past PWU scandals as though these episodes should be included word for word in the article. This is okay, as long as you include some of my comments too! I am perfectly willing to put the case for mitigation in any re-casting of the article that is decided.Otherise, it is fair as it stands - so please leave it alone.81.153.84.1 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

Sir you can be an editor on the article as much as I can. What neither you nor I nor anyone can put in the article is things like "as long as you include some of my comments too". That is unless your comments were documented in a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia. As such no original research is allowed, no editor comments are allowed, no editor opinions are allowed. The last version of the article was completely supported by reliable sources, IMHO. If you didn't like that then you needed to find reliable sources that supported things you thought the article should say and edit the article yourself. The proper Wiki way is to fix it yourself. You just need to follow the Wiki poicies and guidelines when you make those edits. Regards, Bill Huffman 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, my earlier comments stand, I have nothing more to add. 81.153.86.213Barrie Blake-Coleman

Just to make sure I'm clear then, your comment that seems the most relevant to Wikipedia and any potential future editing of the article itself is "Nevertheless, in your request for a reliable source to give convincing evidence of this, I am not going to be set an impossible task" Bill Huffman 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of well sourced material

As required per guidelines I am posting to notify that I have restored material to the article which is well-sourced both by government documents and published investigative journalism and should therefore be considered non-controversial and non-actionable. This is straightforward reportage. Fawcett5 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! very matter of fact with ZERO animosity (as a reference to the previous section :-) ) Bill Huffman 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you were able to do this? For months now the page has had a tag stating that it may not be edited. I wrote, repeatedly, above, asking the editor who added the tag to explain himself, and he has not, though he has had months to do so. I was advised to send an email directly to someone named "Brad Patrick," which I did, and he responded very rudely to me, basically saying, "I'll get around to responding to you in my good time." All I asked for is a clarification and none has been forthcoming. In my opinion this callousness toward the community in adding such a tag without explanation or accountability to the community of editors is disgraceful and disgusting. Badagnani 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I too feel that the article has been hijacked by a few rabid critics who seem to have the editorial advantage over everyone else. I too am unable to access the article for re-casting or comments amd I don't see why, given the polarity of views, this matter has not reverted to the Wikipedia editor. There are none so blind as those that will not see, and it is clear that there are at least two respondents who think themselves impartial, and yet to any other dispassionate reader are clearly determined to impose a very one sided point of view. Regardless of the selective evidence they proffer, there is another side to the PWU story (see my previous comments) and a balanced point of view would have included the remarks I made earlier. My original appeal to the Wikipedia managment stands - the previous text of the article was fairly neutral and should be inaccessible to editing until this controversy is moderated by a less partisan authority. 81.132.245.242 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

Please provide the links to the reliable sources that you are being prevented to add to the article by your inability to edit. Or if your disagreement is with a reliably sourced statement recently added then please provide specifics to refute the reliable source or the statement. Thanks, Bill Huffman 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the reliable source! Or do you think that because I am not citing somebody else, or a TV programme, it make what I say less plausible. Seems to me that first hand experience is as good as it gets! 86.148.15.122 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

First-hand experience violates a number of policies, including WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:ATT. For Wikipedia, a published reliable source is required. Please read those linked pages for more on the policy. I also encourage you to register as a user, so people can leave you messages, and you will have a page with all your edits for future references. Thanks! Jokestress 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All very true, second hand reliable sources are preferred over even reliably sourced first hand sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journal for original research. Thanks, Bill Huffman 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Jokestress is but I suspect the recommendation was for me. Nevertheless, I am still waiting for someone from the editorial side to explain to me how a favoured few have managed to impose their views, and why certain kinds of evidence (especially media based) seem to be accepted in preference to other forms. If this is Wikipedia policy than there is something wrong! It cannot be the case that publication or exposition per se makes a source unreservably reliable - what you are saying is that first hand evidence is less reliable than second hand reporting and, Bill Huffman, if that is your creed, I suggest you hand back your degree along with Wikipedia's credibility.81.152.237.116 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman

Hi Barrie, please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a research journal or a newspaper. Original research is not allowed WP:NOR. Anyone's testimonial on a talk page such as yourself is not applicable to any Wikipedia article because there is no way to verify the veracity of the testimonial WP:V. For more detail on editing policy please reference WP:ATT. My personal creed is really not relevant to the discussion and going down those kind of avenues is skirting violation of assuming good faith WP:AGF. I do appreciate your input and encourage your interest in Wikipedia. Regards, Bill Huffman 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barrie, I would like to say one other thing. I've had a hobby following distance learning and unaccredited institutions for a number of years now and here's my testimonial regarding your assertions above. I have found that testimonials of graduates from unaccredited institutions to be amazingly unreliable. I'm not saying that yours necessarily falls into that category, especially since you've really given nothing but a general opinion without any specific substance. I'm just saying that in general the statements have frequently proven to fail an objectivity standard. In my opinion it is an excellent Wikipedia policy that prevents using such statements on a talk page in the articles. Have fun, Bill Huffman 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how reasonable the argument and whatever the rather perverse policies by Wikipedia on the production of evidence, you cannot escape the fact that just because citations emanate from the media, or arrive from another source, they are imperfect. Indeed, the credibility of a source must always be scrutinised.

In law, an eye witness has equal credibility to an averdavit or document (assuming it has been notorised). As such an eye-witness should not be considered weak in the level of objectivity or substance; no more than there is in the 'evidence' presented in the article. The article in its present form has been hijacked through the inclusion of selected 'sources', it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed "neautral" A neutral article would attempt to bring in all credible evidence and present a balanced point of view. What we see at the moment is so partial that no right thinking person could see it as anything more than biased. If you want neutrality then stop introducing impediments to creating a truly neutral article. If you can't, then don't include PWU in Wikipedia at all!

the above was added by 81.156.252.248 11 April 2007 - Bill Huffman 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). You have asserted that only "selected" sources have been used in order to present an unbalanced view in the article. Yet when asked to provide ANY reliable source for an opposing point of view you state that you will not take on an impossible task. That means to me that the view presented in the article is probably balanced and the person doing the viewing just has an opinion that cannot be supported by the available evidence. Bill Huffman 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but I'd assume contrary to your assertion that in law the statement on the web of an unidentified person is close to worthless! Get an exception to what I believe is wise Wikipedia policy that unverifiable statements by unknown people on Wikipedia talk pages can't be used in the article and I'll make a few unverifiable statements of my own that should be added to the article to counter your unverifiable opinion. The point is that you are proposing total Wiki chaos, not a balanced point of view. You are essentially proposing that articles should be based on an editor's opinion or even whim rather than verifiable sources. Bill Huffman 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS PAGE STILL BLOCKED FROM EDITING AFTER SEVEN MONTHS???

Several months ago, I wrote to inquire why it is impossible for long-time editors to contribute to this page, as is normal for all Wikipedia pages. I was advised to speak to someone named "Brad Patrick," who is apparently Wikipedia's lawyer. He responded in a curt fashion, saying basically that he would answer me when he felt it proper to do so. It is really intolerable, however, and paints Wikipedia in an extremely poor light that this page is blocked to all editors after seven (!) months. The lack of response and transparency is perhaps even worse, showing utter contempt for Wikipedia's editors who contribute so much here. This blocking must end and an explanation must be given, immediately--DO NOT WAIT SEVEN MORE MONTHS TO DO SO!!!!! Badagnani 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, according to the WP:OFFICE this has only been an issue since November. The WP intent is explained here Wikipedia:Office_Actions#Intent. I tend to agree that it has seemed to last too long but I guess making people happy takes longer than we would like. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: the article was first protected by Brad Patrick on August 24, 2006, and it's been protected since then except for a short time in November. -Will Beback · † · 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill Huffman 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS PAGE STILL BLOCKED FROM EDITING AFTER NEARLY EIGHT MONTHS???????????????????????

All right, this has become absolutely ridiculous, and making our encyclopedia look extremely bad. The sheer unmitigated rudeness of this person "Brad Patrick," who I have learned is apparently an admin at Wikipedia, in refusing to provide a detailed explanation of his refusal to allow editors to edit this page -- for nearly eight months now -- is unbelievably arrogant, and shows a lack of transparency that is antithetical to our project and shows a supremely high level of disrespect to conscientious, long-time editors. THIS HAS TO STOP!!! Please, simply take a few moments to visit this page and explain yourself. Badagnani 08:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Insert lawyer joke <HERE> to lighten the mood. :-) Badagnani, what kind of edits are you interested in making? There are people here reading this page that can apparently edit the article. Perhaps they could be convinced to make the edits that you're contemplating? Regards, Bill Huffman 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no specific edits planned or proposed. My request to unlock the article is simply a matter of principle. Badagnani 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is sad and frustrating to me when people of questionable motives can use frivolous legal threats to get their way. People running diploma mills have too much easy money and have been known to spend their ill gotten gains on purely frivolous legal threats out of spite. I can feel some sympathy to someone that wants to avoid even a frivolous legal entanglement because nothing positive can really be gained and it can be very expensive when we're talking about honest hard earned money. Please note that I am just mentioning these issues as general thoughts and do not know that they may actually apply or have anything to do directly with the issues at hand. They are just some examples of the kind of general thoughts that run through my mind when unaccredited schools are the topic. Regarding the specific issue here, Badagnani, I share your frustration and I'm watching the developments here with interest. Regards, Bill Huffman 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppve/school-search/view-school.asp?schlcode=1927881 no longer links to Pacific Western University; in fact, I can't find anything about Pacific Western University on their website. Presumably the person keeping this locked for months will fix that promptly?--Prosfilaes 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on. That link goes to "CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR UNIVERSITY", which is at the same address as PWU, 9750 Miramar Road, Suite 180, and even has the same phone number. My guess is that PWU is changing its name, but that isn't clear. The PWU website links to that page too.[5] Here's the CMU webpage.[6] -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It had previously been reported (on http://www.degreediscussion.com IIRC) that the request for a name change would be made to BPPVE. California Miramar University was not the name originally suggested but is much better than the original suggestion, IMHO. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, can you clarify? There is some back story that not all of us know. What is "the name originally suggested" and what is the reason for the name change? Badagnani 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badgnani, the original name suggested isn't overly relevant since they picked a different name. Anyway the origianl thought was apparently Califonia University which I thought would be misleadingly confusing with the California public university systems. Here's a discussion of that. http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2009

Here's a recent discussion I started over on the same discussion forum. http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24541#24541 Regarding the reason for the name change, I can only speculate that the new owners wanted to further distance the school from its non-wonderful past. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not from a website that I'm at all inclined to treat as authoritative, but it seems to shed light on what's going on: http://www.csdvietnam.com/data/File/CMU/Letter%201%20from%20Dean%20Dominic%20to%20students.pdf - The first paragraph states Pacific Western University is proud to announce that it has officially changed its name to California Miramar University (CMU). The Board of Trustees along with our Faculty and Administrative Staff, concluded that the new name would reflect the University’s purpose and vision as we actively seek accreditation and develop exciting new global educational degree programs. and goes on to say that the website will move from http://www.pwu-ca.edu/ to http://www.calmu.edu/ sirmob 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS PAGE STILL BLOCKED FROM EDITING AFTER NEARLY NINE MONTHS???

And why is the blocking editor refusing to explain himself here??? This is insane. Badagnani 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you care that much call the office. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I don't believe I should have to do that. We have a very well established working process and certain editors seem to be avoiding their responsibilities. I do not doubt that this page is on the watchlists of some of those in question, who are avoiding this responsibility, and this insanity must end. Badagnani 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was protected by user:Dannyisme on behalf of the office. That account is no longer in use. You can complain all you like here, but you may be wasting your effort. If you want an answer just call the office. Otherwise, there are plenty of other articles that need more attention than this one. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your response. So it's not really a "free" encyclopedia? Commercial concerns (i.e. legal threats with no basis) trump everything else? And you yourself are more willing to spend the time to tell me that my efforts are useless, rather than make some effort to get this problem fixed? I'm afraid I find that difficult to understand. Badagnani 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the user:Dannyisme page. He states that he is working on behalf of the Foundation (and apparently protected the page, forever, before leaving). But he is no longer editing. This situation makes Wikipedia look very unprofessional. But it is never too late, here or in any situation in life, to correct oneself and make good after recognizing that one has done something wrong. Badagnani 06:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm baffled by your responses at this point, even as someone who also wishes the article wasn't locked. The Wikimedia Foundation is a foundation, it has a board of trustees that have (I'm sure) among other things the goal of making sure resources of the foundation are used effectively and that the foundation survives to the future, and this response to legal threats seems well within those overarching objectives. Call it "commercial" if you wish, I tend to think of it as "minimally responsible in an imperfect world." And Wikipedia is NOT professional, and is frequently petty and arbitrary and bizarre and contradictory on all scales, spend two days at WP:AFD if you need convincing of that, so I don't know why this page locking in particular is the source of such ire. And Wikipedia is free - if you want to make your own copy of this and other pages and face your own legal threats, you only have to obey the GFDL.

If you wish to continue shouting from this rather secluded hilltop that this page is STILL BLOCKED FROM EDITING AFTER TWENTY-FIVE MONTHS then I can't stop you, but you're wasting your time and you're wasting the time of people who watch this page in case there is a constructive conversation. Your outrage rings more hollow every time it echoes, especially as you don't seem to have any constructive changes to make to the article but rather bitterly oppose its blocking on principle. sirmob 08:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure, however, that it was more helpful than no response. Badagnani 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a rather secluded hilltop. I find a number of things interesting about it. I guess I don't have much to say but thought that a friendly murmer from a fellow visitor to this hilltop might be appreciated. John Bear's Guide (Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning) talks some about despicable diploma mill owners filing frivolous lawsuits against John Bear. These despicable people typically lose their suits. (For example, the suit gets dropped because the plaintiff has to go off to prison.) However, they accomplish their goal which is intimidating others in order to obscure the truth about their dishonest fraudulent practices. It is not fair or just but, it is reality. I'm not saying that the owner of PWU falls into that category of despicable diploma mill owners. He's apparently a chiropractor afterall, which probably qualifies him to crack my back. I don't know if he goes around threatening frivolous lawsuits or not but, if he did I might consider that an indication of typical diploma mill owner behavior. On the other hand, I don't consider cracking backs typical diploma mill owner behavior nor really university owner behavior either. These friendly irrelevant irreverant words brought to you by Bill Huffman 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered rewriting the article from scratch in your user space (e.g. User:Badagnani/PWU), making sure that it is better sourced than this article, and linking it here for replacement? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Badagnani 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Badagnani, the office staff ARE working on this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great--that kernel of news just took about 11 months to come around the bend. It must be great to have access to such inside information. Badagnani 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seal image

Would someone please add the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PWU_Seal.JPG to the article. It is used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacific_Western_University/Proposed , but may need to be added to the article as it now is listed as being orphaned. Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some minor edits (removing overkill latin) to the infobox on Pacific Western University/Proposed - there is nothing remotely controversial in that infobox, it ought to be added to the article. sirmob 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

As I am not a lawyer, and I am not able to determine the legal status of this matter at present, I have reverted this article back to Brad Patrick's last version and removed the information regarding the Pacific Western University (Hawaii) to Pacific Western University (Hawaii). (OTRS #2007062010008967) As there was some question as to the nature of this item, User:Swatjester is presently authorized to make any additional changes on the article, and we will be referring it to our legal council to determine acceptability of article content. Cary Bass 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of you who are good at using cite web, and ref names, I wouldn't mind having a whack at fixing the refs I'm adding. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

California Miramar University

Pacific Western University has changed their name to California Miramar University, http://www.calmu.edu/ . Shouldn't the article be updated and have PWU redirect to CMU? Regards, Bill Huffman 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything on the CMU website to reflect that....source? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The BPPVE website is currently down. But the name change approval showed up there https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppve/school-search/view-school.asp?schlcode=1927881 a few months ago (about April). The Inside Higher Education article from December states,

With new ownership, new management and a new location, Pacific Western University also has plans for a new title — California University. Located in San Diego, Pacific Western is an unaccredited, for-profit institution of distance learning. An official of the university says that it is changing its name because it is linked with past controversies, unlike the new name, which some think will sound a bit too much like the University of California.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/15/calu

Obviously either California University was rejected as a name by the BPPVE or they applied for the CMU name instead because the addresses are the same between PWU and CMU. Plus they both have Dr. Mwenja PWU and CMU. Although admittedly the chiropractor owner Dr. Warfield is apparently taking a non-visible role on the CMU website. Is this really a controversial issue? Regards, Bill Huffman 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source, http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx . Look up Califonia Miramar University on the list. Regards, Bill Huffman 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source, http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/NoTX.cfm Bill Huffman 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one plus it provides some insight as to why PWU backed down on their attempt to get a name confusingly similar to University of California (identical when translated into many oriental languages which is apparently a big market for CMU.). UC lawyers apparently threatened to sue and so they picked California Miramar University instead. http://www.topix.net/content/kri/3132492330239860487300147017622715129326 Bill Huffman 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

it's not that it's a controversial issue, I just couldn't find any reference of it on either PWU or CMU sites. It's a noncontroversial edit, you should add it in now, and then over the next couple days we'll work on figuring out what changes need to be made to do a move from PWU to CMU on wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll start work on it tomorrow. Have a good one, Bill Huffman 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think that I might be done with the first part of Swatjester's plan. Please look, review, suggest, and correct now. The next part of the plan is discuss the article name change or perhaps redirect a CMU search to PWU or ? Regards, Bill Huffman 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlink to Pacific Western University (Hawaii)

I propose the following link to PWU(Hawaii) be added to the article in the following manner (except the actual change would not be bold).

California Miramar University (CMU) is a distance learning private university located in San Diego, California. It used to be known as Pacific Western University (PWU). Pacific Western University is also the name of a now defunct university in Hawaii, Pacific Western University (Hawaii), which was once owned by PWU California

Regards,Bill Huffman 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, go ahead. BTW, as you can obviously tell, I went ahead with the page move. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifc Date Please

Badagnani, I'm confused by you adding the question/statement to the article in a comment. What is the intent or what do you hope to accomplish by that? I assume you are trying to refer to a specific date for the name change? Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss it here? If you know of a reliable source for a specific date then please let us know. I believe there was a specific date in the announcement by the BPPVE that the name change had been approved. Unfortunately, the BPPVE website is down. I'm not sure that would be the correct date anyway. I assume the wesite is down because the California governor refused to sign the law that would have extended the life of this almost useless government body. The article mentions that it was sometime in March or April. I don't know how to narrow it down further. Any ideas? Thanks, Bill Huffman 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have added it to the article (and in fact moved the article away from "Pacific Western University," without consensus) if you didn't know the year this purported name change took place. I disagree with the supposition that an editing comment to this effect is inappropriate in this case; in fact, it's highly necessary. Badagnani 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, I'm confused by your assertions. The name change is a known fact backed up by reliable sources that are referenced in the article. PWU changed thier name to CMU. I don't understand your assertion about requiring consensus to add facts to articles that are not controverisal. (It was discussed on the talk page here anyway.) I don't understand your implication that the name change was fabricated or not supported by reliable sources? Or are you saying that the name change is controversial? I do know the year, 2007. The year is in the article. Why do you think that a comment in the article is necessary? Why is it necessary? What is it about the name change that you disagree with? If there is something wrong why don't you suggest a fix or better yet fix it? I don't really fully understand your three word comment you added to the article, "Specific date please". I thought that a discussion here might be able to clear it up. Regards, Bill Huffman 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it. The phrase "used to be" is unencyclopedic, like saying "The United States of America used to be called 'The Thirteen Colonies'." I'm not convinced the new institution is the same as the old, as the name is different; if I'm correct then both articles would be needed. Obliterating the old name from the article title seems to serve the owners of the old university by wallpapering over the various controversies swirling around the PWU name, while at the same time obscuring the validity and status of the degrees previously issued by the institution under the PWU name. Badagnani 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, thank you for improving the article. Pacific Western University redirects to California Miramar University. Pacific Western Universtiy is mentioned in the current article. There are multiple reliable sources referenced in the article for the name change. I'm personally sensitive to academic integrity issues so I think it is fair to say that I'm sympathetic to the issue that you raise. I suggest that you discuss any proposed controversial changes/additions here before making them to the article. Regards, Bill Huffman 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes I've just made were fairly minor and uncontroversial. Badagnani 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed Bill Huffman 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the addresses are identical I'm now convinced it's essentially the same insitution but it just as well could be conceived of by the staff as an entirely new university, just with the same employees and headquartered in the same office. There are several dozen dissertations listed as being associated with PWU Ph.D.s listed on WorldCat, by the way. Badagnani 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent response by David Long, California Secretary of Education concerning PWU/CMU

A letter dated 11/7/2007concerning PWU/CMU reads as follows: "As you may be aware, the Bureau of Postsecondary and Vocational Education - under the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) - oversaw recognition of Pacific Western University until the bureau's dissolution July 1st of this year. Since the bureau is no longer operational, my staff contacted the DCA and confirmed that your degree is still recognized despite the dissolution of both the bureau and PWU. Furthermore, there are no California statutes prohibiting the presentation of your degree.

Additionally, you inquired about the desire for PWU graduates to have their degrees reissued under California Miramar University (CMU) name. According to CMU, there are no plans to reissue PWU degrees in the CMU name.

Furthermore, since CMU is undergoing an accreditation process, such a reissuance would not be statutorily permitted as though PWU instruction did not take place under accreditation".

As I read this, all PWU graduates are out of luck, and all CMU students who are at CMU can't use PWU credits if any PWU credits were earned prior to the start of accreditation.

Wllogan 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "all PWU graduates are out of luck"? It appears that PWU diplomas are recognized. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that PWU degrees will never be accredited, leaving PWU degrees useless in states such as Texas.72.85.10.60 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of unaccredited degree titles is legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon , Michigan, Maine, North DakotaNew Jersey, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, and Texas.. Many other states are also considering restrictions on unaccredited degree use in order to help prevent fraud.

TallMagic 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you mean. Has this letter been published in a reliable publication? If it has then we can summarize it for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This quote was from a personal letter from Mr. Long to me on behalf of Gov. Schwarzenegger dated 11/7/07. Fax available.71.248.70.2 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so it's clearly understood, personal letters (unless published by a reliable source) are not WP:verifiable. TallMagic 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. This letter is on California State letter head and is a direct response to questions to Mr. Long to clarify PWU/CMU and the State of California positions on the viability of PWU degrees. Letter is available to anyone interested. 71.248.97.52 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point. PWU degrees are acceptable in California and are approved by California. Why in this case are PWU degrees not accepable in other states? These degrees are obviously not diploma mill degrees. Does every diploma issuing university have to be accredited and are there other non accredited degrees accepted by say Texas that are not on their unapproved list? 71.248.97.52 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that "these degrees are obviously not diploma mill degrees" I believe is the key to understanding the answer to your first question. Simply stated these degrees are not obviously degrees bestowed using accepted academic standards. Perhaps it may be obvious to a particular PWU student that went through a PWU program that they did lots of work. That does not mean that it is obvious to everyone else that all graduates going through all the programs did what is accepted as a standard level of work. Also, the only program approved in California for PWU was the Business programs. It is far from obvious that even those approved Business programs were up to accepted academic standards for the life of PWU. The BPPVE is now defunct but at the best of times was dysfunctional. Also to be considered, the history of PWU includes some very sorry incidents, for example, the KTLA investigation and report. The typical way that it becomes obvious that higher education institutions are not diploma mills is by becoming accredited. At least that is now the first step. PWU never did that first step. So, it is not obvious to Texas, for example. TallMagic 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second question, this is a most excellent question. The wording seems to indicate that THECB could approve unaccredited degrees. Reading in the TExas website further, it seems that DETC is not an officially approved accreditor. The THECB has added qualification to California Coast University degree use on their list saying that only degrees issued from there prior to 2005 are illegal. So it would seem that CCU might be an example of a DETC accredited institution that needed to get special approval by THECB. What this all means to me is that I would be interested in knowing the answer to your second question. :-) TallMagic 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK try this. According to the Depatment of Education website, university and colleges which are acceptable to the Dept of Education have a .edu after their name. PWU.ca.edu seems to meet this criteria. What I am asking is when did PWU sink in the deep end of the pool? Surely, when I enrolled in the early 80's, there was no real internet. I talked to the Better Business Bureau, the California Dept of Education and was assured that there were no complaints, and that a degree from PWU was a valid degree in California. In the early 80's there were limited choices for those working sixty plus hours a week and constantly out of town. I think there should be some difference between diploma mill and un-accredited. Anyone found a college or university that is either un-accredited or an unacceptable accreditative agency that still makes the US Dept of Education's most favorable list? If my degree is Computer Information Sciences ( work that I did for 35 years) Why did Mr. Long say that my degree is valid when it is not a business degree?? 72.85.8.185 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple questions and some are not so easy to answer. When the state of California got rid of the lower level class of unaccredited degrees in 1989 PWU got approval only for their Business degrees. All of their other degrees were officially bestowed by a branch of PWU opened in Hawaii. Hawaii licenses for educational institutions have no academic standards associated with it. California licenses for educational institutions are supposed to have more meaning but since the mid 90's the BPPVE had been crippled by lack of funding and direction. So a valid degree in this case would simply appear to mean that it is not illegal to try to use the degree in California. It does not mean that the utility in the degree will necessarily be what one might wish. It does not mean that the degree will be legally useable in all jurisdictions. It does not even mean that when the California legislature rewrites the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform Act of 1989 (which they are currently supposed to be doing) that PWU degrees will still necessarily be valid in California. You might be interested in reading some of the following articles in Wikipedia, BPPVE, educational accreditation, Unaccredited institutions of higher learning, and diploma mills. TallMagic 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been fun beating this dead horse. If CMU does receive accreditation, I wonder how they are going to tell it's students with PWU credits that they have to take the courses over. By the way, my degree from PWU is from California. 71.248.76.49 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially, any degrees bestowed prior to accreditation stay unaccredited. So no communication to alumni is required. A more interesting question is whether or not CMU will continue to validate degrees for their alumni after they (assuming they) achieve accreditation. If your degree was received after 1989 then it was officially bestowed by the PWU Hawaii branch. PWU (California) has only been allowed to bestow Business degrees since 1989. Although both PWU branches were run from the same place in California so it may not be clear to people whether they were working with the California branch or the Hawaii branch because they were really the same organization. -- TallMagic (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your 1989 date on degrees is confusing. However my degree is 1994 (although it was started many years before, and is from PWU California. What about credits earned prior to accreditation under PWU?-- 71.248.66.140 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform Act of 1989 is a California law passed in 1989 that got rid of the category that PWU was operating under prior to 1989. At that point they had three choices, to either stop operations, flee the state, or get state approval for each degree program that they wanted to offer. PWU decided to do a combination of the second two choices. They got approval for Business degrees from the BPPVE and they opened up a branch in Hawaii for all other degree programs. So you may think that you got your degree from PWU California but since it is not Business, it is really from the PWU Hawaii branch. Credits earned prior to accreditation at an unaccredited institution are generally considered to be unaccredited credits. A sort of exception is when the degree program is started prior to accreditation and the degree is bestowed after accreditation, that would be considered a fully accredited degree (assuming that that specific degree program was included in the accreditation). TallMagic (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, who are you? Who do you represent? The fact of the matter is I have a deploma, degree certification etc. in Computer Science at it is from PWU California. I finished my degree in 1994. I would be happy to fax you a copy once I know who you are.72.85.52.124 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am TallMagic, a Wikipedian. I do not represent anyone but myself here on Wikipedia. I'm not really interested in seeing any personal information but thank you anyway. Seeing your diploma would do nothing to change the fact that since 1989 PWU Califonia has only been able to legally bestow Business degrees. If you have a diploma that is non-business that was bestowed by PWU California in 1994 then I would have to assume that it was not legally bestowed. It seems better to me to assume that it was legally bestowed by PWU Hawaii. I'd assume that if PWU was taken to court they would claim that it was bestowed by PWU Hawaii. But either way, it really doesn't matter to me. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article not the subject of the article. We have strayed some from discussing the article. You asked questions and I have just done my best to answer the questions as accurately as I can. I'm sorry for straying from strictly the article subject if my answers have bothered you in anyway. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CMU Accreditation

Had a call back from CMU this morning in response to a question I had concerning who they applied to for accreditation. Response was they can't give out that info while they are being accredited. Go figure.72.85.31.154 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The accreditation agencies have a policy that applicants for accreditation are not to advertise or even talk about their application for accreditation. The reason is that they don't want diploma mills to apply for accreditation with the sole intent of using that application as an advertising technique to boast their sales of bogus degrees. So CMU was being honest and proper in the handling of your question. TallMagic (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding these comments, I would like to add that the discussions that have transpired lately reinforce my previous observations given above:- "I too feel that the article has been hijacked by a few rabid critics who seem to have the editorial advantage over everyone else. I too am unable to access the article for re-casting or comments amd I don't see why, given the polarity of views, this matter has not reverted to the Wikipedia editor. There are none so blind as those that will not see, and it is clear that there are at least two respondents who think themselves impartial, and yet to any other dispassionate reader are clearly determined to impose a very one sided point of view. Regardless of the selective evidence they proffer, there is another side to the PWU story (see my previous comments) and a balanced point of view would have included the remarks I made earlier. My original appeal to the Wikipedia managment stands - the previous text of the article was fairly neutral and should be inaccessible to editing until this controversy is moderated by a less partisan authority." Barrie Blake-Coleman86.150.199.255 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barrie, Welcome to Wikipedia, there are no professional Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is a most wonderful project that allows knowledge to be shared between people like you and me. The article is currently protected from editting by anon and new accounts. All that you need to do is to create a Wikipedia account and wait a couple weeks and then you should be able to edit the article. The primary Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I suggest be read by new editors is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. TallMagic (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Editors

A while back someone made some comments signed Barrie. Today someone unsuccessfully tried to apparently add CMU marketing text in an extremely crude manner to the CMU article. They even broke links in the current article text. There seems to be some people with a very poor understanding of Wikipedia that are interested in CMU. It is really easy becoming a productive Wikipedia contributer but it does take a small amount of research to gain the low level of understanding necessary for productive Wikipedia editting. I suggest that to help acclimate yourselves please visit, WP:welcome. Also some core editting principles are captured in the following policies/guidelines, verifiability, neutral point of view, and reliable sources. Welcome, please make yourselves comfortable and I look forward to your future contributions to Wikipedia!!! TallMagic (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, new editors, please take note that this has been a very contentious article, which has involved legal threats and locking down of the article by the Wikimedia office staff. If you are looking for a place to start editing on Wikipedia, you may wish to start with a different article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been absent from these contentious debates for some time and have only recently seen the later commentaries. I want it clearly understood that I have never made any attempt to manipulate or interfere with any Wikipedia software, text or links other than by adding legitimate comments and opinions to these discussions. I resent and reject any implication by the previous respondent that I have had, or carried out anything with malicious intent. Had I US representation then I would be tempted to sue the hell out of the individual in question! Incidentally, it is time this bloody business was put to rest. BARRIE BLAKE COLEMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.93.43 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Barrie, I must admit that I'm confused by your most recent comment. If it was directed at me then I assure you that you have totally missed the intent of my comment. I was not trying to imply that you were the same person as the person that last January 23 edited the article. I was not saying that the person that edited the article on January 23 had any malicious intent. I was simply stating that I thought the January 23 editor and yourself wanted to improve Wikipedia in general, were interested in this article in particular, and were new to Wikipedia and might find the wp:welcome article helpful. If what bothered you was SwatJester's comment then I also believe that you may have read more into his comment than he intended. I can say with confidence that SwatJester is a most positive and prolific contributor to Wikipedia and I don't believe that he meant anything personal or negative by his comment. The Wikipedia community atmosphere is a very positive, friendly, and supportive place. I respectfully suggest that you at least review a most important Wikipedia guideline/principle that I think is key in maintaining that atmosphere, assume good faith. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot assume good faith if the comments are so badly constructed that they logically agree to form a contrary statement. To begin, as the article does, with "A while back someone made some comments signed Barrie." (not a sentence but a fragment) that appears to link with;- "Today someone unsuccessfully tried to apparently add CMU marketing text in an extremely crude manner to the CMU article." can only be interpreted one way!! Making comments which are ambiguous is one thing, to form a set of statements which are so badly structured that they are in effect accussative is criminal. SwatJester has no excuse. BARRIE BLAKE-COLEMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.198.205 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Barrie, it appears to me that my first sentence may be missing a comma after "A while back" but, it looks like a complete sentence to me. The second sentence mentions nothing about malicious behavior. That was simply you jumping to a false conclusion. Making legal threats on Wikipedia usually just makes the person making such threats look rather silly. It is not a productive method of communicating. It is also strictly against Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. The person making such threats is vulnerable to being permanently blocked from editting. It appears to me that this subject matter may trigger strong emotions for you. Perhaps you should consider helping Wikipedia on some other topics first as suggested by the Wikipedia wise and highly respected SwatJester? In any case, let me recommend the following articles, wp:welcome, wp:npov, wp:v, and wp:rs. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you are trying to wriggle- by making implausible excuses. I have no intention of changing my views. The original note had only one interpretation (as it stood) and remains indefensible. BARRIE BLAKE-COLEMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.198.205 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. There is absolutely nothing to even wiggle out of! You appear to be very confused on how Wikipedia works, what is the purpose of this talk page, and the very context of this communication thread. I'm simply trying to assist you in becoming a productive contributor to Wikipedia. TallMagic (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Viewer111

Newly registered user Viewer111 posted the below comments on my talk page, as well as the talk pages of several other users. Rather than carrying on separate conversations about this article on several different user talk pages, I am moving the comments here. I also broke the long 9-point paragraph into separate parts to make it easier to read and respond. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to write to you to explain the recent edits that were made the the CMU site and what I believe to be rather extreme reactions to my recent posting. I sent similar resonses to Tallmagic who implied that I may have violated the 3 revision rule of Wikipedia and to Swatjester, who locked the site due to "vandalism".

I have a name now and it is Viewer111. I read Tallmagic's response and I am a bit puzzled. I do not believe I violated the 3 reversion rule. I made the the intial change to the article and posted it. I didn't realize I needed to provide an edit summary at the time. When you reverted the artilce, I saw your response. I then reverted the article one time. I goofed up on the revision and didn't add the edit sumary so I went right back in and added a summary so all could see my reasoning. Total revisions on CMU site, 1.

I appreciate Tallmagic's advise. In the future I will make edits in smaller chunks. However, the changes did quote sources and in many cases they were the exact sources already within the article. It seems the original posters picked material that supported their point of view without either reading the entire article/report or reading it and slanting their edits in a manner that made their particular point. If I am not mistaken, that too is a violation of the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View.

My list of changes are summarized below. Please tell me which ones you don't agree with:

1. CMU is Califonria State Approved. The references to this fact are given through the State of Californai site provided.

2. Under accreditation, the verbage of the U.S.D.O.E. specifically talks about State Approved schools in the article that was already cited. This speicific verbage was added and cited. It did not state CMU was accredited, only added the exact wording form the USDOE website and the fact that CMU has been state approved since 1996 which can be verified at the Calironia State Websie already provided.

3. A change in label from Controversy to Controversy Before the Change of Ownership was added. All the items in the Controversy section occured before the change of ownership of PWU-CA/CMU as referenced by the Paul Thacker article. If we want to state all the controversy of the University, it is fair to put things in a factual context.

4. Information on GOA Report was expanded. The exact same references quoted were cited. The GAO report defined their terms of what was a diploma mill and what was an unaccredited school within the report. Earlier contributors simply used the name of the report to draw a conclusion that when is taken in it's complete context, is incorrect. PWU-CA was a California State Approved school at the time. So was one of the other schools, California Coast University. Wikipedia contributors made the same broad sweeping conclusion on CCU at the time and persited even after CCU gained national accreditation. It looks like those Wikipedia contributors violoted the nutral point of view rule in this case as well.

5. A similar item happened in the previous quote about the govenment of Sweeden cite. The information in the article is not only wrong, but seemingly bias. If you review the article, as my revision states, PWU-CA is not the subject of the article and its inflamitory title at all. The only reference to PWU-CA is the picture of its website page as of 2005 with the warning don't assume a school is accredited simply because it has a .edu in its title. Please review the report and see if PWU-CA name appears anywhere else in the report. It does not.

6. The reference to the KVOA article is still cited. However, since the KVOA team call PWU-CA a diploma mill in their article referencing the GOA report, and the GAO Report does not make such a distinction, this is incorrect information about the school. It should either be ammended or removed in this regard.

7. A disclaimer to the mention of Barry McSweeny reference is added to the site. As you know there were two separate PWU's from 1988 until 2006. The warning at the top of the edit page attests to this fact. Earlier contributors assumed that anyone who had a PWU degree was from the California school. That is not a verifable fact. I have access to the student records at CMU and Mr. McSweeny never was a student of PWU California. He may have been a PWU Hawaii graduate. If Wikipedia will not accept the records from PWU California as verification of this fact then certainly Wikipedia has rules to take off the entire reference if there is doubt and it cannot be confirmed as to which PWU was being referenced.

8. The unamaed graduate from Austrailia that was removed and is a ditto to the explaination in items 7.

9. The names of alumni not found in the PWU-CA/CMU database were removed due to the explanation in item 7 above.

In closing, it its not my intent to be troublesome or generate anymore animostiy over this site than has been shown in the past. I have read many of the behind the scenes correspondence on this page. I think that it is clear to see most contributors had a very definite point of view on this page as evidenced by actions in locking the site for months by Brad Patrick.

Every item that was changed is cited and hopefully neutral in nature. It may not appear neurtral to some because of the "my minds made up, don't confuse me with conflicting facts" syndrome. If I have not been neutral, then change those items. That is not my intent. I am only trying to make sure correct, unbias information is on the site.

I certainly expect to be allowed to make my edits in the near future. The fact that the site is locked the site due to "vandalism" only goes to make me concerned that in locking this site there may be an agenda that is not in keeping with the Wikipedia rules. I hope this is not the case, and that the site is opened back up immediately. I don't mind playing by the rules, but I want a level playing field where noone is given speacial treatment or privledges.

I look forward to your comments.

Viewer111 (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Viewer111. I sincerely appreciate your desire to improve the CMU article. I hope that you decide you like the place and decide to contribute to many other articles that might interest you. Wikipedia is generally a very friendly place. I believe it fosters a positive team atmosphere. It is expected that team members can have different point of view and even disagreements. These can usually be worked through when the wp:Assume_good_faith guideline is followed by the team members. This is very important to remember when dealing with one's team members on Wikipedia. I firmly believe that the actions of Orlady and Swatjester were taken because of their firm belief in Wikipedia and our policies and guidelines.TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have some inside information regarding CMU. You'll need to be careful to keep separate wp:reliable_source information from your inside information. Wikipedia must be based on wp:verifiable information from wp:reliable_sources. It can't be based on any other kind of information. Perhaps you could help me out on a personal curiosity though? I understand that CMU has applied for accreditation. I was wondering if you happened to know how that process was progressing? TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Still working on my more detailed response. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Orlady is right that this should probably best be handled as one conversation. Above is my response. I thought that Viewer111 made a nice and appreciated response to me already. I'll let Viewer111 copy it here if she/he's so inclined. I still plan on responding in more detail but just don't have the time at this moment. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic

I took your lead and have copied my last response to you below.

Thank you for the quick response. I expect to spend alot of time on Wikipedia on this and other articles in the future. It takes a bit to get used to the standard operating procedure, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. It's quite fun and exciting.

I think you will find upon your review that all of my edits are well sourced and verifiable. Those of past students of the generic PWU need to be examined however for reasons I stated earlier. The only item I didn't address in my earlier response, was the deletion of all sentences that concern PWU Hawaii. That school has it's own site and those references should be addressed in that forum via links.

I didn't mean to insinuate that Orlady had any imporper motives. Her references are correct. When I reset my changes I added the explaination that I didn't know I need before Orlady's reset. I needed to learn the ropes. I felt that if contributors would have actully looked at the changes and verified the resources that were linked to the changes, the site would have not been set back.

I am just curious and concerned that the site was locked for Vandalism when according to Wikipedia rules on Vandalism, which are very clear and percise on the subject, were not followed. Locking the site and calling it Vanalism is an extreme action and is suppose to require a warning to the alleged first violator (me. No warning was issued or received.

The very nature of the changes that were made to the site had references and in no way approach Wikipedia's definition of the act of Vandalism. Wikipedia states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is NOT vandalism.

I also explained the nature of the changes when doing my one and only reset. You may not like the changes, but they were not vandalism.

I am hard pressed to see any violations of any Wikipedia policy in my actions. If I violated the 3 revision rule as you suggeset, how? You can count the revisions in history. There was one. If you can identify some policies I have violoated, I will be happy to listen and modify my actions immediately to be in compliance.

To answer your question about CMU. As you know, a college in the accredition process is precluded from saying anything about the matter. A thought that might help you would be to re-read the Paul Thacker article from 2006. He addresses this issue accurately in his article.

I await your more detailed response. Warmest Regards, Viewer111 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TallMagic"

Viewer111, of course you'll be allowed to make edits in the future. No, I never said that you had violated the three revert rule. Warnings are not required before page protections. Warnings are required before blocking editting privledges. You didn't have your specific editting privledges blocked so a warning is not required. Your action that caused the most concern to me is when you reverted Orlady's revert. It is accepted practice to discuss on the talk page in those kind of situations instead of just immediately reverting back, especially without any edit comment. That is like a broadside announcing the beginning of an edit war. :-) It ignores an important part of the process. Which is concensus, concensus, concensus, one must build concensus for contested edits. At the same time though, it is good to be wp:Bold. Anyway, that's all for now. I'm still hoping to get to the detail tonight. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of additional comments here. First, the semi-protecting of the page was done both because of vandalism and because of an OTRS issue, as noted in Swatjester's edit summary. Second, all content must be verifiable--Wikipedia does not allow original research. Finally, please take a look through the essay on bold-revert-discuss to see what User:TallMagic is driving at. --jonny-mt 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my attempt to give my personal view on your 9 edit categories. First off I want to say that I'm going by my memory of the specific edits. In other words, please feel free to correct my imperfect memory.

1. It's unclear to me that CMU actually is California approved. I could not find proof of that in the link you provided. I understand that the BPPVE no longer exists because the sunset clause in the law that created BPPVE has expired and therefore the organization is disbanded. I also understand that only PWU's business program was approved by the BPPVE at some point in the distance past. It is unclear that BPPVE approval applies today. It is also arguable that BPPVE approval quickly became meaningless after it was initially created. Looking at the CMU article regarding the historical problems with PWU supports that argument, IMHO.

2. My opinion is that this edit tried to give undue weight to the meaning of BPPVE approval. As mentioned above, BPPVE is a defunct organization that has been leaderless, underfunded, broken, and paralyzed for most of its sad existance.

3. My opinion is that this gave undue weight to the fact that CMU is under new management. The dates already made that clear. Although this is a weakly felt opinion, I don't feel strongly about this one.

4. Regarding CCU, please note that I'm an occasional editor of that article and do not believe that my eidts there or here fit into the category that you seem to alledge for Wikipedieans in general. Regarding your BPPVE argument, please reference the controversy section or the investigation that KTLA did of PWU to get what I'd characterize to be a more realistic opinion as to what BPPVE approval really meant. That all said, I don't really remember the specifics of this edit, perhaps it would be okay.

5. I only read English. Although if true then I'd tend to agree.

6. Perhaps the wording here in the article could be improved.

7. Inside information can't be used when editting Wikipedia. Please don't take this as an insult Viewer111 because I do believe you but anyone could claim inside information to support anything they wanted to say and this is an example why the verifiability policy is so very important.

8. ditto here as well

9. ditto here as well, no insider information is allowed. PWU Hawaii and PWU California were run as one single university, run by the same people from the same location. Viewer111, what is your association with CMU?

Please feel free to correct, agree, or disagree with anything that I said. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding item 3, I still have not seen reliably sourced evidence that the institution is/was under new ownership, so I definitely oppose including that information in an article subheading. However, since all of the controversy currently reported is historical (related to PWU, not CMU), I think the Controversy section deserves to be treated as a subsection of History. Therefore, I have made it a subsection. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding item 7, I accessed the Irish Independent article and related Irish Labour Party press release and read them carefully. I fixed the bot-generated reference callouts, and I found that the article did not accurately reflect the content of the sources, so I edited the article fairly extensively. I found that the article did not identify multiple government officials as PWU grads, but only Barry McSweeney. Further, I found that the article contained specific information/allegations about McSweeney's degree (for example, the fact that he received a 12-month Ph.D. was emphasized as evidence of the substandard nature of the degree), so I expanded the amount of detail in the article. Note that the Irish Independent article identifies McSweeney's alma mater as being in Los Angeles and the Irish Labour Party press release says it is in California -- thus, I think Wikipedia is on very firm ground including him in this article. (Note that a user's personal statement on the absence of information in an institution's private archives is not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia.) --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy of Response to Swatjester and Answers to TallMagic

Viewer111 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the article is a very contentious one, which we have received numerous complaints about over the years. What I would suggest you do is use the article's discussion page to post your edits there, and if people agree on them, you or they can institute those edits. If people disagree on them, they can tell you why and you can work out a better one.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear SwatJester:

Thank you for your response! I agree that the article has been a very continuous one. Most of the contention, I believe has been PWU-CA /CMU disagreeing with the slanted way in which material was and is presented and contributors who use carefully selected portions of sourced facts to present information that is slanted to their particular point of view.

I have sought input on the discussion page thanks to Orlandy moving her response from me over to the discussion page. I have gotten no input onto the "why" people disagree with the edits with the lone exception of TallMagic. Most of his response is "opinion" and not necessarily based on verifiable facts.

I would very much like to hear your response. It seems people are quick to take off and block material with which they may disagree, but very slow to unblock editing access, explain their objections and provide verifiable sources to support their position. This, in part, is why the article has been so contentious in the past.

TallMagic says that I have not been blocked from editing the page and therefore no warning from you to me was needed. The edit button on the top of the "article" screen is not present. If that is not blocking, what would it be called?

This type of blocking seems to be a pattern on this site. I copy here similar sentiments on such practices from the article discussion pages.

------MATERIAL COPIED FROM CMU DISCUSSION PAGE-----------

Restoration of well sourced material As required per guidelines I am posting to notify that I have restored material to the article which is well-sourced both by government documents and published investigative journalism and should therefore be considered non-controversial and non-actionable. This is straightforward reportage. Fawcett5 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! very matter of fact with ZERO animosity (as a reference to the previous section :-) ) Bill Huffman 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you were able to do this? For months now the page has had a tag stating that it may not be edited. I wrote, repeatedly, above, asking the editor who added the tag to explain himself, and he has not, though he has had months to do so. I was advised to send an email directly to someone named "Brad Patrick," which I did, and he responded very rudely to me, basically saying, "I'll get around to responding to you in my good time." All I asked for is a clarification and none has been forthcoming. In my opinion this callousness toward the community in adding such a tag without explanation or accountability to the community of editors is disgraceful and disgusting. Badagnani 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

-------END OF MATERIAL COPIED--------

The information that you are in effect allowing on the current article is incorrect in several material ways. I am trying to correct blatant errors and am getting some of the treatment seen by people with a different opinion in the past. If this is not the case please show me. Not by words alone, but by actions.

I appreciate your response, but I would also like answers to my questions on what you see that is wrong with my edits and I would like the blockage on the site removed. If indeed I can edit the site in it’s current state, please explain to me how this is done.

I simply would like the incorrect materials removed until, if and when, the current stated “facts” can be verified. As the warning atop the article editing page said, when I had access, this is a contentious page and PWU California and PWU Hawaii are separate schools. This, I assume is considered fact since it was boldly stated on the Edit page.

Here are the immediate issues:

A. The mention of materials about PWU Hawaii appear in the article. Specifically, the following: “PWU Hawaii was sued in 2005 by the State of Hawaii. [11] On 9 May 2006, the First Circuit Court of Hawaii entered a Default and Final Judgment against PWU Hawaii.[12] The judgment dissolved the university's corporate status and effectively forced it to cease operations. [12][13] ” These items are true and well sourced but as the disclaimer on the editing page states, they do not concern PWU-CA and should be moved to the PWU (Hawaii) page if not already there.

Comment - The article currently states "CMU (PWU California) was not associated with PWU Hawaii." This is directly contradicted by the cited source (Thacker), which states: "Dean Dominic Mwenja said that Pacific Western had incorporated the name “California University” in 2004. At that time, PWU also operated an institution in Hawaii that shared the same faculty." That quotation very clearly indicates that the two institutions were associated, at least in 2004. The Hawaii state reference contains similar information. Considering that there is reliably sourced information that the California and Hawaii institutions were connected, it is entirely reasonable to discuss them together in this single article. (I am not aware of a separate article for PWU Hawaii, and I do not see a reason for such an article to exist. The confusing facts about multiple institutions with this name can be effectively covered in this one article.) --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to paranthetical comment: Pacific Western University (Hawaii), I believe, was part Swatjester's effort to get the PWU article out of limbo. TallMagic (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Response The intent here is not to gloss over the past, but to separate the PWU CA of old vs PWU CA today. That is why I want to add Controversy Prior to Ownership Change as the title of the controversy section. The line above should read:" Padific Western Univerity California is not associated with Pacific Western University and has not been since the change of ownership of the University in late 2004." People can read, research and judge for themselves if the current school is the same one that existed under the old owner. I personally think the old owner was a very questionable character. However, accurate reference needs to be made of what behaviour happened when and under who's watch. All of the controversy noted in the article occured under the prior ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

B. The misrepresentation of the GAO Report stating the report labels PWU-CA as a “diploma mill” needs to be changed or removed. I used quotes from the GAO Report itself to verify their distinction of a “diploma mill”. The definition clearly shows that a California State Approved Institution, which PWU-CA / CMU was at the time along with California Coast University, did not fit this definition. References to the BPPVE site and the standards imposed by BPPVE in the approval process were linked to my changes as reference supporting the facts. Several of the links are included again below for easy reference. I also address TallMagic’s logic that CMU is not State Approved now because of the Sunset of the law in June 2007 (see below) Regardless of opinions on the current status, it is a fact that PWU-CA was State Approved in May of 2004 and this fact is verifiable.

• Comment. You are correct that the GAO report[7] does not explicitly call PWU a "diploma mill." (Additionally, note that the article also does not say that the GAO used this term for PWU.) Rather, the GAO report contained two separate relevant statements:

1. "Other schools, commonly referred to as diploma mills, sell academic degrees based upon life experience or substandard or negligible academic work." (That sentence defines "diploma mill".)
2. "Our investigator placed telephone calls to three schools that award academic credits based on life experience and require no classroom instruction: Barrington University (Mobile, Alabama); Lacrosse University (Bay St. Louis, Mississippi); and Pacific Western University (Los Angeles, California)." (That sentence describes Pacific Western using words from the GAO's definition of "diploma mill.") --part of a single point by Orlady (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC), interrupted by 71.128.52.181 Signing it Now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply Although the report makes these statement, they do not state call PWU California a diploma mill directly. You are correct and that reference of the GAO would be considered original synthesis as you describe below. Another point to consider is the the California State Approval status and standards directly countradicts this descrption and implies there may have been some confusion by the GAO on which PWU they are referring to. I believe this is reason to look at the report and search for other verifiable independent sources for that might show the GAO was refering to the Hawaii program and not the California proram. I start looking for this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on that information, a person could conclude that the GAO considered PWU to be a diploma mill, but that conclusion would be original synthesis, which is excluded from Wikipedia. KVOA television apparently drew that same conclusion, as the KVOA reference states: "Pacific Western is one of seven schools labeled as a diploma mill by federal investigators at the U.S. General Accounting Office." Furthermore, KVOA posted a followup clarification to its article[8] that reports that a Pima Community College professor took issue with its "diploma mill" characterization, but KVOA stands by its original report. The clarification article states: "Professor Iadevaia disagrees that Pacific Western is a diploma mill, although federal and state agencies and an FBI expert told us they consider it one." Thus it is reasonable and appropriate for the article to cite KVOA's statement. (I will edit the article to add a citation to the KVOA clarification.)

I do not see how the BPPVE approval status of PWU is in any way relevant to the question of whether or not PWU has been called a "diploma mill."--Orlady (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply You say that KVOA made it's own call on this matter, however, they call all seven schools diploma mills. Isn't this entire KVOA reference a broad generalization from a news seeking organziation? What basis did the station use to call the other four schools diploma mills? Certainly not your logic. They were called diploma mills because the station didn't adequately research eithre the content of the GAO Report or the existing status of any of the schools mentioned in the report. Remember, California Coast was a California State Approved School as well which have since become accredited. The other reference in the second article are not sourced. We need specifics to quote them here. If we cite unnamed refeerences that are opinion and not fact, we face potential challenges. Why didn't the station name names if their asserts are valid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding real issues in the midst of all the red herrings. The fact that PWU had State of California approval does not alter the fact that KVOA reported that federal investigators had told the station that PWU was a diploma mill. The fact that seven schools were mentioned but only PWU was named is not relevant to citing the KVOA report, since the KVOA report was specifically about PWU. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's multiple sources that call PWU a diploma mill. The article in my view could reasonably quote one of those sources. On the other hand, the term does seem to carry additional emotional baggage for some that could allow one to argue that it might be considered undue weight. I believe for that argument to hold though there would need to be contradicting sources mentioning the academic virtues of the establishment. I don't know of any such sources. Perhaps I should say wp:reliable sources since on this talk page in the distance past it was argued these talk page comments should be considered such a source. :-) So, in my view, mentioning the term, diploma mill, a half dozen times would be undue weight but once or twice seems reasonable. As a reversal of Orlady's last sentence, the fact that PWU has been called a diploma mill is relevant to the significance/value/relevance/meaning of BPPVE approval. Which supports the argument that mentioning BPPVE approval, if done, would need to be done carefully so that it wouldn't cause undue weight to the fact. In the minds of many, especially outside the USA, government approval of a school has the same meaning as accreditation. John Bear states this clearly in Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning and states that in the USA it clearly is not the same. We don't want to mislead people into believing that BPPVE approval means that PWU was the equivalent of accredited. TallMagic (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for realising this because this repittion of the negative is in part my point. How many time and in how many ways do you need to state a fact before it becomes more than stating the facts. As we all know, PWU CA and PWU Hawaii's association was hard to distinguish and detail under the previous ownership. As you well know and detail to a fellow contributor above, PWU California seems to have been "pressured" into California State Approval. I believe there was actual litigation. PWU - California did not gain California State Approval until 1996, not 1989 as you suggested. This delay, I belive was due to the litigation. After approval, PWU California only offered programs in Business and Public Administration. I don't know how or why the previous owner did what he did. I only know the school since the change of ownership. This is my first hand "opinion". CMU is now a very good program with special scholarships offered for Military Spouses and non-degree programs for Veteran suffering with Post Tramatic Stress Disorder. I am not saying lets forget the Univeristy's past, only put in the proper perspective. A suggestion: Bill Huffman lives in San Diego. He has been a long time contribtor and one of the Univeristy's biggest doubters. Why doesn't he take the time to visit the school and see for himself if he thinks it is still the University of pre 2005 that all the contibutors seem to want to portray. The fact that PWU California was State Approved at the time of the GAO Report is a defense against the Diploma Mill label. The California program had limits on the amounts of Experienced based credits that directly contradict the body of the report. I "think" what happened under the old regieme is this: students who approached PWU California wanting to study in Business and Public Administration where enrolled if they wanted to pay a higher tutiotn and received less experience based credit than was available from PWU Hawaii. The California Business and Public Admin programs were on-line at the time and met California State Approval Standards. Those students wanting other disiplines beside business or Public Admin or those students wanting greater work experience creit, lower tuition and less actual course work were refered to PWU Hawaii. I am working on verifiable materials on this fact for the article, but there are strong facts showing the GAO report centered on PWU Hawaii not, the State Approved Program. For example, the fee structure for the degree programs the GAO reported was the tuition for the Hawaii program not the California program. It seems the GAO, like everyone else, were confused on which PWU was which. Again, I am not wishing or suggesting that there be anything in the article that is not fact based and verifable. I am telling you what I know, and why I am just as dedicated to bring the whole truth to this article. I'm also agreeing that the emphasis placed on the diploma mill label is old information with far too much weight put on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • BPPVE approval. TallMagic, do you have a concern about the text I added to the article regarding California approval? To wit (refs converted to inline links for convenience):

California Miramar University has state approval to operate in California.(California Miramar University in Guide to California Colleges and Universities, California Post-Secondary Education Commission (accessed June 7, 2008)) State approval should not be confused with accreditation; regionally or nationally accredited institutions are exempt from California state approval.(State-Approved and Exempt College and University Information, California Post-Secondary Education Commission (accessed June 7, 2008))

--Orlady (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

C. The negatively bias statement and conclusion by Orlady and the associated KVOA news article and report that PWU-CA was a "diploma mill" is absolutely incorrect. Read the entire GAO report, its not very long, and it never states this fact. The conclusions drawn by KVOA and subsequently by Orlady and many others are simply incorrect and need to be removed or modified removing the “Diploma Mill” reference. This misrepresentation appears in several news articles following the GAO report that are used as “references” to various alumni references as well. These citations are incorrect.

Comment. Your belief that PWU is not a diploma mill does not change the fact that KVOA called it a diploma mill. At Wikipedia, the gold standard is verifiability, and the KVOA information in the article meets that standard. I did not draw the conclusion that KVOA is a diploma mill; I am simply citing reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

D. The sole mention of PWU-CA in the damagingly named article that is included in the article is a picture of its website along with 8 other University websites with .edu extensions.[[9]] The caption for this picture reads:

Bild 3: Exempel på hur domänsuffi xet .edu missbrukas. (Picture 3: Examples of domain suffix extensions .edu misconceptions. )

• • Comment. That's a mistaken translation. PWU's website is illustrated as one of several "Examples of misuses of the domain suffix extension .edu." --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the other 8 schools who’s website was featured in picture 3 above is Fedrick Taylor University. Their website is www.ftu.edu. They are also California State Approved yet unaccredited and were not a subject or listed in the remainder of the article.

The Universities that were identified in the article as: Bluffuniversiteten och Sverige(Fake Universities in Sweden) are:

Blekinge tekniska högskola; Linköpings universitet; Chalmers tekniska högskola; Luleå tekniska universitet; Handelshögskolan i Stockholm; Lunds universitet; Högskolan i Borås; Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm; Högskolan i Gävle; Mälardalens högskola; Högskolan i Halmstad; Mittuniversitetet; Högskolan i Jönköping; Stockholms universitet; Högskolan i Kalmar; Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet; Högskolan Kristianstad; Umeå universitet; Högskolan i Skövde; Uppsala universitet; Karlstads universitet; Växjö universitet; Karolinska institutet; Örebro universitet; Kungl. Tekniska högskolan (KTH); Linköpings universitet

Bluffuniversiteten och Sverige (Fake Universities outside of Sweden) identified were:

University of Palmers Green; Greenleaf University; Century University; Washington International University; Clayton University; Colombia Pacific University; Kensington University; University of NorthWest;

Svenska bluffuniversitet? (Swedish Fake Universities?) identified were:

The International Cultural Academy; Medicina Alternativa in Stockholm; Swedish Royal University; Lhoon University; St. Ephrem’s Institute;

As you can see the article is not in Chinese using characters, it is in a Germanic Language, clearly distinguishable. These names were cut and paste from the actual article. Since PWU-CA name does NOT appear anywhere else in the article, particularly in the section on Fake Universities outside of Sweden, and this is clear for a non-Swedish speaker to see, the article has been mischaracterized in a very negative manner, and should be removed.

• • I agree with you that the Swedish reference is mischaracterized. PWU only appears in that one figure. I will remove the reference from the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You 71.128.52.181 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

E. On the issue of California State Approval, the subject is concrete and verifiable at this time. The old BPPVE law has expired, but the BPPVE which was always under the Department of Consumer Affairs site is still operational. This material explains the history quickly and rather well.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Update July 2007

“The Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, under the Department of Consumer Affairs for the State of California, became inoperative on July 1, 2007.

Recently the Governor signed into law (Assembly Bill 1525) http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/PrivateSystemInformation.asp that would extend the previous provision of the education laws that will ensure continued student protection. This legislation will remain in effect until the new successor takes over. Although there will no longer be staff or resources to continue the regular operations of the BPPVE, the Department of Consumer Affairs will provide assistance to students after July 1, 2007. All state approved educational institutions have been invited to voluntarily conform and subscribe to all of the standards in place prior to the closing of the Bureau. The purpose of the voluntary agreement is to provide a legal method by which we may comply with applicable federal statues, rules and regulations from July 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The links that I provide, navigates to these sections of the DCA / BPPVE site. Here are the links once again for easy access. Link showing Bill 1525 referenced above: [[10]]

Within that page is a link to the list of the current State of California Approved Schools. CMU is listed on this page. [[11]]

In Conclusion: Now should contributor "opinions" outweigh verifiable fact? You may personally disagree with how the State of California's BPPVE operated in the past, but the facts remain. The DCA and its’ BPPVE were and are the state's licensing authority and PWU-CA/CMU was, and under the signed agreement with DCA, is California State Approved. My edits should be allowed in the regard, as I have current verifiable links.

Any dispute or modifications of the matter should be done with verifiable, non-biased sourced materials. That, after all is the Wikipedia policy.

I await your response to all of the above and will post this message and yours on the article discussion page, as I assume, it should be.

Viewer111 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Viewer111, I'm sorry but I'm having difficulty understanding what of the above text is actually in response to my comments and what is old text. The context of the old copied in text is also unclear to me. I'll try to respond to some statements you've made but please keep in mind that I may not be understanding your statement properly.

I never said you could edit the article. I said you (your IP address) was not blocked, the article was semi-protected. This statement by me was in response to your incorrect assertion that you should have been warned. You didn't need to be warned because you weren't blocked. Regarding your disappointment in not having more responses to your request, please try to keep in mind that it has been less than one day and no one here is being paid. We're doing this as a charitable donation of our personal time. What is your association with CMU?

You seem to argue that PWU(Hawaii) history is totally irrelevant to CMU. I believe this argument to be false. PWU(Hawaii) was part of PWU and run by the same people from the same place as PWU(California). Diplomas were bestowed by PWU and it was not clear as to whether those diplomas were bestowed by which branch. Since the history is intertwined between both campuses there needs to be some mention of PWU(Hawaii) in the article. I agree that we should differentiate between the two when we can but that is not always possible and using inside information to do that is against Wikipedia policy. I want to caution you again to please stick to the topic of article contents and stop trying to characterize your fellow editors. That is a violation of wp:agf and is the path headed to edit wars and escalation. Remember, the mutual goal of this team is to improve the article and this will best be done by building a consensus, not by alienating your fellow editors.

I've seriously lost track of what specific edits you are now arguing for and against. I suggest that it is time to follow Swatjester's wise suggestion which was to make specific suggestions for the edits that you would like to see. The discussion spawned from that should be more productive and goal oriented. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear TalkMagic;

I'm sorry you had trouble following which comments were made to SwatJester and which ones pertained to you. Those to you mainly centered on the BPPVE status in which the links were supplied on this page so you could verity the information on the subject for yourself.

I have a hard time following what you are saying regarding the blockage of the editing on the site, however. If I do not have access to edit via an edit button on my screen, and I am on line via my same IP address, and my IP address is not blocked, I should be able to make edits. However, I do not have the edit button. If that is not "blocking" what is it called?

And I am also puzzled with the reasoning that a lock was placed on the site. Can you please take the time to explain in detail.

The old "copied text" above was added to show there has been a history of locking the site to outsiders who might have a diffent opinion on the site while allowing open access to insiders who are of like mind on the sits content. Who grants the permissions that the insiders get and what is the criteria for these privledges?

I truly appreciate your comments on why there has been a lack of response to my issues. I hope everyone can give me feed back as soon as possible. Perhaps over the weekend they will find the time.

Regarding PWU Hawaii, it is a well established fact that the two schools were once owned by the same owner. As is stated and verified in the Paul Thacker article in 2006, that affilation ceased when PWU California was sold in late 2004. I don't have any problem with stating those facts. I would only like to see that when we cite this fact we also include the fact that the University was sold in late 2004 and under new administration, faculty and curriculum. These facts presented togethr are fine.

My point in A. above concerning PWU Hawaii were about details of the PWU Hawaii school closure that should be detailed on the PWU Hawaii page, not the PWU California page. All other mentions of PWU Hawaii are fine.

I understand using the information on the CMU records is not usable on the site. I am fine with this. However, graduates mentioned on the site need to contain spedific references as to which PWU they attended. If there is no clear designation, then any reference to a PWU graduate should not be allowed because we have no way of knowing or verifying what PWU they attended.

I will list the exact edits in the near future. They will be closely based on the last post of A through E above.

Have you had a chance to visit the Califonia State Links provided above. I think you will find, quite clearly the status of CMU is California State Approval.

Thank you again for responding.

Viewer111 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Regarding the relationship between PWU California and PWU Hawaii, since you say "it is a well established fact that the two schools were once owned by the same owner," then I think you will agree that the article should not say that the two schools were not associated. Furthermore, since the two schools were associated -- and had the same faculty and exactly the same name -- prior to 2004, it is entirely justifiable that Wikipedia should cover both of them in a single article -- and list their alumni in a single list. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply: If we are going by the current data, the schools aren't associated. As I stated above, I don't mind a reference that they used to be affiliated as long as it is clear that is no longer the case, and has not been since 2005. The prior editor of Wikipedia Brad Patrick made the decision to make separate pages for the two schools in his reasons for revisions listed above on this discussion page. The schools were separte enities as is verified by the State of Oregon cite after 2005. The name of the two schools were: Pacific Western University and Pacific Wesetern University (Hawaii). That doesn't qualify as the same name and they were corporations in different states. The State of Oregon posted the data that is currently on their website and referenced in the article after researching the actual corporate and ownership status and updating their information in late 2005. Again, I don't support the way the PWU schools were run prior to 2005, particularly the PWU Hawaii school, as PWU California was State Approved and offered only a handfull of degree programs. However, painting the current PWU California/CMU situation with too broad of a brush without a distincitoin of what happened under what time frame and under's who's ownership and administration is not an accurate picture either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I cannot find reliably sourced support for the assertions of "the fact that the University was sold in late 2004 and under new administration, faculty and curriculum." The Paul Thacker article also says that "Mwenja said .... that Pacific Western University was sold in 2004 and that the new owners want nothing to do with the Hawaiian institution" and "He added that he has hired completely different faculty in the last six months." As I read it, that statement does not provide the support needed in order for Wikipedia to state that PWU was sold, nor that it had a new faculty and curriculum; it only supports a statement that in 2006 a university official said that the school had been sold in 2004 and had a new faculty. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. TallMagic (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Orlady and TallMagic: Two major points. You have to get the advanced written approval from BPPVE for any change of ownership of a school in California. That approval is on file with the Department of Consurmer Affairs / BPPVE. The DCA/BPPVE also has to approve in advance any name change. If you think about it, that is why Mr. Thacker contacted the Bureau for his article. Please don't suggest using a double standard. The article currently sites and you are talking about other sites of the Thacker article. How can it be good for your purposes and not for mine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to know something? I don't actually give a flip (one way or the other) about CMU, PWU, or the BPPVE. I have zero interest in doing original research into any of these organizations, which is just as well, since original research is not admissible in Wikipedia. If there's published information telling about the sale of PWU/CMU (ideally, naming both buyer and seller to document that they were truly different parties), then the article can tell about the change in ownership. Until then, there's no reliably sourced basis for discussing that change in ownership in the article. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to state in the article that PWU reported to Thatcher (the Inside Higher Ed journalist that authored the article) that PWU had changed ownership? I think this might be reasonable because we would be stating that the information was self published and let the reader decide for herself? TallMagic (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Orlady, I find your comments very revealing and good to know. Regardless, you haven't answered my question. Why is the Thacker article valid to point out the University distancing itself from past controversy's quote, but not valid to demonstrate change in ownership and other substantial changes? Please explain your logic and seeming double standard here.Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic, your suggestion would be better than nothing. I have the same problem with this approach. if you leave the conclusion drawn by the current statement and do not include the rest of the Dean's quote. If we cannot use the logic that Mr. Thacker he is a top notch jourlaist who while calling the Bureau that approves name changes and ownership changes, failed to verity his quote from Dean Mwenja about the change in ownership, then we can't use the quote to state what the article currrently says about distancing itself from past controversies. I'm sure Mr. Thacker would of loved to have pointed out the fact that the Dean claimed there was a change in ownership, but that there was, if fact, none. So is it use both or delete both? Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can edit any unprotected article on Wikipedia with your IP address (not logged on as Viewer111) because you were not ever blocked. Because you were not blocked no warning was required. The article is currently protected as is plainly stated in the article at the little window on top. Any details about what protection means is plainly stated in Wikipedia policies and procedures that are plainly linked to in the protection template. Wikipedia is open and no one is trying to trick anyone or keep secrets from anyone but you need to learn to find things for yourself. Please just understand that all of this kind of information is freely available. I'm not an administrator and I'm not interested in being one or even trying to understand that end of Wikipedia. But any adminstration type questions like you're asking that I've ever had myself, I've always been able to find information for myself by just poking around. Regarding the OTRS issue, that's out of my understanding put I assume it has something to do with CMU being one of the very few article (maybe a half dozen articles out of millions of total articles)that were protected because of threats of lawsuits or something like that. But that is all guessing on my part based on old stuff on this talk page.

I did not find CMU in the BPPVE website. TallMagic (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I do not pretend to have followed all of the arguments and counter-arguments presented here regarding the BPPVE. I don't think very much of this material is relevant to the article. However, I did find CMU listed on California state websites as an approved institution, so I added that information to the article, together with a sourced statement to the effect that this is not the same thing as accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is little value to BPPVE approval. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to sign a bill that would have delayed the disbanding of this worthless organization. The reason he gave was BPPVE "does nothing to enhance protections for students, allows problems that have been well documented to continue to exist and merely allows mediocrity for California’s students."[12] I think what you added to the article should do something to give some clue to this. I'm thinking about what could be said. TallMagic (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that I believe shows that my opinion that the BPPVE was practically worthless is shared by others and is founded in real problems/issues. [13] TallMagic (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for the feedback and a double thank you for putting the mention of the State Approval into the article. I have a few comments on the wording, but we can discuss this later. I agree that the Bureau has been understaffed and not as effective as it should have been. Their standards were not the problems, I believe it was their lack of adequate funding to run the department adequately. Th California Association of Private Post-Secondary Schools (CAPPS) is actively monitoring the current proposed legislation to make sure the end law will be a good one. A good Approval Process is needed mainly for the reasons I state below in my comments to SwatJester.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2008) Signing it now Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction and suggestion - Orlady added that to the article. I've tried to add signatures to your recent unsigned comments. In the future please try to remember to do that. I know it can be easy to forget, but it makes the conversation impossible to follow without sigs. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're quickly reaching the maximum confusion state for discussion of these issues in this thread. I think that we need to start a new discussion. I suggest that the new discussion be based on one or two specific suggested changes as I think was the wise suggestion by Swatjester. Trying to discuss more than one or two at a time means that it gets too complicated to follow any longer very quickly. The goal needs to be reaching consensus and confusion is contrary to consensus. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply I agree. I will spend some time tomorrow. Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I further suggest that discussion should begin at the least controversial items. The goal being to reach consensus on what we can which can sometimes "grease the skids" to make further consensus easier. For example, Orlady has already added information regarding state approval, which I think is a bit of consensus being reached. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion of someone in San Diego visiting CMU, that would be original research and is strictly forbidden. That couldn't be used in the article any more than inside information or personal opinion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: Just thought I'd offer the first chance to get away from the "my minds made up syndrome...." mentioned above in this discussion page.Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A note

To Viewer, you don't need to copy statements from our user talk pages over to here, that is partially what is making things confusing. With regard to the OTRS actions, I cannot go into detail on them for privacy concerns, but in the past the page has been the subject of an Office Action, an extremely rare occurrence. It was locked down for a long time, something like 2 years if memory serves me, until I was given permission to stub the article and rebuild it into a short but fully sourced form. The page was then reopened, and eventually when PWU became CMU, moved to this new title. There currently is an OTRS complaint about the page, which is partially the reason for the page protection -- the other part was to end the edit war and to spark discussion over how to improve the article without revert warring via the talk page. Viewer, that works best when you break your edits up into very small chunks and discuss only a little bit at a time. It keeps people from getting overloaded and frustrated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the heads up. I guess when Orlady copied my reply to her, I just followed suit. Just to set the record straight, I wasn't trying to start or participate in an edit war. I had just started posting! When Orlady reset my changes, the only reason given was that I had not explained my edits. I reverted her changes one time and explained my changes and noted that the changes had valid references. I didn't reset things multiple times. I was learning the ropes and following what I thought were the correct procedures. When I realized I needed to make comments, I made them. I hope that doesn't qualifiy as an edit war but I can see why you may have reacted as you did at the time. I may disagree with certain things that are said or the non-neutral manner in which they may be pesented but I want a fair, balanced article, nothing more. 71.128.52.181 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Still Waiting for a response: I am still waiting for a response as to the reasons for not unlocking the article or unblocking my editing ability on the article. If the article is blocked, its should be blocked accross the board. Please be fair here and explain yourself in detail. I am trying to be patient with you and show my good will, but I won't wait months like the contributor I quoted above to be allowed access to edit this article. Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point: Do not confuse accreditation, which comes from independent accrediting bodies, with approval from the state. Nothing in the article says the university is not approved by the state. It says that the university is not accredited by an accrediting body. That is a very important distinction to make, which I will say that forgetting that difference was one of the reasons for the previous Office Action. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you. I am very familiar with accreditation. I am happy that TallMagic has added the State Approval status. All private Universities in California have to be State Approved before they can gain licensure with various agencies, access to GI Bill reimbursement and before they can apply for national or regional accreditation. My point was that not saying CMU wasn't State Approved is far different than stating the fact openly in the article.

Thank you and I hope you lift your lockdown on the site soon. 71.128.52.181 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Viewer111 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Self Published Material

Viewer111 asked a question involving self-published material and why it can be used sometimes and not other times. I'm answering here because the above thread has become too confusing. (I can only read the thread now by looking at diffs.) Please reference the Wikipedia policy/guidelines for self-published material. I believe it is in wp:RS. It can be argued that the Dean's words are self published even though they are presented by Thatcher in the Inside Higher Ed. The statement as to why the name change was done, I think, is the perfect example for when self published information can be used. The statement that PWU was under new management is a potentially self serving statement. The kind of statement that is more difficult to support from a self published source. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, TallMagic. Your explanation is good. A spokesperson for the institution can reliably report the institution's reasons for changing its name, but that same spokesperon is not a reliable source on the matter of ownership.

Additionally, I would point out that the focus of the Thacker article was on the name change; the change in ownership was mentioned only in passing. It is clear in the article that Thacker asked BPPVE a question about the name change, but there is no indication that he asked BPPVE for information about the change in ownership.

I am happy to include wording to the effect that CMU said it was under new ownership, but the ownership change should not be presented as a fact. Accordingly, I have added that wording, but I also corrected the statements that erroneously said that the California and Hawaii schools had never been related. The Thacker article clearly states that the institution acknowledged that they were connected formerly. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much Orlady, good job. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment On Explanation: The Thacker article states "An official of the university says that it is changing its name because it is linked with past controversies...." That quote is by the same University official who later states “Mwenja said that the two institutions were run by the same owner, but that Pacific Western University was sold in 2004 and that the new owners want nothing to do with the Hawaiian institution. He added that he has hired completely different faculty in the last six months.”  ::I don't accept the double standard you are suggesting by your “explanation”. Either accept both statements or accept none. This point perfectly illustrates the violation of Neutral Point of View by the current contributors. You use one section of the quote to make your point about “controversy” and censor the rest as being supportive of the school and potentially “self publishing”. This is a blatant violation of a fair and balanced article and illustrates an agenda to taint the article in the direction where your personal “opinions” lie. The article is not an editorial where you present your opinions through listing one side of the facts and ignoring the other. It is suppose to be an encyclopedia article presenting all sides of facts without slant or prejudice. And please don’t use flawed logic to support your claims of alleged fairness.  ::This tendency to slant the article is also shown in how you presented the fact of California State Approval. "California Miramar University received state approval to operate[10] from the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, which ceased operation in 2007.[11]" This manner of presenting part of the facts while omitting the balanced side of the the facts that the California State Legislature through Assembly Bill 1525 [14]] and administrered through the Department of Consumer Affairs, whose control BPPVE was always under, have enacted legislation that extends the State Approval Status to schools that have signed the voluntary agreement, which, through verifiable facts, CMU. Orlady made a change to add the mention of State Approval of CMU above which she verified and then asked TallMagic if he had a problem with the way she had presented the current facts on State Approval. Apparantly someone did, because Orlady's wording was not used, or was used and later changed, and the mention of the expired law was added in the current version. Your presentation of "part of the facts" leave out the details that balance out the article. You slant the facts and tell about the expiration of the Bureau but leave out the new facts of the extended law. This change tends to leave an impression that the Approval is no longer valid because of the Bureau's status, when that is simply not the case as verified by facts. If we don't get better at balancing "all the facts" aand not just the "facts you think are worthy" and the those facts that present your personal point of view, this article is doomed to be set back to neutral and locked down once again as it has been in the past.Viewer111 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, accusing others of evil motives is not a good way to win friends and influence people, Viewer111. WP:AGF is intended to help improve interactions among users -- do heed the advice there.

However, because I agree with you that the status of BPPVE is not relevant to this article, I removed that detail. I also added the information that the state lists CMU's founding date as 2005. --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view the status of BPPVE is relevant because I'm afraid that the general impression left by saying that CMU has California approval will indicate that the utility may be greater than what is really likely. I do think that getting into the legal details and past sad history and ineffectiveness of BPPVE is probably going off on a tangent too much. Perhaps addressing the issue head on is the best approach. I'll add a quote from Bears' Guide regarding the utility accredted versus unaccredited degree utility. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it based on limited information, the sunset of the BPPVE and its enabling legislation has resulted in an ambiguous situation in which it is not only unclear whether BPPVE approval has meaning, but it is even unclear if approval is required for an institution to operate. Under the circumstances, the fact that BPPVE ceased to operate does not seem like a fact that deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as CMU's BPPVE approval. I think the information was added to clarify why the approval status was not discussed in the present tense (this is when the text said it "was approved"), but the current wording eliminates the need to explain that.--Orlady (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "was approved" could imply to some that CMU lost approval. It is good to be clear. I guess that it is more of an aside at this point but, I believe that there is no longer any requirement for BPPVE approval in order to operate a private unaccredited university in California. TallMagic (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viewer111, Please review the use of self published information in the wp:v#SELF policy. Also, what is your connection to CMU? Finally, your characterizations of the motivations of your fellow editors are wrong when applied to me and probably wrong when applied to your other fellow editors. Please wp:Assume good faith. The true value of this policy/guideline is that we need to be working toward consensus and statements regarding the motivations of others generally will make it harder to reach the desired consensus. Please try to restrict your comments and suggestions to the text in the article and the wise Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines have been used to produce over 2 million articles! There are over 2 million articles in place because these policies and guidelines have been tested and honed for years. These policies and guidelines really do work! I promise you that there have been many wikipedia articles with more difficult contention problems that what I believe we have here. :-) BTW, some of your comments suggest that you may not be aware of the history feature of Wikipedia. A history is kept of all Wikipedia edits. The history tab has two different flavors, one for history of the article and the second for the history of this talk page. Which flavor you get depends on whether you're looking at the article or this talk page when you select the history tab. I look forward to your detailed suggestions for changes that you would like to see in the article. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bears' Guide quotation regarding accredited vs. unaccredited status

TallMagic recently added a long (indeed, long-winded) semi-philosophical quotation from the Bears' Guide regarding the significance of accredited vs. unaccredited status. ("According to the Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 'There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue...'") I don't think this passage belongs in the article. The subject of the article is CMU; this is not a place to provide advice on factors to consider in deciding whether or not to enroll in an unaccredited institution. --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, I don't consider it a semi-philosophical quotation. I would characterize it is a quote describing John Bear's expert observation and opinion on the utility of legitimate unaccredited degrees. I believe that it is important in the article to better show the proper balance regarding degree utility when a school is state approved but unaccredited. I believe that the quote is applicable and interesting information for most people that will be using Wikipedia to research CMU. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to think of the reasons that someone might want to look up CMU, Orlady only mentioned one, a person wondering if they should enroll. Here's some others. Someone looking up CMU because they heard that someone had a degree at PWU/CMU and they were curious. A potential employer investigating a job applicant or education reimbursement request from an employee wanting to attend CMU. A person that already has a degree from CMU/PWU. I think it can be interesting information for about anyone interested in CMU/PWU unless they were looking for some other specific information like when it was founded or something. TallMagic (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)