Talk:Pacific Western University/Archive 2

Neutral point of view and Verifiability
The material previously posted on the main page of this article included unsourced, defamatory and/or libelous information, including violations of WP:NPOV. I have stubbed and restarted the main article and archived the talk page. Please propose your changes/additions to the main article below, with verifiable citations. Further, please note that if you are either a supporter or critic of this institution, you nevertheless must present WP:V information. Make this article better by presenting valid factual information, not POV grinding. You are responsible for what you post, as always.--Brad Patrick 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Current owner
I sugggest that the following be added: "Pacific Western University is currently owned by chiropractor Steven Warfield." and it be cited from:

"Pacific Western's ... new owner, Florida-based chiropractor Steven Warfield" and

"Steven Warfield, D.C. / Chairman of the Board of Directors"

Hope to help. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (2nd citation added 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC))


 * This seems disconnected and not particularly relevant. It may be appropriate with more information about administration and management. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Degrees offered
I suggest that the following be changed:
 * Established in 1976, Pacific Western University initially offered Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts, Master of Science, and Ph.D. degrees in a wide range of fields.

be changed to:
 * Pacific Western University was established in February 1977. As of 2006, it offers Associate, Bachelor, and Masters degrees in Business Administration, and "General Studies", "Public Administration" and Leadership Management", respectively.

with the first sentence cited from:
 * "Pacific Western University was founded in February 1977"

and the second from:
 * and (Pages contain listed degree programs as section titles.)

You want specific citations? How's this? JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mill
I suggest that the following be added:
 * In 2004, Pacific Western University was listed in a United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on diploma mills; it was described as "award [ing] academic credits based on life experience and requir [ing] no classroom instruction" and "charg [ing] a flat fee for a degree".  The report also stated: "School representatives emphasized to our undercover investigator that they are not in the business of providing, and do not permit students to enroll for, individual courses or training."

and cited from:
 * "three schools that award academic credits based on life experience and require no classroom instruction: ... and Pacific Western University (Los Angeles, California). These schools each charge a flat fee for a degree. ... School representatives emphasized to our undercover investigator that they are not in the business of providing, and do not permit students to enroll for, individual courses or training."

I look forward to any suggestions regarding this passage. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on reading the website, they appear to currently require some form of instruction and examination, and certainly there is an effort to portray the school as being under new administration and having a new academic program. So, it is reasonable that the descriptions in that report are no longer accurate. Therefore, at a minimum this passage would also need some sort of statement from a school official saying that they do in fact instruct and require work from students, or that they have made changes to their academic program; at a maximum there could be, though unlikely, some source that reports on such changes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a more recent report on these problems would work as well. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the above information. In addition I propose the following FACTS be added to the article. Bill Huffman 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On May 9, 2006 the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii entered a Default and Final Judgment Against Defendant Pacific Western University (Hawaii), Inc. Pacific Western University (Hawaii) is also known as American PacWest International University or APIU. The judgment has not been appealed and is in full force and effect.


 * Under the terms of the judgment, the court imposed a civil penalty of $500,000 against PWU (Hawaii).


 * The court also voided any contracts or agreements between PWU (Hawaii) and its students unless the students subsequently ratify such contracts in writing. The judgment also requires PWU (Hawaii) to pay restitution of any tuition or fees it collected from March 29, 2001 through March 20, 2006 unless the student or graduate subsequently ratifies the contracts under which their payments were made in writing.


 * The judgment also directed the state to dissolve PWU (Hawaii) corporate status and such is in process.


 * The judgment also prohibits PWU (Hawaii) from further violating Hawaii law; accepting any further payments or issuing any degrees until it satisfies the restitution and civil penalties; transferring or disposing of any assets; and maintaining its various websites.


 * The State is currently attempting to discern whether Pacific Western University has any assets within the state which could be attached or garnished to satisfy the judgment.


 * The judgment can be found online.


 * JE Brunton Consumer Protection Staff Attorney for the state of Hawaii

Bill Huffman 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Over and out
For sanity and because it was primarily a version of the page which I had worked towards which was described as "unsourced, defamatory and/or libelous," I'm stepping away from participation in this article and talk page, at minumum until BradPatrick helps me understand when I went wrong. I don't think this is a big deal, it will hopefully let me work on more important things, and JesseW seems to have adopted the page anyway, which is a good thing. The only reason I mention it is that there's at least one unresolved matter from the old talk page (second to last item). I quote myself: "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'." Ironically, therefore, the only sentence I know to be "unsourced, defamatory, and/or libelous" from the old page is the first sentence, which remains in the current article. The clause "with branch campuses in Tokyo, Japan, Hong Kong, Taipei, Taiwan and Hanoi, Vietnam" should probably be removed from that sentence. - Sirmob 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting
Could someone please sort this article into a more suitable stub category? I would recommend the use of US-west-university-stub. --Stemonitis 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional information for inclusion in the article
It's important to note that Pacific Western University has never been accredited by any of the nationally recognized accrediting agencies in the United States.

Because Pacific Western is not accredited by any regional accreditation organization approved by the U.S. Department of Education, the school’s degrees have been ruled as inadequate credentials for certain jobs by state officials in New Jersey and Michigan. Several other states have laws specifically prohibiting the use of unaccredited degrees in seeking civil service employment; Washington even makes the use of such a degree a gross misdemeanor.

In 1997, the State of Hawaii successfully sued the school for engagin deceptive business practices by falsely advertising its programs as officially authorized by the state. The school was forced to restrict its activities in Hawaii and pay a $10,000 fine. In 2006, the State again sued PWU, this time for broader list of deceptive practices; PWU was fined $500,000 and enjoined from engaging in a list of various activities.

Pacific Western University was specifically mentioned in testimony (1, 2, 3) before the U.S. Congress on diploma mills and unaccredited schools by the head of the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Office of Special Investigations.

References: “DIPLOMA MILLS: Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools, Some at Government Expense”: Statement of Robert J. Cramer, Managing Director Office of Special Investigations for the United States General Accounting Office in testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affair of the U.S. Senate “DIPLOMA MILLS: Diploma Mills Are Easily Created and Some Have Issued Bogus Degrees to Federal Employees at Government Expense”: Statement of Robert J. Cramer, Managing Director Office of Special Investigations for the United States General Accounting Office in testimony before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 September 2006.

Under what circumstances can this article be revised?
I stumbled across this article tonight and was startled to see that the school's problems had been expurgated from the article at which point the article was locked down with further changes prevented. I'm not sure what the process is here to change this. I note that Wikipedia's lawyer did this -- was there a legal problem of some sort?

I have prepared a draft re-write on one of my user subpages -- feel free to review and comment. --A. B. 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been carefully adding a few sourced things, with a critical eye to neutrality. See if you can resolve any of my queries above. Based on the course of action Brad took, I think that a representative of the school contacted Wikimedia about biased, unsourced negative information; it could possibly have been a potential legal problem, but regardless articles about living persons, current companies, etc. need to be carefully written and carefully sourced. Also, based on perusing the school's webpage and the various text here and there, it looks like the school is now owned by different people who are trying to change its image and the quality of the school; see above under section "Diploma mill". Also, look at the page history to see what was there before and objected to. I will look over this new stuff soon. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mention in the talk page of A. B.'s draft, there is a fair bit of sourced negative information that I think it's important to include. For example, that the State of Texas still lists it as a "fraudulent or substandard institution". Reading news reports and the like about the school, this stub gives something that's pretty far from what I'd call an NPOV view. I think we should at least include the word "unaccredited" and the mention that in Texas it's illegal to use a PWU degree for many of the common purposes of degrees, including to get a job, a raise, or admission to another educational institution. . William Pietri 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, additional info:
 * Requests for page protection - my request to replace protected stub with my draft article at User:A. B./Draft Articles
 * My earlier exchange with Brad Patrick: 1, 2
 * --A. B. 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This school is an unaccredited, fee-for-degree school
Not sure why there's any question about this place. It's known to be a diploma mill as they sell degrees for money based on "life experience." It's appeared in Congressional testimony as fraudulent. It's on numerous state watch lists as fraudulent. You have the aforementioned Australian judge under fire for having a degree from here. You have Barry McSweeney, the Irish government's chief science adviser, who was fired after it was revealed he had his "doctorate" from this institution. If they're legit, then I'm Milton Berle. Skurczysyn 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but we'd need sources. I have added unaccredited for now, as this is verifiable. Guy 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help
To get this article out of its stub status, I wrote a replacement draft and I have been trying to move things forward for a number of weeks. Please refer to the following:


 * User:A. B./Draft Articles
 * Requests for page protection
 * My earlier exchange with Brad Patrick:
 * User talk:BradPatrick/Archive 3
 * User talk:A._B.

As you can see, my request for temporary unprotection was postponed pending apparent lack of consensus on this talk page. Can you please review my draft article, note any necessary changes here and also note whether you think this material should replace the existing article?

I don't claim to be a graceful or eloquent writer, so feel free to make minor edits for grammar, style and spelling. However, I would prefer any substantive changes be discussed here first. The goal is to get something mutually acceptable and factual into Wikipedia to replace the existing stub.

If you read my eaerlier talk page comments above, I have tried to hit the main points in an NPOV way. I have also tried to avoid "piling on" with excessive negatives, especially from the college's deeper past. (See WP:NPOV for a discussion of how many small neutral edits can be combined to convey an overall POV message).

I understand others would like to add more material, but if it isn't required for balance or NPOV, I suggest that we leave it for later -- when there's actually a real article to discuss.

Thanks, --A. B. 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the note, I unwatched this page for my own sanity's sake. I think the replacement article is great, except for the lead - as I said on the talk page above, I don't know of any evidence that they're in Vietnam and all those other places. However, except for your lead, I think your revised article does a fantastic job. Sirmob 08:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi AB - well it is certainly headed in the right direction, but to really "there", it will need the history of how PWU started, and a discussion of how it became the most recognized and vilified of ALL the uncertified DL institutions flourishing at the same time. At one time (before I found Wiki), I had found online articles regarding both issues, but now I am having the devil of a time relocating them. This is the problem - that PWU was so vilified, treated as though they and they alone stood on the pinnacle of shame, that there is no balance in what is generally written about them and the vital history of the institution is virtually hidden from sight, by design.

In order to have a truly NPOV and a good wiki article, these components must be tracked down and written up. Any decent online search bring up hundreds of university professors with PWU degrees in their CVs - but they are still teaching and being paid because they are thoroughly competent in their fields.

It also needs to be made clear that uncerified is not synonymous with fraudulent. When any college or universtiy starts up, they are not immediately certified, no matter how many books and professors they have. It is an arduous process and it usually takes several years and the students attending just have to hope that the school gets certified so their degrees are worth something.

Some of the things necessary for the article is a list of degrees that were offered at representative times, the cost of the courses and/or degrees, how quickly a person could progress through the program, and if dissertation was always required of the PhD candidate. Also, it would be essential, in the article's final form, to know more about their typical students, how many they had total, where they came from-- the total demographic picture.

No, I'm not saying that You have to find and record all these things - I am mostly "going through the list" to have it down in black and white for those who come later to have is a template, a beacon in the distance. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brad. See also my comments above in this talk page. Suppose that the new ownership has indeed revamped the school and the former problems are no longer present or significant. Someone reading that draft article would not get an accurate impression. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Centrx. You want to know one of the things I found in one of the Googled sources I have now misplaced?  That is was 2 grads who started PWU -- two grads of an Ivy League.  I think it was Harvard, but it may have been Yale.  It was definitely one of those.  Two young men with a big idea.  I want to know who they were, what their initial ideas they had, if they just saw it as a helpful mission but just got in over their heads.  Or could it have plausibly have been a way to make them some pocket change? When they sold out, what did they make?  Who did they sell to?


 * I want to know the number and nature of the very first profs were, how much they really did in terms of supervision of studies and rigourous critical review of the disserations submitted. I want to know what types of degrees they originally offered and when and why they branched out.


 * Very serious reasonable distance learning institutions emphasize business degrees as they are the easiest to learn without classroom participation. This is true of every legitimate online (DL) college.  Another popular offering is in education to boost teacher earnings and to enhance the climb up the ladder to school principal.


 * I looked at PWU a few years ago and it seemed as disreputable as the other scammy "colleges" I found online. But this month, I found them limited to only 3(?) academic paths and all of sensible and do-able, and even an associate degree.   Frankly, I was surprised.  My thought was, why would someone work at building a legitimate school, yet saddle themselves with a name that makes people foam at the mouth. :o)  So many mysteries!! And I want to know them ALL! --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for A. B. to pass the torch
Thanks for the response above, Centrx, regarding the draft article I had prepared on my user subpage. I understand you and Brad would like to see more positives in the article, especially now that there's a new administration. And I'm certainly sympathetic. But you guys have also got a set of rules that require me to only write verifiable, encyclopedic stuff. And the new administration hasn't generated any of that (yet). No positive press coverage. No accreditation. No nothing. Trust me -- if there were verifiable good news out of PWU, I'd have put it in so as to move the article forward. But there isn't. I did a Google news search just a few days ago and there was still nothing. Nada. If you have something I haven't found and you'd rather put it in yourself, go for it. I don't own the PWU article. In the meantime, however, there is no good news that I can find from independent sources for PWU -- just fines, state bans on diplomas, etc. I suppose we could include all the happy talk PR stuff from their web site, but isn't PR fluff unencyclopedic?

It's taken a while to see the pattern but I've slowly caught on; this effort's going nowhere. Perhaps it's the threat of a lawsuit -- I can't think of anything else about this article that would have admins and the Foundation so transfixed. I could just watch that article's listing on the Current requests for significant edits to a protected page list on the Requests for page protection page sit there, unprocessed as all the other articles on that page were processed for protection or unprotection. I could tell there was a reason of some sort that admins were avoiding dealing with it. Finally after 5 days, there was a vague go-get-more-consensus response. The very wishy-washy way that Brad Patrick had responded earlier to my queries about the article seemed odd, too.

In any event, whatever the case may be, I'm about to wash my hands of the whole thing if nobody wants to move this ball forward. I'm a volunteer editor. I spent several hours on a topic I really don't care much about just to be helpful. I had seen an edit war followed by a POV stub (Brad Patrick had censored out the very essential fact that this was an unaccredited school). I decided to step in and see if I could develop something encyclopedic (I'm confident that I did). I then spent several hours trying to get some consensus from other editors (most of whom thought my draft was too watered down) and trying to get some approval from Brad Patrick and the admin community to move forward. Either approval or else specific feedback on what to add/delete to get approval. Since I now don't see how to fix the article to get the necessary approval (without gutting the whole thing back to the POV stub Brad left), I don't see much value I can add. I'll leave the draft article here for a few weeks, but then it should really move out of my user page space or else get deleted. --A. B. 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi AB. Hey, I sure didn't want you to feel that I (or anyone here for that matter) didn't appreciate what you have done - which has all the qualities of a more than adequate beginning article for PWU and Wiki.  I didn't mean to diss your article with all my suggestions for the future as information is unconvered.  I had no idea that there had been so many difficulties with edit wars, but I certainly do not find it NPOV to mention that it is not now and has never been certified by any valid educational organization.  I didn't realize there had been this sort of problem in the past.  The legal difficulties and the  vilification associated with the PWU being scapegoated is significant in any article talking about PWU.
 * How do we (I) (anyone) go about getting admins to look over what you have written and to accept it? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you at all, Kiwi. I was not responding to you but rather commenting on the reluctance of the "powers that be" to "lead, follow or get out of the way". I really couldn't believe what I was seeing at first and then later I didn't want to believe it. Finally I just decided I was naively tilting at windmills. The more Wikipedia tries to make PWU look good, the worse it makes itself look. It's a little disappointing but then if I put things in perspective, an article about PWU is pretty unimportant in the larger scheme of things overall where Wikipedia and its staff (Brad), admins (Centrx) and volunteers are pouring a lot of themselves to provide something of real value to the world.


 * To answer your question, I'm not optimistic there is anything you can do to finesse the situation. For the Wikipolitical background, see the stuff I wrote above in other sections of this talk page (1, 2) as well as the links to other efforts I've made. See also the comment I received on my talk page after I wrote the above.


 * In any event, I may be wrong and I hope I am. So if I can help you or that nebulous cloud of conscientious, hardworking, good faith "powers that be" that I was so temporarily vexed with a few hours back, please let me know. I'm just not willing to put any more of my own time into researching more sources for this subject. As I see it, the story is almost a sort of tar baby (I mean that in the metaphorical sense, not the racist sense) for editors.


 * As a first step, you may want to move or copy the article to a subpage of your own. --A. B. 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've now put your draft in. I hadn't commented earlier only because I didn't have anything better to say - the draft looked good to me, I didn't know what the legal situation was, if any. It wasn't obstrutionism, it was merely us not having any better idea what else to do, as well. But, in any case, the draft is in there now (and the page is unprotected). Please don't think your work is unapreciated; it's just that, in these cases, long waits, for no good reason, are typical. I wish it could be better, but I don't know how that would be. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, JesseW! I can be patient if I know something's going to happen -- I just thought maybe it wasn't.


 * I still intend to stop working on this article, since I feel the job I set out to do -- fix an odd, embarrassing, POV hole in Wikipedia -- is done for now. I'm confident the others that have looked at the article in the last month or two will build and maintain something fair and encyclopedic. I've been overextended, Wikipedia-wise, recently and this project's outside my usual scope. --A. B. 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Change lead
Thank you JessieW for restoring the article, hopefully it will fare better this go-round. Since I was the last editor before the article was POVstubbed I plan to be very careful in the future, and wanted to make sure I talk-paged this change (deletion, actually) to the lead of the article. Currently, the article begins:


 * Pacific Western University is a distance learning university located in San Diego, California with branch campuses in Tokyo, Japan, Hong Kong, Taipei, Taiwan and Hanoi, Vietnam. The university offers associate, bachelor and masters degrees; it no longer offers doctorate degrees.

I claim it should begin:


 * Pacific Western University is a distance learning university located in San Diego, California. The university offers associate, bachelor and masters degrees; it no longer offers doctorate degrees.

This changes no words, only removes the branch campuses clause, which seems to be consistant with the footnote at that says that Pacific Western is in California and nowhere else. Can I get comments on this change from everyone? Sirmob 07:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur -- sounds like the right change to make. At some point, there should be a note about the new management, also. The challenge I had was that the only reference I had to that was an Australian article, "Call Girl Enters Fray", about the big, mostly unrelated Einfeld scandal in Australia. Since so much of the article had nothing to do with PWU, just a sordid scandal, I was waiting to see if a less sensational reference turned up. Perhaps the school's own web site says something now (I'm wary of quoting something overly PR but I think it's reasonable to note a factoid like that, citing the school. --A. B. 10:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This raises the question of how the Hawaiian legal problem fits into this. I think anything that occurred so recently should be mentioned, but it might call for a comment such as "formerly had a campus in Hawaii ..." in the section that talks about those problems. At one point, there was a version of the article denying the two PWUs were even connected. I'm skeptical of that, but it should be researched. Even if it's true, there should still be a reference "A different school, also named PWU, has encountered ...". For that matter, if they spun off this operation, the whole spin-off needs some attention.


 * I think there's still useful material to be gleaned from researching encyclopedic sources as AKiwi noted. Also, stepping through the article's history may turn up some additional useful references lost amidst the edit wars.


 * Anyway, as noted, I'm off to work on other priorities, but I very much appreciate the NPOV, conscientious support this article has gotten in the last 2 months.--A. B. 10:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yipes! There *ARE* two!
"Degrees issued by the former Pacific Western University in Hawaii are not from the same entity as the current PWU of California. Employers should verify which entity issued any PWU degree." .

I think in light of this information we should take out the whole "Controversey" section and add a new sentence to the end of "Accrediation Status" that says


 * A Hawaiian company named Pacific Western University was sued in 1997 and again in 2006  for engaging in deceptive business practices by falsely advertising its programs as officially authorized by the state. According to the State of Oregon, this school is not affiliated with the Pacific Western University in California.

Ultimately, it seems like there needs to be a separate page on Pacific Western University in Hawaii... Egads, I wonder which one the congressional reports were talking about, and which one Einfeld graduated from! Sirmob 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard any response to this - I'm going to make the change, so that the article is not containing what, if this Oregon state government page is to believed, is misleading information.

The story is that when Califonia strengthened their anti-diploma mill laws years ago, they got rid of the non-approved category. PWU then got approval for their Business Administration program and moved all other programs to Hawaii, which had very lax laws. It was the same company run by the same people. You could call the California branch and get verification for the degrees bestowed from the Hawaii branch so it appeared that you had a California approved degree when in fact you did not. Then the business was sold. Then the Hawaii ruling came down but I'm not sure which of the last two things happened first since I'm not sure when PWU was sold. Also of note, a news journalist from an LA TV station visited the California campus in LA undercover and basically proved that PWU was nothing more than a diploma mill. Bill Huffman 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops!
My edit here unfortunately included a mistaken delete of what I thought was an unsourced claim. The link I added ends with the same numbers and I didn't notice that the other numbers were different. I thus thought I had the same article, and it didn't support the claim, so I deleted it. My bad. I see that it has now been restored as it should be. My apologies. It was an honest mistake. -- Fyslee 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Losing focus
My edits here are intended to place things in chronological order, with more complete statements, but....

The problem is that the sentence that started this whole line of thought is about Einfeld, and only tangentially about PWU. My additions only continue on that tangent, and that is problematic. The focus is off-base.

The Controversy section needs to deal with the historical record of controversies related to its diploma mill status. There are no doubt many other quotes providing opinions about that matter. The only parts of the Einfeld portions there now should be limited to those quotes, for example:

Pacific Western University was specifically mentioned in 2004 testimony (1, 2, 3) before the U.S. Congress on diploma mills and unaccredited schools by the head of the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Office of Special Investigations.

Controversy surrounding Australian judge and social activist Marcus Einfeld has drawn attention to Einfeld's Ph.D. degree from Pacific Western University with some Australian media outlets questioning the validity of the degree:

PWU claims it is attempting "to rise above claims it was a 'diploma mill' in the past and become an accredited academic institution":


 * Pacific Western president Ronald Detrick admitted the university's chequered history was a stumbling block in its efforts to win federal accreditation. He said Pacific Western's reputation was so bad that he recommended to the new owner, Florida-based chiropractor Steven Warfield, that it be closed down.

Doctorates given by PWU have "been pilloried because of Pacific Western's reputation as a 'diploma mill' where, for the right price, academic credits are awarded for 'life experience' without any study being done."


 * "In 2004, Pacific Western University was named in Congress as one the worst 'diploma mills' in the US."

Notable alumni
A new section (Notorious graduates (?)) could be started to deal with the individuals who have caused problems because of their bogus degrees, or who have been caught misusing their bogus degrees to gain an unfair and unethical advantage in various situations. Einfeld could be one of those placed in that section. -- Fyslee 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was preparing the new draft, I actually read the Congressional testimony. PWU was mentioned in a report that discussed both unaccredited schools in general and diploma mills in particular; PWU was not characterized as a diploma mill. I think the Australian has somewhat distorted the testimony, so I don't think we should add their comment re: "named in Congress as one the worst 'diploma mills' in the US". See the in-line links that I left in the article; they'll take you to the actual testimony.


 * I'm not aware of any other school with a notorious graduates section and I suggest we hold off for now. Otherwise, we should probably also start one for Princeton University, starting with with Aaron Burr and Ivan Boesky. --A. B. 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Notable alumni" is a standard section for colleges. It's a catch-all that could certainly include the famous and the infamous. -Will Beback 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see Will noticed by question mark after the suggested title. (A smiley would have made my sarcasm even more noticable. Of course it's a POV title and "Notable alumni" is the usual choice. Since the school has a controversial history, it would be interesting to check out the history of some of its more notable alumni. Einfeld is just one of them. What makes such alumni vulnerable for a "notorius" status is the very reason they sought a degree from a degree mill in the first place, which is a reflection on their character and tendency to seek shortcuts, including unethical ones. -- Fyslee 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is a bit troubling to read. Why are we writing this article? Is it to "debunk" or "expose" PWU? Or are we just writing an encyclopedia article? I don't think we should be looking for ways to "out" PWU diploma holders or stick it to PWU. We're just here to write a NPOV encyclopedia article. I was bothered when the article was cut back to a stub glossing over PWU's problems; I'm going to get just as troubled if this turns into a "pile-on" PWU article. And that's leaving aside the matter of whether this article goes back to a stub if its editors are seen as going on an anti-PWU crusade. --A. B. 03:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I really don't like the "Notable Alumni" section that only includes the controversey over Einfeld. I think I'm currently of the opinion that the Einfeld controversey is its own topic that belongs in its own article, not here. The thinking behind this is that the Einfeld controversey doesn't shead any light (to me) about PWU and it's mostly notable on its own right (controversey on this guy led to questions about his diploma status) - the fact that the diploma from PWU seems almost tangential. Sirmob 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The school insists they have no record of Einfeld holding a PWU diploma. This is an article about PWU, not Einfeld. --A. B. 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

More information about Einfeld and PWU can be found in this interesting search. -- Fyslee 10:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Australian did not always get its facts right. For instance, as I noted, they said Congressional testimony characterized PWU as a "diploma mill"; it did not. They also said had something about the American Bar Association not accrediting PWU, but PWU has never claimed to offer law degrees; Einfeld was claiming some sort of law degree from another American unaccredited school. I don't know if this newspaper was sloppy or just busy POV-pushing anyway it could regarding Einfeld.

Another notable alumni falls victim to his degree

"Kent County Levy Court Commissioner Donald A. Blakey’s doctoral degree from an institution labeled a diploma mill by congressional investigators has become an issue in Blakey’s race for the 34th District House seat against Democrat M. Jeanine Kleimo." -- Fyslee 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh. That should probably be thrown in the article, though probably with the actual news source like this one instead of the blog . It doesn't seem like Blakey or Kleimo have articles - can someone prove me wrong on this? Sirmob 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, another newspaper, in this case the Delaware News-Journal, did not read the actual congressional testimony (1, 2, 3). The investigators' report did not accuse PWU of being a "diploma mill". It covered all unaccredited colleges and was not just limited to diploma mills. The testimony is in the links I just added above. --A. B. 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss changes here first
This article has a sufficiently troubled history that I suggest we all discuss any proposed changes here first. I just reverted the most recent changes -- I'm not saying they were good or bad but they constituted a 50% expansion of the article. Maybe we'll want to keep them, but given how long it took to get just to where we are, I think we should discuss them first. --A. B. 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict! I see Fyslee laid out a long discussion above as I was writing the above. sorry ....

Changing back recent changes
I'm changing back JzG's changes based on the need for changes to be deliberated carefully here first. I put these in bullet points to make it easier to discuss them separately. Sirmob 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead was changed per precedent - I'm not certain what that precedent was/is.
 * The 'has approval' was changed to 'claims "approval"' - but the university does, in fact, have approval from the BPPVE, it's not a claim. It is certainly qualified approval, but we go into detail about that.
 * "and has no academic status" was added - is there a citation that can clarify/back up that line?
 * Precedent is that the template unaccredited is substed in the lead for unaccredited colleges, because it is of such importance. You will see it in many of them.  The term "claims approval" is because the approval has no academic status; it should either be removed from the discussion of academic accreditation or be qualified.  Guy 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't realize that you'd substituted in a template there, if that is generally in leads for unaccredited schools then it should be here. As for the "has approval" vs. "claims approval" - I personally think that is substantially qualified by the rest of the paragraph. But to say that the approval has "no academic status" is a claim that needs a citation; the BBPPVE says it "establishes educational standards that are intended to serve as the minimum standard for instructional quality and institutional stability for private postsecondary schools in California" . Obviously this is not accrediation, but the article already seems to say that very clearly.
 * I guess what I'm looking for here is someone saying in a verifiable source something like "the BBPPVE is a problem because it doesn't mean anything if it approves a school, their approval has no academic status" - given this hypothetical source I would agree with the inclusion of the phrase "no academic status." On the other hand, perhaps the problem is just the name of the section. Maybe we should put a different section heading over the other paragraph, something like "state regulation," so that it doesn't fall under the section on "Accrediation status"? Sirmob 04:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Congress race
Kent County Levy Court Commissioner Donald A. Blakey’s doctoral degree from an institution labeled a diploma mill by congressional investigators has become an issue in Blakey’s race for the 34th District House seat against Democrat M. Jeanine Kleimo.

Kleimo says it is a “misrepresentation” for Blakey to tout his doctoral degree from Pacific Western University, a nonaccredited institution now owned by a Florida chiropractor.

This should be included. Arbusto 07:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited
I have asked Danny for approval to reinsert the unaccredited template, since that is a neutral statement of the verifiable fact that this is not an accredited institution. Right now the stub fails to give probably the single most important fact about the institution, at least as measured from external coverage. Guy 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag
Any problems with this being dated? Rich Farmbrough, 23:02 3 December 2006 (GMT).
 * I`m not sure what the point of "please help cleanup" tags is on an office protected page. Almost no one is supposed to edit office-protected pages anyways,so why ask people to help add refrences? 24.20.69.240 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonaccredited
Not sure why this article has been on such lockdown for almost four months, but there are plenty of citations that the California-based PWU was unaccredited:

"Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school in Los Angeles."

Associated Press (July 24, 1987) Columnist Investigated By New York Officials.

See also:

Staff report (August 31, 1994). California Trying to Close Worthless-Diploma Schools. New York Times

Some editors have compiled well-sourced reliable citations for PWU's accreditation status. Any chance we can incorporate some of that this year? Can we also remove the NPOV and unreferenced tags? There's nothing in that which violates NPOV. Jokestress 17:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. My opinion is that having an article for PWU on WP and NOT mentioning that it is unaccredited is misleading and could serve to deceive potential students that come to Wikipedia to investigate PWU before enrolling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Huffman (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Updated listing
Their Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education listing was updated on 13 December and states:

Institution Data Updated:12/13/2006 School Name: PACIFIC WESTERN UNIVERSITY Telephone: (310) 446-5503 School Code: 1927881 County: San Diego Mailing Address: 9750 Miramar Road, Suite 180 San Diego, CA&nbsp92126 Physical Address: 9750 Miramar Road, Suite 180 San Diego, CA&nbsp92126

The regulated programs listed below are evaluated as Degree granting programs (as defined by Article 8 of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act), OR Non-Degree granting programs (as defined by Article 6,7 and Article 9 of the Reform Act), OR Registered programs (as defined by Article 9.5 of the Reform Act.), OR Religious Exempt programs (as defined by Section 94739 (b) (6) of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act.) Please contact the BPPVE if further clarification is required.

CURRENTLY APPROVED/REGISTERED/RELIGIOUS EXEMPT PROGRAMS: (If no programs are listed below, please contact the school for a current catalog of BPPVE-approved and BPPVE-registered programs.) AS BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AS GENERAL STUDIES BS BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MS LEADERSHIP MANAGEMENT PHD BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

We can certainly note that they have been unaccredited in the past and have been the subject of discussion in diploma mill hearings. Jokestress 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked this in the CHEA database yesterday, it's still not listed. Some unaccredited schools have listings with the local vocational bodies, which are essentially directory listings with little or no quality assurance included.  We also have numerous press reports of people being disciplined due to claiming degrees from PWU, with the place specifically identified as unaccredited.  Can you link the entry in the authoritative CHEA accreditation database, or the database of a recognised accreditation association?  Transition from being identified as a diploma mill to being accredited seems implausible; an error in the screening process of a single vocational education group is more likely. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The info above was found after I looked through their brochure and prospectus, where they promote the above information as evidence of their validity (they do not say they are accredited in the materials I was able to find). I'd like to add the earlier citations I put on this page showing they were not accredited in 1987 and 1994 according to reliable sources. Given their past actions, I am sure that if they were accredited, it would be on the front page of all their promotional materials. Still, we can only go on what we can find. Jokestress 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is much better that the article now tells the truth about the unaccredited status of PWU. I would like to see the reference to being established in 1977 be removed. If that statement stays then I reason that the WHOLE history of PWU needs to be mentioned as well, e.g., being closed down in Hawaii, all degrees apparently illegal except business administration, being called a diploma mill by many people in authority, KTLA article showing PWU to be a diploma mill, etc.. Bill Huffman 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a search on Office of Postsecondary Education database says "There are 0 institution and campus with a institution name containing pacific western university. No Records Returned." This and the CHEA non-listing could be added to the article: "As of 14 December 2006, PWU has no listing on the CHEA or OPE databases." Then link the sites for verification per WP:V and WP:RS. Jokestress 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement that PWU is unaccredited already implies that it won't be found in the list of accredited schools. Although I do know of one example where they somehow had an unaccredited school in the above list of accredited schools, at least for a short time. :-) Bill Huffman 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The CHEA site has about a million caveats about ther listings, including a few statements about listing being voluntary and some accredited schools choose not to be listed. For that reason, I believe we should be careful to note that PWU is not listed anywhere and have provided no evidence that they are listed with any accrediting body. That's different in a legal sense than saying they are unaccredited. We need to say there is no evidence they are accredited if someone is being a stickler and threatening litigation. Proving a negative is always a tricky issue in journalism. All evidence points to their not being accredited, but unless we have a recent reliable source stating they are not accredited, we are engaging in original research. Jokestress 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PWU is UNACCREDITED! CPPVE approved the business admistration program of PWU (since changed to BPPVE). BPPVE does not approve accredited institutions. Read some of the other sections of this talk page. The state of Hawaii closed down that branch of PWU because it failed even the very weak anti-diploma mill laws in Hawaii. I strongly disagree with the with the idea that they might be accredited. It doesn't make any sense. You have no evidence supporting this statement that they might be accredited. PWU is UNACCREDITED! Regards, Bill Huffman 06:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are in complete agreement that this article needs to have a discussion of their accreditation status. If I were making a wager, I'd bet good money they are unaccredited. However, we do not have a published source that says they are "unaccredited" (that exact word) as of 2006. We have 1987. We have 1994. We do not have 2006. As I said before, it's very easy to prove someone is accredited, but it's not as easy to prove someone is unaccredited. See the enormous series of caveats here. All these databases warn that their information may not be complete. Because the claim that they are unaccredited is potentially libellous, we can only repeat what other published sources say. I'll look for a recent source for "unaccredited," and maybe others can, too. Jokestress 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These links may help you:
 * School accreditation
 * Regional accreditation
 * Western Association of Schools and Colleges Wikipedia article
 * Western Association of Schools and Colleges website List of Accredited Institutions Of Higher Education -- Senior Colleges And And Universities
 * --A. B. (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey-dokey, I added links to the DHEA and USDE sites as refs, which should clear that up; I also added a brief comment re the unconnected school in Hawaii. Now for the tricky bit.  I propose adding the following:
 * Pacific Western University of Los Angeles, California co-operated in an investigation by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) into degrees paid for out of federal funds from unaccredited universities and diploma mills; in the testimony of GAO's Managing Director (, page 3, revised September 2004, page 3) PWU was identified as an unaccredited institution offering degrees in return for a flat fee.
 * The question: is that absolutely unassailably neutral? If not, I'm not adding it! The connection with the GAO report is self-evidently notable, it's the source of almost all media coverage of the institution that I can find, but it's important to note that GAO does not identify PWU by name as a diploma mill, merely as an example of an unaccredited school of a type it categorises as including diploma mills, offering degrees of a type which is classes generically as worthless. It's mentioned in diploma mill so i think it should probably be mentioned here as well. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your care with the diploma mill allegations -- I noticed earlier that the press had misrepresented the GAO report (and noted it on the talk page). If PWU was not called a diploma mill, consider removing it from the diploma mill article. --A. B. (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessarily an imperative, as long as we get the context right; the report discusses diploma mills and names PWU. But we should ensure that PWU is not asserted to be a diploma mill based on this source, it should be named only as an unaccredited school which co-operated with the investigation, which I think ultimately stands to their credit.  The problem here is that the sources for what ''is;; considered a diploma mill are not necessarily reliable, many rely on precisely the same misunderstanding, and others are actually referring to the Hawaii school.  That's why I think it's important to get this article right, because we should be seen to be fair and accurate. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PWU is unaccreditted. This is documented in Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, John Bear, Ph.D. and Mariah Bear. It is discussed on http://www.degreeinfo.com and http://www.degreediscussion.com. There is no doubt that PWU is unaccredited. There is no doubt that PWU (Hawaii) and PWU (California) had the same ownership. This too is documented in Bears' Guide and discussed numerous times on the distance learning forums that I referenced. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We know that, but we need to be able to attribute it accurately and unassailably. So: cite the page and ISBN reference for the statement that they had common ownership, and in it goes.  I have corresponded on the mailing list about this, Jimbo has said that the plan is that we should make the article a masterpiece, so let's do that, piece by piece, with a strong citation for every statement which might be contended.  Guy (Help!) 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)