Talk:Pacific Western University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific Western University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations: McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School
This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Archives

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 provided academic credentials for, and how many can be said to have actually shamed the academic standing and accreditation the PWU provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.95.150 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/c/Talk%7EPacific_Western_University_bcf4.html"