Talk:Pacific Western University/Archive 1

message: It is obvious that some people on Wikipedia do not like this school and they continue to remove esential facts about the university, which is not a good or fair practice. The fact is, this school is approved by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education and this university it profiled on The California Postsecondary Education Commission's website. Yet people keep removing this fact and the appropiate links to this information.  Fair is Fair, present all of the information or none of it. (Unsigned comment by new user Samdavid)
*The article DOES mention that PWU currently has CBPPVE approval.  However, PWU is in no way "featured" on the CBPPVE website, they are simply allowed, as is every other institution, to provide boiler plate language describing their institution that amounts to nothing more than advertising. Repeated attemps to whitewash the fact that PWU is a diploma mill goes beyond a content dispute, it is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such. Fawcett5 17:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair Removal of facts. 

message: It appears that one or two people are continually presenting their negative outlook about Pacific Western University and removing any positive statements presented about this university.  In fact, as I look back through the various postings, it looks like they even rearrange the order of the information to provide a more negative slant on the article.  
First of all, I believe the Educational Associations of the State of California possess much more factual information than does the person or persons who continually alter this article and the Educational Associations of the State of California have approved this university.  Furthermore, I have just looked back into John Bear's book about non-traditional degrees, copyright 1986, he too stated that Pacific Western University was approved by the State of California in that year and in that edition. So, the individual's denial of this fact is incorrect and misleading.
I believe that it is wrong and not the policy of Wikipedia to have one or two people continually removing any positive wording in an article.  The facts should be allowed to be presented fully, be they positive or negative.  From this, a reader is then allowed to reach their own conclusion.  
So, I will revert this article to my previous work.  But, I am sure that it will be negatively overturned shortly.
* BPPVE confirms that PWU was first approved by them in 1996 and not before. It is possible they may have had approval from some predecessor agency before that time. Also, the claim that they were among the first "non-traditional" universities in the country is bunk, there have been diploma mills since time immemorial.   Fawcett5 20:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Western University  - Positive verses Negative 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* https://app1.dca.ca.gov/bppve/school-search/view-school.asp?schlcode=1927881
** In Pacific Western University on Mon Jul 17 14:56:56 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
** In Pacific Western University on Thu Jul 27 00:40:34 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I'm going to remove the John Bear quote from near the beginning of the articl, seeing as the same John Bear said in 2002 that Pacific Western University "holds no merit in the academic world" . I don't think we need the "balance" of both articles - if anyone insists on keeping the reference I'll go to a library and look it up, but someone's gonna need to insist on that first. Sirmob 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Bear quote 

message: I'm not sure about this, but I put a lot of work following mnot's excellent NPOV work at citing and improving the quality of the article at making sure things are NPOV and sourced - the only significant unsourced thing seems to be the president's professional degrees, which I don't see as an overly important matter. In light of this I was thinking that the Austrialia quote might now be a little bit much - the GAO quote gets across everthing that really needs to be sead about the group in any case. I'm inclined to take out the Australia quote - are there thoughts on this? Sirmob 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Australia quote? 

message: User Jknightley removed the majority of the article, including pretty much every citation that I had made - which is obviously not agaist the rules, but I think the removal of a lot of that information made the article worse, not better. I'm leaving a message on his talk page, and while trying to incoroporate the thrust of his additions I've put most of the facts back in. Can we try to build a consensus on that over here before we make such a major deletion? The version I reverted to is a mix between 71.139.226.15's August 21 edits and Riadlem's August 21st edits, however, taking Jknightley's edits as an indicaiton that the article is overlong, I have tried to "tighten it up" a bit and do some rearranging, including contextualizing the Austrialia stuff better. Sirmob 06:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding majority of article 

message: We don't have anything about any of PWU's "branch campuses," and PWU's website says "Note: Pacific Western University, located in San Diego, CA, is an independent, privately owned university that is not associated with any other college or university" . I'll leave this notice up for a day or two, but if nobody knows a citation for any of the other supposed branches, I'll remove that clause at the end of the week, so that the lead will just say "Pacific Western University is an distance learning university located in San Diego, California." Thoughts? Sirmob 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch Campuses 

message: The QuackWatch reference  is one that is often removed, and often added back in. I don't like the "quackwatch" name itself, it seems a bit POV. However, the information is good - but that information is exactly duplicated in the GAO report that is listed in the references, and is already quoted from in the article. I looked up the GAO report because it seemed like a better idea to cite a more authorative source - is there any reason to have the duplicate QuackWatch reference in the article? Is there any benefit? Sirmob 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QuackWatch