Talk:California Miramar University

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view Include only verifiable information No original research Citing sources What Wikipedia is not

Archives

• Archive 1: 01 Oct 2005 – 31 Aug 2006
• Archive 2: 01 Sep 2006 – 14 Dec 2006
• Archive 3: 15 Dec 2006 – 24 Dec 2008

Note: This article has been the subject of WP:OFFICE action due to legal threats. Please review the archives for details of the controversy and the consensus reached before editing this page.

Controversy Section Context

After rereading the current article I thought that perhaps the first sentence could be more explicit about the context of the controversy section. Specifically that the items discussed all happened prior to the name change. Before I actually strengthened that contextual point I reviewed the Google findings for "California Miramar University" and found no sources negative to CMU with the possible exceptions of the states that explicitly list CMU. I don't really consider that explicitly negative though. Anyway, I thought that this would improve the article but if anyone disagrees then feel free to discuss or even delete the phrase that I added because I don't feel strongly that it needs to be there. BTW, I think the article is improving. I really enjoy seeing article improvement from more attention and more editors. Thank you everyone! TallMagic (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that at least one other respondent has come round to the idea that the wolf pack has been hijacking this article since day 1. As I commented above (TO MUCH AMINOSITY and subsequent notes) there is a distinct lack of neutrality in the article and in the series of remarks made by the 'antagonists'. My stand is well reflected in the extract below:- 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. which sums up the whole of my argument, not only regarding the lack of balance in the article, but the fact that the editors have allowed this. There is no neutrality in the debate and none in the article dealing with PWU and its successor. 81.157.124.245 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Barrie Blake-Coleman81.157.124.245 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)24/Dec/200881.157.124.245 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Sir, I thought it best that I mention that contrary to your statement, I disagree with your assertion that the article has been "hijacked" and the implication that the current article violates the wp:NPOV policy. Although I encourage your interest in the quality of the article. If you would like to suggest improvments to the article, I believe that more explicit suggestions for your desired changes will more likely generate productive discussion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic, I have done some research on this section and I agree with your assessment of finding no negative sources to CMU. I then went on to research each statement and supporting link in this section and I found many errors of fact, some quite startling.

The first sentence in the controversy section says the prior to its name change the institution was criticized on multiple occasions as a substandard educational institution or diploma mill. Upon reviewing all the materials listed to substantiate this statement I found that all of the occasions cited were not multiple issues but all centered around a single incident, the GAO report of May, 2004. http://www.credentialwatch.org/reports/gao/diploma_mills_1.pdf</ref> In each footnoted reference the GAO report (KVOA News Report; Barry McSweeney issue in Ireland; Australian Lecturer) was cited. Later in the section when it states “Internationally, Pacific Western University has a similar reputation” this statement is also incorrect as the references cited are all local reactions to the same GAO report.

So, fact one: PWU - California did not have multiple occasions of claims concerning the school but one claim by the GAO that generated multiple reactions in local media around the world. This characterization of multiple issues both in the U.S. and internationally therefore, seems flawed and factually incorrect.

Since all the content of this section centers around the GAO report I decided to look at the report again carefully. The bottom paragraph on Page 3 of the GAO report cited above that continues on Page 4 says: the GAO report of May, 2004. http://www.credentialwatch.org/reports/gao/diploma_mills_1.pdf</ref> “Moreover, diploma mills and other unaccredited schools modify their billing practices so students can obtain degrees by the federal government. Purporting to be a prospective student, 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). These schools each charge a flat fee for a degree. For example, fees for degrees for domestic students at Pacific Western University are as follows: Bachelor of Science ($2,295) Master’s Degree in Business Administration ($2,395); and Ph.D. ($2,595). School representatives emphasized to our undercover investigator that they are not in the business of providing, and do not permit students to enroll for, individual courses or training. Instead, the schools market and require payment for degrees on a flat-fee basis.”

I then wanted to see what the PWU California website at the time of the GAO report would show. I went to the PWU California site active in April of 2004. http://web.archive.org/web/20030711223310/pwu-ca.edu/home.asp?ID=7</ref>.

The domestic tuition listed in the GAO report in regards to Pacific Western University of $2,295.00 did not match the Pacific Western University – California Catalog!

I was surprised. Had the GAO made a mistake? So, I decided to check the Pacific Western University - Hawaii archived catalog from the same period of time and the PWU Hawaii domestic tuition matched the report perfectly.http://web.archive.org/web/20030711234342/pwu-hi.edu/home.asp?ID=7</ref>

It seems like the entire controversy of Pacific Western University and the GAO centered around Pacific Western University – Hawaii not PWU California. This is an error made by the GAO which quotes the tuition of PWU California as that of PWU Hawaii. The GAO report also details the method of education delivery and experienced based credits that were used at PWU Hawaii at the time. The GAO got the two schools confused.

This makes sense as Pacific Western University – California was State Approved in April of 2004 and according to California State Approval standards http://www.bppve.ca.gov/about_us/regs.pdf</ref>instruction was required of all approved schools and experienced based credit was limited by California law. The courses of instruction for each program along with a disclosure of the schools State Approved status are in fact listed on Pacific Western California’s website from that time period.http://web.archive.org/web/20040212033718/pwu-ca.edu/home.asp?ID=1</ref>

With these facts revealed, it seems like this entire Controversy section about PWU California should be either removed from the PWU California article or be transferred to the PWU Hawaii article where it is more applicable.

I look forward to your and others response on this issue. Since I do not yet have editing status on the article, I hope that you, TallMagic will make the edits to this section that are called for. Thank you! Angelone7749 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelone, There are many sources that put PWU into a negative context, not just the GAO. For example, look at a few of these. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Pacific+western+university%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives You may want to add some of these to article, although my personal view is that it seems that CMU may be trying to turn over a new leaf and I feel that there's already enough negative context history in the article. Adding more could be argued that it would be wp:Undue weight and slant the article too much in that direction. On the other hand, the vast preponderance of the PWU references are very negative and so the counter argument that they could be added to the article is a strong argument.

Regarding PWU (CA) versus PWU (HA), as documented in Bears Guide PWU was run by the same people from the same office. The only degree approved by the BPPVE was the business degree. It is unclear whether even all business degrees were bestowed under the program approved in California. The point is that trying to differentiate too much between what was from the Hawaii campus and the California campus is impossible. The business of PWU was run by the same people from the same office, at least until the current CMU owner purchased PWU California. For most all of its existance though, at least after the two "campuses" were formed in about 1989, they were run by the same people from the same office.

A reasonable question in my mind is why in the world would someone buy a diploma mill and then try to turn it into a legitimate school? They just become saddled with all the negative history from the diploma mill. I suspect that perhaps there might have been a mistake in over valuing the California approval coupled with not appreciating the negative history. Such an angle would be very interesting, IMHO, to add to the article. Unfortunately it can't be added to the article because there's no reliable sources covering it, at least not that I've ever found.

Finally, it looks like you've done some good research. However, it can't really be used in Wikipedia. Please review the wp:NOR policy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, I'm a bit confused. The research I did is all verifiable and available via the websites I listed and not original by any means. Other earlier editors found all their cited information and listed them in the article. Were these earlier contributions also original research? If not, how is my research different? The facts I presented are the very type of factual materials that Wikipedia requires. My research is not original, but it does represent another point of view that tempers the current article in a more balanced and neutral position. Therefore the facts I uncovered, if the current article verbiage remains, should also be added to the article. This only makes the material more accurate and more balanced. If this type of information is left off because of editors' opinions while ignoring verifiable facts, then there is a legitimate question that the article is, in fact, "neutral".

Finally, you give your opinion about not being able to differentiate what was PWU California and what was PWU Hawaii. Is that your responsibility? Aren't we, as editors, suppose to present all the facts and let the readers decide things for themselves? The two "campuses" were separate corporations and as such were separate legal beings. They also were operating under two very different State jurisdictions and State laws. Your point of view that the two were run by the same people from the same location is clearly presented in the article. Please don't let your opinion keep these other more neutral facts from also being presented. Again, let's let the readers make up their own minds. Thank you.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another quick note. There is some outdated material in the article. In the KVOA News example listed, details of reporters from 2004 are used in describing the PWU office in Los Angeles California. This news is five years old and PWU California moved to San Diego California over three years ago. This description is no longer accurate, factual or relevant. This piece of the KVOA mention should be edited out. Thanks again!Angelone7749 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelone, thank you for your comments and suggestions. Your argument about PWU Hawaii versus PWU California was original research, at least in my view. Specifically you said, "It seems like the entire controversy of Pacific Western University and the GAO centered around Pacific Western University – Hawaii not PWU California." Taking available information and putting it together in a unique way is classical Wikipedia:original research. For example you said, "I decided to check the Pacific Western University - Hawaii archived catalog from the same period of time and the PWU Hawaii domestic tuition matched the report perfectly." This is original research. The basic idea of Wikipedia is that this is an encyclopedia that should best be based on reliable secondary sources. Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding though exactly what you're proposing. If that is the case, then the best way to resolve it is for you to more explicitly state what your proposed changes actually are!

Regarding your quick note, as stated in the article, PWU was founded in 1977. The history of PWU going back to 1977 is relevant to the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, in following your logic to which I just responded to in the Accreditation approved! section of this discussion page and your logic for needing additional sources to verify a seemingly valid source cited in the Article, I would like to question the validity of the material in the Controversy Section of the Article concerning the 2005 article cite about Barry McSweeny. This article states that PWU California was "the subject of numerous official investigations, state bans and media exposés" during its 28 years of operation." That seems to fly in the face of the facts. If you have any other sources to support the claim of "numerous official investigations and state bans" they need to be cited in the article. The only official investigation cited in the article is the GAO report and no state bans are cited. In the absence of this additional verification the article needs to be edited to reflect the only verifiable part of that statement, "numerous media exposes". I previously changed this edit to reflect the cites listed in the Article and you reverted that portion of the edit. I think you would agree, the language in these two claims is highly inflammatory and definitely need to be substantiated. If there are numerous occurrences of these state bans and official investigations, there should be numerous cites available. If not, these unsubstantiated portion of the reference needs to be removed. Angelone7749 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelone, in my opinion these two situations are not the same. The difference is that the founded date of 2005 flies in the face of many other contradictory sources. The above argument is not using any counter source. Arguing with reliable sources without conflicting/contradictory wp:verifiable sources to back up the argument is really a weak argument here on Wikipedia. Like your argument that I (anyone) should be blamed for an article being unbalanced because I (anyone) didn't make some edit that you wanted. BTW, your assertions were mistaken in both these cases, at least in my belief. First, I did make the edit you claimed that I hadn't made. [1]. Second, being listed on the ODA list indicates an official "investigation" was conducted by the ODA and institution did not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1). I provide this argument but note again that it is NOT my job to support/defend statements in reliable sources. You have not presented any contradictory reliable source that supports your seemingly baseless assertion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I thought I would just add that I believe that your argument could reasonably be considered original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. TallMagic (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding multiple state bans, We could restore the list of states and other countries that restricted PWU degrees. I deleted that paragraph after CMU was accredited.[2] Perhaps it should be added back in though because PWU diplomas would still be restricted in those jurisdictions? What do you think? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another famous 'alumni' from PWU

Dr. Larry Payne, Yoga Guru, author of 'Yoga Rx'.

"Larry Payne, Ph.D. is an internationally respected yoga teacher and back specialist. The L.A. Times named Dr. Payne "One of America's most respected Yoga teachers." He is co-author of �Yoga Therapy Rx�, �Yoga for Dummies� and �The Business of Teaching Yoga�. Dr. Payne is founding president of the International Association of Yoga Therapists, founder of the corporate Yoga program at the J. Paul Getty Museum, the first Yoga teacher to offer Yoga classes at the World Economic Forum, co-founder of the yoga curriculum at The UCLA School of Medicine, and the founding director of the new Yoga therapy certification program at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles...

In 1981, Payne founded the samata Yoga Center in Los Angeles and later earned Doctorate and Masters Degrees in fitness education with emphasis in Hatha Yoga from Pacific Western University. His background is in Psychology, and he has also completed graduate work in Physical Therapy at Cal-State University Long Beach. He was the U.S. representative to the first World Congress of Yoga in Montevideo, Uruguay, and has received Outstanding Achievement Awards for Yoga in Europe and the United States, the Golden Lotus Award from South America, as well as, was a panelist & yoga instructor for the World Economic Forum 2000 in Davos, Switzerland. In addition, he is the founder of the �Healthy Back Program� at the world-famous Rancho La Puerta Fitness Spa."

http://www.samata.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learninla (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for potential article improvements

Hello TallMagic This is Angelone7749 and I am new to Wikipedia. I have been interested in post secondary education for years and have just come into the Wikipedia community. I looked around at several of the private schools articles. This article seems very different to me and it seems like a lot of different, strongly held opinions have contributed to a lock down on this site. After reading the article several times I decided to do a little checking.

I agree with your opinion below. It seems to me that California Miramar is trying to be a different institution since the name change. I looked at CMU's current catalog and they don’t seem to have any of the characteristics that are mentioned in the 2004 GAO report back cited in the current article ,(life experience credits, lack of coursework and flat rate tuition.) It seems a bit unfair to paint CMU with the same brush as the various PWU institutions who had those qualities. I will check the CMU claim of a different owner, administration and faculty and get back later on that issue.

By the way, the reference in the article that California State Approval is not needed to gain National or regional accreditation is incorrect. I know this to be true, so I visited two National and one Regional Accreditation websites and found all 3 required recognition by the proper State Authority as a requirement for entry or application into the accreditation process. Here are the three links to DETC, ACICS and WASC for your review and confirmation.

In researching the DETC site I also found that California Miramar University is an Applicant for Accreditation. It seems fair that this fact should be mentioned in the article as the accrediting bodies do not allow schools who do not meet the proper state minimal standards to apply.

Also, I feel the John Bear quote in the paragraph describing State Approval vs. Accreditation is the opinion of Mr. Bear and as opinion, even from an expert on education, should be excluded according to Wikipedia policy. I know this additon was made by you as I read earlier discussions on this discussion page in the archives and saw that in July of last year, you added this section and Orlady thought it didn’t belong in the articled. I have to agree with Orlady on this one. This comment adds far to much weight and is opinion. Also, I don't think its a good idea to quote a man who has made a living for years on his book that advised people on where to look for accredited and unaccredited schools. I have used and referenced many of Dr. Bear's books dating back to the early 1980s and, if my memory serves me, Dr. Bear even gave the PWU California school a good review in one or more of his editions.

This may be off point but I have also read that Dr. Bear owned an interest in one or more unaccredited institutions in the past. This current stance by Dr. Bear in light of his history, seems to be a bit of revisionist thinking. That is all for now. I will continue to research other aspects of the article to see if I can find other ways to contribute.

If you find my contributions are valid and have merit, I would appreciate you making the appropriate changes. Thanks. Angelone7749 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelone7749, welcome to Wikipedia. Please start new threads on talk pages at the end of the talk page. I moved your comment to the end to try to make the talk page more readable.

Contrary to your understanding, expert opinions documented in verifiable sources are fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to add their own opinions to articles.

It is possible that only established accounts are currently allowed to edit the article. If that is the case then you should be able to edit the article yourself in a week or two. I made some of the other changes you suggested. I'm a little reluctant to add the DETC application to the article because over the last few years, DETC has seemed very reluctant to grant accreditation requests which means that it could mislead some readers if it were included because very few of the applications seem to be getting granted accreditation each year and they seem to sit in the queue for very extended periods of time.

If I missed some of your suggestions then please try suggesting them again or wait until you yourself are able to edit the article. Thank you for your thoughts on how Wikipedia can be improved. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tallmagic, thank you for listening to my suggestions and posting them so quickly. I've been busy the last few weeks and unable to contribute.

After reading your response, I have but one suggestion. I think you should rethink your position about adding the material on CMU as an applicant to DETC accreditation. CMU is listed on the DETC website and since this site is available to the public, it is verifiable proof of their position within DETC. If DETC didn’t want this information available, they certainly would not have it posted on their website.

I think your statement on why you didn’t add this information has validity. However, considering the history of this site and its contentious nature, your opinion on the validity of the DETC process falls within the opinion area and not the factual area. The future readers of the article should be able to make their own determination of the weight of this fact.

I'm looking at the Controversy section now. I'll share my findings when I get done reading all the footnotes. I'm looking forward to being able to edit directly. How and when does this happen and who makes the decision? Thanks againAngelone7749 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your apprent inability to edit directly, I'm not an admin and I'm not very familar with those Wikipedia policies. One thing I do know is that Wikipedia is a completely open transparent organization and the answer to your question is publically available. My assumption is that the usual purpose of article semi-protection is to protect an article from editing by wp:SPA. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will check into the publically available materials on the matter.12.68.115.138 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be what you're looking for Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Accredtitation approved!

Tallmagic, I just found some interesting developments with California Miramar University. It seems that this article will need to be substantially re-written as CMU was granted national accreditation earlier this month by the Distance Education and Training Counsel! I still cannot edit the article, so I will trust someone, hopefully you, will update it in the near future.

Also, it seems that in both this New DETC update page and the new 2009-10 DETC Directory of Accredited Institutions the DETC list the founding date of CMU as 2005. Since DETC establishes this date as the official foundation date of CMU, it has major implications for the controversy section of this article as all the controversy section materials and references about the old PWU California, predate this published DETC foundation date. It seems that with CMU's successful accreditation efforts along with this new documentation from the DETC website, the PWU controversy section of this article should be deleted.

Perhaps now the Wikipedia editors will finally lift the ban on editing the article! Angelone7749 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is great news about DETC accreditation! The DETC site is apparently down right now. As soon as there's some source that can be pointed to in the article then the article can be updated. It is interesting that DETC would list the founding date as 2005. I'll need to see that. Thank you for the heads up! TallMagic (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to achieving DETC accreditation except on some web forums. Anyone have a link? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a source and made some immediately obvious changes to the article to try to reflect the new improved wonderful status. :-) Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally received editing status! They still haven;t unprotected the site, but I am working on it. I made some minor edits to the articles State Approval Status with links that more accurately reflect what has happened in Calif since 2007. I also added an info box on the University from their website and will email CMU to see if they object to adding a logo. Lastly, I noted that DETC lists the foundation date for CMU as 2005 just like the California Post Secondary Education Commission. That is two creditable sources saying 2005 was the date of formation. That's why I left the Established date blank in the info box. Maybe CMU only bought the assets of PWU in 2005 which would have been PWU's State Approval. They seemed to have changed everything and everyone else. That would explain the 2005 date that these two organizations list. What are your thoughts? Angelone7749 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great that you can edit the article now. I suspect it is because you editted the six articles which automatically changed your category. Which made you an autoconfirmed user. I pointed to the policy at the end of the previous section. The DETC description of the founded date says that it, "indicate when the institution was first accredited". This is really different from established. Calling it a founded date is also probably a misnomar. I therefore removed the assertion added to the article saying that it was stated as an established date. I'm not really sure what that date means because DETC didn't officially accredit CMU until June 6, 2009. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. When I figured that out, I edited several articles and was able to edit. Thank you for the tip!

I went to the DETC site and I saw the reference you were referring to: From the DETC site: "(Please Note: The two dates shown after the year “Founded” indicate when the institution was first accredited and the next scheduled re-accreditation review.) I think you may have interpreted this in the wrong way. They are referring to the dates in parenthesis after the year founded. For example: here is the material for Grantham University. "GRANTHAM UNIVERSITY, 7200 NW 86th Street, Kansas City, MO 64153 .....Founded 1951 (1961/2010)." You can see the year Grantham was founded is 1951 The date they were first Accredited was 1961 and their accreditation runs through 2010. Another example: Columbia Southern University: "COLUMBIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, P.O. Box 3110, 21982 University Lane, Orange Beach, AL 36561 .... Founded 1993 (2001/2010). Here the school was founded in 1993 and their accreditation has extended from 2001 until 2010. And finally CMU: "CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR UNIVERSITY, 9750 Miramar Road, Suite 180, San Diego, CA 92126 ... Founded 2005 (2009/2014) This shows that CMU was founded in 2005 and they were initially accredited in 2009 and their accreditation runs through 2014. I will wait for your response before I reinsert the founded date reference from DETC. Regards Angelone7749 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't we agree that PWU was founded many years before 2005? Don't we agree that PWU (California) changed their name to CMU? I don't understand why DETC would state it was founded in 2005? I also don't understand what is to be gained by placing what is an apparently false fact in the article even if there's a reliable source supporting the incorrect fact? Doesn't that just make DETC look like they don't know what they're talking about? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmphh!!! DETC isn't consistent regarding founding dates. For the University of Atlanta, DETC has been listing a founding date of 1991, although the institution claims not to be associated with the predecessor institution that was actually established in 1991. This kind of thing almost makes me wonder whether DETC should even be considered a reliable source... --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Orlady's point about the founding date of the University of Atlanta may be correct, but doesn't diminish DETC's credibility. It tells me that verifiable information would have been submitted with the accreditation materials submitted by the University of Atlanta that established that date as the founding date by DETC. In this case it seems the University of Atlanta didn't like the 1991 date and the discrepancy in this case seems to be on the part of the University of Atlanta not DETC. DETC is not arbitrary in these matters. The same would be true of CMU. Material would have had to been submitted by CMU that demonstrated that their founding date was 2005 to DETC. This seems to be further supported by the California Post Secondary Education Commission. This is a separate organization citing the same foundation date. Since this is the latest information we have and it has two separate creditable sources citing this same date, I am saying there is documentation these two organizations have at their disposal that we do not. I do not know what that information is, however, I do know that there are several ways for a corporation to be purchased. One is an asset sale in which case the new corporation purchases the assets of another entity and none of the debt or liability. Perhaps that is the case here. I only know two creditable sources citing the same date is not a mistake and we should not try to assume that is one. Angelone7749 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Angelone, your argument makes seems weak. The only part I believe is that two sources citing the same thing is not a mistake, instead it must be obfuscation and misdirection. We know for a fact that PWU was founded well before 2005. It makes far more sense to me that CMU would rather erase the sorry history of PWU and has given a 2005 date to different organizations that don't care and didn't check. I'm surprised that you would argue that PWU was founded in 2005. TallMagic (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, I am surprised that you are surprised that I am open to hearing and accepting new facts pertaining to the dates of CMU's foundation. However, just because these new facts contradict what you or I previously thought, doesn't mean we should discount them. Orlady says that the University of Atlanta is disputing the date of 1991 that is listed by DETC and claiming a later date. This is not the case with CMU. They haven't responded at all to the material on this site and frankly, I am surprised they haven't.

There are many issues as to why this foundation date might be different than 1977. Some of these issues deal with law and legal procedure that you or I are not party to. For example, you and I don't know how CMU acquired PWU. There are many many ways that this acquisition could have transpired and all of which are legal and all of which have different legal consequences. All that we have to go on is second hand verifiable reports in articles about what happened and when. But lets get back to the foundation date, if we assume that CMU acquired PWU in a stock purchase, the date of PWU/CMU's foundation would be 1977. If CMU acquired PWU in a asset purchase, the foundation date of PWU/CMU could be 2005 or whatever date that transaction occurred.

Since we have the date of 2005 from two different sources and they are not stating the obvious foundation date as 1977, I have to put significant weight on this later foundation date. Contrary to what you imply in your comment above, Accrediting Council's don't just take an institutions word on when they were established. They ask for legal documents to prove the dates entered on an application. That is a important part of the accreditation process. Let's give these organizations a little more credit. Obviously DETC or the California Post Secondary Education Commission had solid facts in establishing a foundation date that was contrary to earlier facts. In the end I don't believe that your or my individual opinions have more weight then the facts listed by these two organizations in their official documents. Angelone7749 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All we have is your unsupported assertion that DETC required any evidence for the founded date to be listed as 2005. No insult intended, it is just what it is. In my opinion this is a most excellent example as to why Wikipedia says that caution should be used with primary sources. Instead it is encouraged by Wikipedia policy/guideline to use secondary sources when possible. Wikipedia:PRIMARY

Regarding putting the founded date of 2005 in the article. IMHO, it makes DETC look stupid. If you have a link for some California commission with the same date it makes them look stupid as well. Any explanation for the almost 30 year discrepancy would be original research and not allowed. Is there some explanation on the CMU website perhaps? I know at one point the PWU website stated 1977 and this was after the current owner had purchased the school. When I checked last though there was no longer any date for when the school was first established. As for putting something in the article that doesn't make sense, I vote against it. :-) TallMagic (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic; Thank you for your response. I would like to take exception to your comment about merely stating my opinion about DETC. If you go to their website and check their application,[3] you will see that they require official documentation verifying each schools legal right to operate by the governing state authority as a prerequisite to being eligible to apply for accreditation. This state approval and legal business status is also a significant aspect of the actual application itself. A school cannot make up their founded date, it is part of the documentation they must submit with their official application.

I also know there is a great of documentation that PWU-California was established in 1977. I'm not denying that. However, there is more to this foundation date than we know because these dates are not arbitrary or supplied merely by the school and blindly accepted by these agencies. I find it curious that two creditable sources list this date and I don't think they are stupid for doing so. I think they have information and documention that we don't.

Until we have other info as to why they list this date, I am with you not to list the date as 2005 in the article. I do think the DETC reference should be mentioned in the article, however. Let those who visit the article see all the facts and make up their own minds which make sense and which do not. I think the location where I first placed the reference is the correct spot. In the meantime I am trying to make small improvements to the article. Hope to hear from you soon. Angelone7749 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the application, I don't see how it indicates that proof is required to the foundation date. Although I admit that I didn't read the whole thing in detail. I don't understand the purpose of putting this information in the article when we know it is incorrect? Like I said, I vote against including information in the article that doesn't make sense. You argue that the reader should be allowed to make up their own mind. The only thing I can see that would be going through the reader's mind is that either the Wikipedia article is self contradictory and wrong or DETC is incompetent, perhaps that Californis commision that you've mentioned is just as incompetent or fell for the same trick? I don't imagine that is what you meant. So, please explain what the reader is supposed to think about such obviously incorrect information? I think that there needs to be an explanation before it goes into the article. I'll ask again. Do you know of any explanation anywhere that could be referenced? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, I do not know of any explanation anywhere that can be referenced at this point. I will look. You make a good point, just because there is a single reference that can be verified, does not mean the material should be in the article without further verifications. In case there are two sources citing the same date, so I feel there is some validity that we may not be aware of. But again, I agree to not put in the other material until there is more concrete verification.Angelone7749 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GAO Report

A recent edit to the article seems to argue that the GAO investigation found that PWU was not a diploma mill. I believe that this strong implication should reasonably be considered a violation of no original research. It also is arguably untrue, since the ODA list was referred to multiple times as a list of diploma mills and PWU is on that list. I also note that the GAO investigation reports that PWU did not cooperate with the investigators after learning that they were investigating the school and the investigators were given different answers than when they were pretending to be a potential student. This type of information is much more relevant, in my opinion, to the actual GAO report than implying that the investigators didn't call PWU a diploma mill. TallMagic (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's three reliable sources that assert that the GAO investigators labeled PWU a diploma mill, in direct contradiction to what is asserted currently in the article.[4][5][6] A secondary source such as this carries more weight on Wikipedia than a primary source such as the GAO report. I suspect that other secondary source articles have done the same thing. TallMagic (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my general opinion. PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California) were run from the same place by the same people. To the world it was PWU NOT PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California). It was run as a significantly-substandard-school. A school that many reasonably called a diploma mill. I could probably produce at least a dozen wp:verifiable references proving this if you don't believe me. for example see Someone bought said significantly-substandard-school a few years ago and has turned it into a legitimate school that was recently awarded accreditation by DETC. Unfortuanately for CMU they have saddled themselves with an ugly history. It boogles my mind trying to understand why anyone would want to do this but my own confusion is totally irrelevant to the article. I'm not interested in playing up this ugly history because CMU is now a legitimate school. On the other hand, I can't be a good Wikipedian and allow a white wash to occur that attempts cover up the ugly past. Please provide your opinion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll address each of your issues in order of your thoughts. First, the ODA reference is never mentioned in the GAO report. I do not know what this has to do with this latest edit. Also, if you check the ODA website, it does not say the schools on their list are Diploma Mills, only that the unaccredited schools and degrees from these schools are not recognized for use in Oregon. In fact, on the ODA website they give notice that PWU Hawaii and PWU California are separate entities and advise readers to look at which institution the degree was granted by.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelone, I don't understand what you mean when you say, "First, the ODA reference is never mentioned in the GAO report." Here's a quote from what you referenced as the supporting reference for what I argue is your original research statement, "We also obtained a list of entities that the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization has identified as diploma mills and enlisted the assistance of a government-sponsored Internet job recruitment Web site to identify individuals who have listed degrees from diploma mills on their résumés."[7] Perhaps there's some confusion over my use of the intials ODA? I intended ODA to be an abbreviation of Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. Your point about what the ODA site says is not really relevant. What is more relevant to this discussion is that the GAO memo refers to it as a list of diploma mills. The separation of PWU Hawaii branch and California branch in the ODA list is a more recent thing done after the Hawaii branch was closed down by the government and the new owner came onto the scene. TallMagic (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, the GAO Report of 2002 cited a list of 43 diploma mills from the ODA site. It doesn't identify which of the schools on the ODA site constituted the 43 schools that the ODA labeled as Diploma Mills. I checked the current ODA site and there are 386 schools listed on their unaccredited school list. Of these schools 9 are called Diploma Mills by the ODA. So being on a ODA list and being called a diploma mill by the ODA are two very different things. If you have verifiable evidence that the ODA list specified PWU as a "diploma mill" on their site in 2001 or 2002, or any time for that matter, I would love to see it. Please cite a reference that I can visit. I checked the various web archives but no such list is available that I can find. Since the GAO in their 2002 report only references an ODA list and doesn't name any of the 43 schools by name, saying that the ODA identified PWU as a diploma mill doesn't have any merit. PWU is not listed by name in the 2002 GAO report. In fact, there is no verification of any of the 43 schools from the ODA Diploma Mill list, except those listed by name and example in the actual 2002 GAO report. Making the quantum leap of concluding that the GAO report mentions a list and that PWU was was on that list, without any verifiable evidence is a very dangerous practice. We know for a fact that the ODA list contains both unaccredited schools, and schools they boldly identify as diploma mills. The current ODA website is proof of this. The GAO calls diploma mills out by name when they want to identify a school as a diploma mill. They did this in their 2002 report. They did not call PWU a diploma mill in the 2002 or 2004 reports. Drawing conclusions in the absence of direct statements by the GAO, is opinion, not the fact. Also, your quote about the Einfield situation is curious. Here is Einfield, a notorious quack, that claims to have various degrees from various schools. PWU states they have no records that he ever attended the school and yet the article list him as an alumni! Isn't this reference contributing to this quacks fraud?! Think about it.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not really my place or anyone's place here on Wikipedia to defend verifiable reliable sources. I was making what I believe is a reasonable example as to how the multiple sources could have believed that the GAO investigation/congressional hearing might have referred to PWU as a diploma mill. I listened to the hearing. Collins as well as some of the other senators seemed very free and indiscriminate with their use of the term diploma mill. Again though, I don't need to defend the three sources that say that PWU was referred to as a diploma mill. The fact is that they do. I haven't seen any reliable source that said that PWU wasn't referred to in those derogatory terms during the hearing. Here on Wikipedia that defines what can and can't be said about it in the article. Regarding the Einfield comments, Einfield is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The important point to this discussion is that in the article it is stated that PWU "was regarded as a 'diploma mill' by Congress in 2004". If you dispute that the interpretation of Wikipedia policy indicates something different than my conclusions then that's a normal and acceptable situation. There are over 2 million articles on Wikipedia. This type of thing occurs all the time. There are many mechanisms for handling differences of opinion between Wikipedians, see wp:DISPUTE. The first step is what we've been doing. Since it appears only the two of us seem active here, consensus won't work which would typically be the next step. However, I suggest that in this particular case the next step could be to appeal for help to others via the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard. Reread what I believe are the relevant policies, wp:V and wp:NOR. Maybe read some of the discussions on the noticeboard and post a request there or if you'd rather that I do it then let me know. TallMagic (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Second, the GAO report does not say PWU California did not cooperate with their report. According to the report, PWU was one of the three schools who gave statistics on how many graduates were on their official records. That material made up part of the total of the other two schools who also reported back to the GAO. One school did not report back to the GAO and that school might be correctly characterized as not cooperating with the GAO. The report saws PWU California in their official response did not show any graduates who had their tuition paid for by the Federal Government. The report also states that earlier, during the undercover part of the investigation, they had. This discrepancy makes sense to me. The stats on the official report were given after review of the official records. The report the the undercover investigator was given when posing as a potential student would have been given by a school representative answering the question without reviewing the official records. This doesn't make PWU California a diploma mill.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it does indicate that PWU didn't fully cooperate. "Pacific Western University reported that it could not locate any records indicating that federal payments were made, although this claim directly contradicts representations made to our undercover investigator by a school representative that federal agencies had paid for degrees obtained by Pacific Western University students."[8] Of course I do admit that the statement that PWU didn't fully cooperate would best be considered original research if it were based on my reading of the GAO report rather than an explicit statement in a secondary source. Just like your apparently false assertion added to the article that the GAO never referred to PWU as a diploma mill. (see wp:PRIMARY for extra cautions necessary when using primary sources]] I never claimed that it proved PWU to be a diploma mill. Such a statement doesn't even make very much sense to me because the definition of what is a diploma mill differs from person to person and that would have to be addressed first. TallMagic (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The three sites you mention as proof that PWU California is a diploma mill are all currently referenced and cited in the article. Each of these references refers to or calls PWU California a diploma mill and all cite the GAO report as their primary if not only source for the article. I think the point of referencing the diploma mill aspect in reference to PWU California is made through the inclusion of these three references. This puts a great deal of weight on the GAO report and the report needs to be reflected in the article exactly as it was written, not subject to opinion or spin. If anything in the last edit is incorrect, change that errant portion. I do not believe that you will find anything incorrect in the edit.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those three references show that they interpretted the GAO report such that the GAO report called PWU a diploma mill. That is much different in my view from saying it proves that PWU was a diploma mill. Here's the three relevant quotes from the references I provided above. "Pacific Western is one of seven schools labeled as a diploma mill by federal investigators at the U.S. General Accounting Office." "He was demoted in early November after revelations that his doctorate came from US-based Pacific Western University, which was identified as a diploma mill in a September 2004 congressional report." "Pacific Western University claims that it has not found a student record for Einfeld. The US university was regarded as a 'diploma mill' by Congress in 2004." These quotes are in direct contradiction to your own interpretation of the GAO report. Your interpretation of what the GAO report says or doesn't say is original research, in my belief. The GAO report is a primary source. Your original research is disputed by the three verifiable sources that I referenced. Your original research needs to be removed from the article. Wikipedians must not inject their own opinion or spin into the article as you are apparently attempting to do with this edit. Your edit needs to be removed because it is your opinion based on your own research that is disputed by three verifiable references that I've produced. Wikipedia CANNOT be your vehicle for righting perceived wrongs that have occurred in the media. If you really believe that during the GAO report and the congressional hearing that PWU was never called a diploma mill then the attitude on Wikipedia has to be "oh well, too bad". The sources above obviously say that the GAO report and hearings called PWU a diploma mill. You have not produced any contradictory source. You have just provided your opinion and put it into the article. Your personal opinion does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Sorry but that is the way it is. TallMagic (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument that PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California) were really just one is incorrect. The ODA website is a prime example of this fact. There was (is) a Pacific Western University a California Corporation and there was a Pacific Western University (Hawaii) a Hawaiian Corporation. They were separate legal entities. That is not my opinion, that is verifiable fact by the various states official websites. PWU California had California State Approval and operated under State Approval guidelines guidelines up until their accreditation in June. PWU Hawaii like many other unaccredited schools offering massive credit for life experience operated in Hawaii with little or no guidelines and along with over 30 other unaccredited schools in Hawaii was put out of business by the State. PWU California had a complete list of courses and curriculum that was taken on-line and had to be completed before offering a degree, PWU Hawaii had no stated curriculum and did not list requirements for their degree. The archived websites along with the State Sites of Hawaii and California show that this is the case. Angelone7749 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You have twisted what I said. Here's what I really said, "Here's my general opinion. PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California) were run from the same place by the same people. To the world it was PWU NOT PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California)." The "world" in this context does not mean legal entities. It means the general public. TallMagic (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion shouldn't speak for the "world". I don't believe your opinion in this matter over weighs verifiable legal fact and I certainly don't believe you can say what the world thought or didn't think on this matter. Regards Angelone7749 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal fact is not really relevant to my statement. I simply believe that few differentiated their opinion of PWU between PWU California and PWU Hawaii. This is a firm opinion backed up by almost all the facts I've seen, the one notable exception is the legal arrangement. Both places had the same name, both places were owned by the same people, both places were run from the same location, both places were referred to in the news media with just the one name with extremely few exceptions. I even remember a statement on the PWU website saying something to the affect that if people called in to verify a degree the office would not differentiate between the two campuses. It seems very clear that the people that owned and ran the two campuses wanted people to view PWU as one entity not two. So it is not surprising to me that they were generally successful in that regard. Verifiable legal fact is not important to the issue as to whether or not the two campuses were thought of as significantly different by most people. I know this seems to be a "hot button" for you. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one? TallMagic (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On your last point, I don't know why anyone would buy a flawed school either. I have heard unofficial reasons that make some sense, but I have no verifiable proof of these matters except the change of ownership materials that are currently in the article. This is not a whitewash of the facts. It's a statement of the facts as written in the GAO Report. No opinions and no spin. Let me know your thoughts Angelone7749 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts have been given above. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing Marcus Einfield as notable alumni?

While it is uncommon for people to falsely claim degrees from institutions that have frequently been called a diploma mill in the news media, it is not unheard of. There's a verifiable source that says that in 2006 PWU said that this Marcus Einfield fellow was not a PWU alumni.[9] It could be assumed that he was a graduate of PWU Hawaii. I suspect though that if PWU California in 2006 responded that he was not a PWU graduate when he had possibly graduated from PWU Hawaii that they would be vulnerable to a lawsuit for defamation. I guess it's possible though that PWU responded that he simpy wasn't a graduate of PWU California and the journalist wasn't clear on this somewhat insignificant point in his writing. (At least not significant from the Australasian Business Intelligence news article's point of view.) (See discussion above in the previous section regarding how very common it is for people not to differentiate between PWU Hawaii and PWU California.) I'll delete Marcus Einfield as an alumni. If anyone thinks that it would be better to revert my deletion and instead add the statement saying that PWU said he wasn't a graduate then that would be okay with me as well. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Tallmagic, I am in total agreement with your reasoning. If he was a graduate of PWU it was not PWU California. Good job. Angelone7749 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what year he was supposed to have earned his degree but if it was before 1990 then there was no PWU Hawaii only PWU? The point being that if he was not a graduate of PWU Califonia, I'm not sure that it follows that he must be a graduate of PWU Hawaii? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section rewrite

An editor did a complete rewrite of the controversy section.[10] Because the edit deleted significant sourced material, added dead links, and added a large section of copied text, I have reverted it. It would be better to work more gradually, and to retain existing text and sources as much as possible. Significant changes should be discussed first.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, this URL isn't active: http://www.eductionservices.us/faq.html.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section Edits 2012

I made some changes to this section citing solid references which I recently discovered. Will Beback reverted these changes asking that I discuss them prior to making the changes. I am happy to do so. Anyone can view the changes in the history section of the article. I made the changes in three parts.

The first on January 23rd which showed that PWU California's reference in the 2004 GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04771t.pdf which is the basis for all the other controversy materials in this section, was in fact referencing a different Pacific Western University, the one in Hawaii. www.educationservices.us/gaoreport.html There were three separate Pacific Western University programs that legally operated from 1976 through 2005. Each of these schools were separately incorporated, were located in separate states, operating under separate state laws and regulations, and offered separate degree programs, with separate curriculum and academic standards.[htttp://www.educationservices.us/faq.html] Over the the years specific reports and news stories reportedly associated with Pacific Western University - California were actually the information concerning one of the other Pacific Western University http://www.eductionservices.us/gaoreport.html.

My changes referenced Education Services webpage materials showing the actual GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04771t.pdf and Archived webstites from both PWU - California http://web.archive.org/web/20040213020840/http://pwu-ca.edu/home.asp?ID=7 and PWU - Hawaii http://web.archive.org/web/20040401123556/http://www.pwu-hi.edu/home.asp?ID=7 that were active at the time of the 2004 report. The web article conclusively showed that the GAO was referencing PWU - Hawaii in their report and not PWU - California. The flat rate tuition amounts cited by the GAO for PWU is clearly that of PWU - Hawaii and PWU - California's tuition, as regulated by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocation Education was not flat rate. I also added some of the detail from the Education Services webpage that added clarity to the actual 2004 GAO report and showed the nature and detail of California State Approval that further clarified PWU - California's State Approved institutional status and the education standards they had to maintain at the time of the 2004 report. http://www.educationservices.us/gaoreport.html

Change two corrected information concerning a television news report claiming two professors in Tucson had earned their degrees from PWU - California and, subsequent to the May 2011 GAO report, had their teaching salaries reduced. [http://web.archive.org/web/20070303153957/http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2578367&nav=HMO5TF68 Education Services shows that these two professors who are named in the KVOA report, earned doctorate degrees in Science Education and Religious Studies and were not graduates from PWU - California as the news report claimed.[11] Neither of these doctorate degree programs were offered by Pacific Western University - California as the University's official website from September 26, 2004 clearly lists. http://web.archive.org/web/20040923020154/http://www.pwu-ca.edu/doctorate_courses.htm

The third change showed that the international news stories concerning reported graduates of PWU - California were also inaccurate. What follows is a portion of this change: Internationally their were several news stories who mentioned Pacific Western University – California, all of which either referenced the 2004 GAO report as their source and/or quoted other media stories which referenced the GAO as their source. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199963&sectioncode=26

It was reported in the Irish Independent on 9 October 2005 that the Chief Science Adviser to the government of Ireland, Barry McSweeney, had been found to have advanced his career using a doctorate degree in biochemistry allegedly earned at Pacific Western University - California.eircom net Degree of doubt for Bertie's boffin, To quote Education Services, the official custodian of records for PWU California on Mr. McSweeney’s degree: Once again, this is a degree that Pacific Western University – California did not offer, and our records confirm that this adviser was not an alumni of Pacific Western University – California.http://www.eductionservices.us/gaoreport.html http://web.archive.org/web/20040923020154/http://www.pwu-ca.edu/doctorate_courses.htm

Below is my post to Will BeBack in his talk page that I have published here for review by all concerned. Hello Will. You requested that the material that I presented and the changes that I made to the CMU article be discussed prior to making the edits. You then reverted the article. I have made many edits to this article in the past and I have not had to get consensus on these edits, so I am a bit surprised with your reversion. The material that was presented in the update referenced materials which are well sourced and verifiable. I welcome your input. Please feel free to discuss the material so that we can come to a consensus. Please note that the updates in my recent contributions concern errors that were published in the article that have been shown to be incorrect. These changes, to my knowledge, meet all the standards of Wikipedia and do not omit any areas of controversy from the article. Please let me know if you disagree, and if so, what specifically your disagreements might be. Warmest Regards. Angelone7749 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-26T16:19:51

I await comments and suggestions from all contributors on the above information.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section above. For future reference, the standard on Wikipedia is to place new messages at the end of the page. As I wrote above, the first links do not work. I stop checking at that point. Can you please correct the links so we can review the sources?   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, I changed the reference links to actual links. I was unaware you would not be able to use the reference links in this section and not have them actually work. Also, thank you for the protocol on adding new materials. I thought it was at the top. Angelone7749 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears that many assertions are sourced to eductionservices.us. However that is an anonymous website and it's not clear why we should regard it as a reliable source. Merely being a repository for old documents does not confer expertise.

More generally, much of this material seems to repeat issues that were discussed previously on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)