Talk:Columbia Pacific University/Archive 3

Objections to article
I observe a long discussion on this talk page concerning CPU. I am concerned about a continued pattern of non-neutrality as listed by many people over many years on this talk page. Discussion of this university should match discussion of other early experimental forward-thinking universities making use of long-distance education before the internet. For comparison to modern universities read through the page on University of Phoenix (which was a direct competitor of CPU during the time of CPUs existence). Despite loud and significant controversies about U. of Phoenix we do not see quotes from prosecuting attorneys taken out of context or without counter-arguments on the University of Phoenix page. Another example: CPU is stated to have its degrees invalidated by several states. It does not say there are not other known restrictions in all states but a couple, not to mention foreign nations. I have added a balancing line on this point to promote non-neutrality. Persons removing this line should either justify removal or be ready for dispute resolution.

As I am a relative of an important person at CPU I am not the best person to make these edits. However, I note that many CPU alumni attempted to make corrections including providing detailed documentation from authorities in Oregon and were simply overruled or ignored. That is not up to standard for Wikipedia. In memory of my relative I am taking it upon myself to correct this page to at least be neutral. If others feel I am not the best person to do this due to a family association they are welcome to provide a neutral POV themselves. As a professional in an intellectual field myself I do not have trouble dealing with controversial material in which I have an interest. I believe I am well able to do so here.

13209hajfhd098 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed your unsourced edit; please cite reliable sources.
 * And I strongly urge you to confine your edits to suggestions here in Talk. You have an unavoidable and confessed strong emotional interest in this article so it's very unlikely that you can contribute neutral edits.  We're here to write an encyclopedia, not right great wrongs. ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Desite my best efforts over several months and several attempts this page continues to provide a negative slant and does not satisfy neutral POV requirements of Wikipedia. I am not editing it any further since even sourced edits I provide are automatically reverted by other Wikipedia editors. What is the point? Or tell me how to edit it and I will do so. This page is certainly not representative of CPU as many alumni have pointed out. 13209hajfhd098 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A guy who is exasperated because he cannot make fine furniture but doesn't know how to use a saw, is confused at best, and simply a fool at worst.  As far as I can see you have not put any effort, much less your "best efforts", into learning WP's WP:Policies and guidelines - and until you do, any "best efforts" are just floundering.  Also, it is not clear to me if your judgement that the article fails NPOV would stand, if you actually understood WP:NPOV.  All that said, if you would be calm and hit your own reset button on your exasperation, I would be willing to help you.  If you can do that, and if you like, you can pick a sentence out of the body of the article (not the lead), copy it here, and provide underneath it what you think it should say, with a reliable source supporting that version. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As I stated multiple times, stating four states where degrees for CPU are limited in some way (see last section of article), while not stating conditions in 46 other states where they are accepted just fine, is negative slant. For example, if I said, "A poll shows that 100,000 people don't think well of President X" in a country with population 1,000,000, it is not neutral POV because I have left out the 90% who did not answer that way in the poll. That is negative spin and bias, no? I provided sources in previous edits to make that change (see previous edits), yet in several tries doing my best to follow directions from editors my changes were all undone. Respectfully, calling me confused and a fool does not encourage me to continue to be involved with Wikipedia. No need to insult me for my lack of knowledge when I am doing my sincere best to understand how Wikipedia works. 13209hajfhd098 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be frank I think you are a lost cause. You are way too arrogant and ignorant, and due to that unfortunate combination, way too exasperated.  You - and no one else -  lived yourself into that place.  I offered you a way out, which you are too far gone to take. My offer to help is rescinded. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish you the best and thank you for your time. I do hope this Wikipedia page will be fixed by someone as it does not provide neutral POV to the best of my understanding of WP:NPOV. I do wish you could be more patient with someone learning the ropes and not insult me. I really don't see a need for that. 13209hajfhd098 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like others here, am a volunteer.  You don't get it, that nobody here owes you a damn thing.'  You have no idea what you are doing, but you continue to act in a demanding manner.  Maybe if somebody else comes around who is willing to help you, you will get off your high horse and act more like the novice you are. It is not a  bad thing to be a novice.  It is a bad thing to act like you are not, when you are.  I have no patience for that kind of behavior.  Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are writing an article that mentions that someone was bitten by a dog, we do not have to list people who were not bitten by that dog. If a biography says that a person was convicted of burglary, we do not need to point out that they were not convicted of murder. Most coverage of this school in reliable independent sources focuses on its legal problems, lack of accreditation, and forcible closure. This article will summarize what the reliable independent sources say. No more and no less. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see some rather harsh violations of WP:BITE and WP:DICK here. And not a lot of consensus building.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I started giving the article a quick lookover and noticed that the entire page seems to rely almost exclusively on primary sources, such as court records, the org's website, or government documents. Additionally, almost all of the sources (even the alleged secondary sources) seem to have broken links or go to random foreign-language pages, such that the source cannot be verified. At-a-glance, it looks like the article needs a complete overhaul where reliable secondary sources are the primary basis of the article and primary sources are only used to supplement them or for other non-controversial purposes. I have no opinion on what the overall tone of the article should be, because after giving the article a quick lookover, I was not able to actually view/verify a single reliable, secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A PLACE IN HISTORY FOR COLUMBIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY
Columbia Pacific University is a valuable study case that could support a dissertation about education and how it has changed in the past several decades. State approval gave CPU a legitimacy nearly everywhere in the world during the time it was approved by California. It is doubtful if the several states that outlawed the approved degrees could defeat a challenge in federal court. Accrediting agencies are not government departments with authority of law, although many people might think they are. The accrediting agencies are private non profit agencies controlled by the colleges and universities they accredit. A number of accrediting agencies have become recognized by a department of the federal government as meeting expected standards for evaluating providers of education. The accrediting agencies have not been granted a monopoly or been placed under control of a public utility commission for regulating monopolies. In USA the accrediting agencies have attempted and succeeded in becoming the preferred legitimacy of education, but with enough exceptions like unaccredited state approved programs to avoid becoming monopolies subject to outside government control of quality and price in education. In practice the accrediting agencies need some unaccredited programs to exist like the earlier years of CPU to avoid becoming monopolies, and this is the basis for laws in most states of USA.

Comparison of CPU with California Coast University is possibly a better choice than the University of Phoenix. It isn't clear why CPU eventually failed and was closed while CCU succeeded and eventually became accredited by a recognized agency. It seems to be a combination of their ability to attract students and a sequence of management decisions by the universities. During the same time CPU was operating, supporters of the accrediting agencies were aggressive in opposing everything that wasn't accredited raising the cost of non traditional education while losing court battles. Technical advances in communication led to rapid increase of competing programs from traditional universities and other institutions. Failure of CPU might be explained by their later beginning than CCU, and with a program that had added nothing unique to the options of prospective students. The article seems to suggest the visible cause of failure was from management decisions of CPU.

Cost of education increased quickly during the time that CPU was operating, and supporters of the accrediting agencies have been faulted for driving the cost higher than necessary. So the final chapters have not been written about where CPU fits in history, and why it failed. Astrojed (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with CPU or the opponents of CPU, but am interested in Education and History. My edit today added a lot of factual and sourced information to the section about California Laws. Responsible agencies changed so often during CPU operation and closure that the references are only found in archives. The agency CPPVE that first faulted CPU did not receive any money from California general fund, but was financed by a special fund of the fees paid by institutions they regulated. CPPVE was attempting to get partial funding from the state treasury at the time their extended authorization was vetoed. The referenced Committee Meeting did not achieve a 2/3 majority in the State Assembly to overturn the veto. Astrojed (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Columbia Pacific University. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bppve.ca.gov/ppeoc.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bppve.ca.gov/ppeoc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Columbia Pacific University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpuniv.edu/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bppve.ca.gov/press_releases/cpuweb_dec2000.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cpuniv.edu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214640/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109084020/http://netnotes.altcpualumni.org/?page_id=8 to http://netnotes.altcpualumni.org/?page_id=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Columbia Pacific University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://requests.stanford.edu/requests/new?ckey=464506&current_loc=STACKS&home_lib=SAL3&home_loc=STACKS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101075845/http://www.fielding.edu/elc/faculty/jacobs.htm to http://www.fielding.edu/elc/faculty/jacobs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607230922/http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=74627 to http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=74627

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)