Talk:California Miramar University

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another famous 'alumni' from PWU 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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." 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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." 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I propose removing Marcus Einfield as notable alumni? 

message: An editor did a complete rewrite of the controversy section. 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)
replies: text: To begin with, this URL isn't active: http://www.eductionservices.us/faq.html.   Will Beback  talk   20:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The user misspelled the URL. It's  http://www.educationservices.us/faq.html --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section rewrite

message: church divinity school of iapu/pwu is a totally separate uk based charitable operation delivering christian distance education at undergraduate level+ at no cost to the user.www.freewebs.com/site-1331673995433-2769609406173254557/
86.150.254.134 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Bmusician 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 April 2012 

message: www.freewebs.com/site-1331673995433-2769609406173254557/    church divinity school of pwu/apiu is totally separate and highly respected for its academic scholarship.
86.150.254.134 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 April 2012 

message: : Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  (e • t • c) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2014 

message: There is a site dedicated to warning students concerning possible fraud conducted by this institution - California Miramar Info.  Consumers can visit www.californiamiramarinfo.org to attain reviews concerning this institution.
69.92.206.66 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumer Fraud Warning 

message: change President Dr. Majdin Taba to President Dr. Ali Gooyabadi Aobriantcalmuedu (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Awesome Aasim 21:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019 

message: Accreditation and approvals section - California Miramar University is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC) to award Associate, Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate degrees. The Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC) is listed as a federally recognized accrediting agency by the United States Department of Education and is also a recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Aobriantcalmuedu (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 21:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019