Talk:Preston University (United States)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Based in Los Angeles

The mention that PU has an unoccupied office suite in LA is gone because of conflicting info in the references. Note that the BPPE statement of issues gives a 3701 Wilshire address, while the Herald gave a 3731 Wilshire address. (The buildings are twins with a shared courtyard.) Presumably the BPPE has a better current address, but disappointingly PU itself does not supply an address on their website.--S. Rich (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Better late than never. Perseverance is after all an attribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the following link be removed as it bears no relevance to the article and it has already been shown in the past that this source was not a reliable.

"Dave Featherly (6 April 2009). "Preston University, which fled from Wyoming rather than attempt accreditation and then was ordered to "cease and desist" in Alabama, found a home in Los Angeles". Cheyenne Herald (Cheyenne, WY). OCLC 51310460. Archived from the original on 7 September 2012". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No. It is properly sourced. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be properly sourced, but the source is not reliable. Please consider my request again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. It is properly sourced in the sense it pertains to the topic (Preston U) and has every indication of reliability. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain by what you mean exactly when you say that the link "has every indication of reliability". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 08:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

S.Rich- If you do not have an answer to my question, I again suggest that the link be removed as it bears no relevance to the article and it has already been shown in the past that this source was not a reliable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a two year old discussion, so things change. One of the Featherly links is now dead. I've tagged it as dead, so hopefully someone can find an archive copy or look at the article in the library. Still, I base my evaluation on three factors. One, the story we read is consistent with other sources. Two, the newspaper has an OCLC listing, which indicates that local librarians thought enough of the paper to stock it on their shelves. Three, why would someone go and create a phony story? – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the information looks accurate and the source looks plainly reliable.[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

S.Rich - Congratulations on the support that you are getting from another editor on this issue. I'm still not convinced by your argument, nonetheless. At the expense of repeating myself, I will still say that the Cheyenne Herald was a "one man operation with no editorial oversight." Such argument had been thrown to me by Wiki editors on another article (Higher education accreditation in the United States). I did not dispute. However, if it held good there, it should hold good here as well. May I also refer you to wp:v which clearly states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research". I will therefore, again, request that the link be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, please sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~). I've checked previous discussions and I don't see any evidence suggesting the Cheyenne Herald is not a reliable source according to the standards at WP:IRS. Especially for trivial and obviously accurate material like this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yashnv, I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's no-original research policy. The source is a secondary source and is acceptable. If an individual sought to publish the results of their research pertaining to their school on WP, then the NOR policy would be violated. (An example might be a blog or Facebook page that said "here are the post-graduation employment stats that I researched pertaining to Preston U graduates in 20XX.") But because the source has been published and has been stocked on library shelves (as indicated by WorldCat), the source in article qualifies as reliable secondary source. – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich - The Cheyenne Herald was a one person operation with no editorial oversight. Qualifying this article as "accurate" baffles me.

It would appear to me that you have never read the article. You just have to see the kind of language and innuendos it had been using:

• ...........which fled from Wyoming (Opinion)

• Preston University has been operating out of a Ryder Truck for the past two+ years (opinion / no evidence).

• Obviously knowing the order to shut down was imminent from the State of Alabama, Preston University filed as a Limited Liability Corporation in California twenty (20) days later. It was planned. (Opinion of the publisher)

• Preston University, on that latest website, shows their current address to be 3731 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 506, in Los Angeles. The photo below is of the office door to Suite 506. It is unoccupied (more than ten days after their new website showed that to be their new address) and neither security in the building, the building directory nor the neighbor where packages had been directed to, knew who or what Preston University is. (How do we know that all this is true and the office suite was unoccupied - How do we know that David Featherly or his representative actually talked to the security / neighbor etc)

• A couple of examples from tortured souls, one who may well live in a basement bedroom at mom’s house, follow: (Opinion of the publisher/ use of highly defamatory, rude and indecent language)

• I did not tell the thumbsucking bedwetter that “using” his WNU degree (which it wasn’t anyway, it was a KWU degree) was “illegal.” (Use of highly defamatory, rude and indecent language).

All the above is what a person is saying. No one has checked the facts. No one knows how much truth lies therein. It contains a lot of opinion of the person who is writing the article. It is clear that the article, although it might contain some element of truth, was written to degrade Preston University. A reasonably sensible person would immediately note that the article does not, at all, honor the profession of journalism, going only by the improper and indecent language used. The article is a pure example of the use of sentionalism to attract and deceive readers (you fell in the trap as well).

Please also note that, in the past, the Cheyenne Herald had been blocked from publishing stories by a Wyoming judge as it had published something out of an anonymous source. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/wyoming-judge-blocks-news_n_588133.html

I request again to remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the essay WP:NOTTRUTH will help. In other words, it does not matter if the Herald story has what you think is inaccurate, opinion, or defamatory language. (This other language was not used in the WP article.) Nor does it matter that a Wyoming district judge issued a problematic (e.g., unconstitutional) order regarding an unrelated matter. If you can garner support to have the reference removed, I will support the consensus. But I wonder why you repeatedly raise the subject. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

S.Rich- Thank you for the link. I have noted the following:

"......you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions".

Based on the above, since the Cheyenne Herald was a one man operation with no editorial oversight, this means that the information it had published had not been verified by an independent (or not so independent) party. There is therefore no way you can tell me that only by the mere fact something had been (self) published and archived, it achieves the status of a "verified material."

For this very simple and straightforward reason, I again request that the link be removed.

I would also suggest that Wikipedia writes a policy regarding whether or not it will accept indecent language being published or referred to in its articles (unless it already has it, in which case please guide me accordingly).

(I am not going to get the support of anyone from your community. You just have to go through the talk section on the article "Higher Education Accreditation in the United States". But I believe you already know that since you were on that forum as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

S.Rich- I guess I have provided a very valid reason for removal of the link. I suggest again that the link be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

For the last time, please sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so we can keep track of who's saying what. You've been arguing that this source is unreliable for years, and you haven't convinced anyone else of your opinion. The source isn't going to be removed unless the consensus changes. You can either move on, or seek dispute resolution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The material you object to has been verified by the Cheyenne Herald, so your argument about "un-verifiable" material is misplaced. You are actually arguing that the Herald is not a reliable source. If you find support for your argument, then the material can be removed. At present, though, the consensus is to keep the material. – S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich- You have argued as follows: "The material you object to has been verified by the Cheyenne Herald" - How can you say that. Any proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

S.Rich - You are not responding to my above question. I therefore conclude that you have no argument to justify your statement "The material you object to has been verified by the Cheyenne Herald". In such case, this proves that the article was unverifiable and therefore unreliable. I have no alternative but to again formulate my request to remove the dubious link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich- Something interesting for you to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC_RYgkkmcM. Says a lot about universities in the USA.