Talk:Susan Block

older notes from march 2007
This is in response to Knulclunk: I am the writer who originally posted the article on Susan Block which I believe you flagged for possible “deletion,” questioning its “notability” and “neutrality.” I am a professional journalist, but this is my first Wikipedia article. I tried to make the article as neutral and factual as possible, using “neutral language” such as I have seen in other Wikipedia articles. I wrote about a subject that is more “notable” than many of the subjects I have read about in Wikipedia, in terms of fame and contributions. Could you please be more specific about what the problems are? I would be happy to adjust whatever needs to be adjusted to make this article more “Wiki-friendly,” and I appreciate your help. Davidross1943 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Conflict of Interest" and "notability" tags. I think the article is better. Since I did not place the original NPOV tag, I'll leave that for another editor to review. The reference links help. You still may want to source "known for her bacchanalian celebrations"...  --Knulclunk 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Knulclunk. I have added a couple of outside sources (LA Weekly and AIN) for her bacchanalian celebrations. I am not sure which contributor flagged this article with "neutrality disputed." It could be Honorable, whom I just wrote to on his talk page, but I'm not sure. Still learning my way around the Wiki world, and I would appreciate it if whoever flagged it would let me know what I need to do to get the flag removed. Davidross1943 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

info on non-accrediation
Howdy. My addition of "a non-accredited "diploma mill"" was removed from the Susan Block article.

Pacific Western University is non-accredited, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University and according to Credential Watch: http://www.credentialwatch.org/non/us.shtml Quack Watch http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html and http://diplomamillnews.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html and most any other source you can find. (Except this is not mentioned on the school's site, or on Susan Block's site.)

I can see how "diploma mill" might be too "jargony" for Wikipedia, but is everyone cool with at least putting "a non-accredited school" after "Pacific Western University" in the Susan Block article?

Thank you, ElizaBarrington 10:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As Susan Block requests everyone call her "Dr." I think it's important that the article make clear that she has no accredited credentials to warrant the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Watkins (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

YEAR OF BIRTH
WAS LOOKING AT HER SKYPE PROFILE AND IT SAYS SHE WAS BORN IN 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.13.92 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no way. More like 1953-6 ish. Other paragraph shows accepted to Yale in '73 68.82.32.29 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1955. Connormah (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Self Written?
This whole thing reads like a puff piece written by a fan. No claims other than minor basics are sourced and the rest is decidedly POV. As a cite source tag has been on this article for a couple of months with no activity, I am planning on some judicious pruning per Wikipedia guidelines. Unless someone wants to give it a shot first? Any takers? 68.82.32.29 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

References, accuracy and relevance of information?
Where's the reference for this nomination of "Greatest American Thinker", apparently by some organization called the Great American Think Off - is this a notable organization? There's no WP entry for it, I found a website but couldn't find any reference to this Susan Block. The article tries to pass of Ms Block as an authority. I think that to have this apparent declaration, by an apparently amateaur organization, gives her a lot more weight as an authority that is due to her.

In addition, according to the article, she recieved both her MA and Phd from some unaccredited institution based in Hawai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University_%28Hawaii%29 "Pacific Western University (Hawaii) was not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by the United States Department of Education. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of PWU (Hawaii) degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions."

Again - this feeds in to my previous comment. Why is this not mentioned in the article or footnotes?

Apart from that I agree with the previous poster in that the article does sound like a self-PR job. It looks like nobodys interested enough in taking up the job of cleaing up the article properly, I'll therefore nominate it for deletion and or at least put a POV tag on the article.109.149.251.119 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At the time the degree was issued PWU was accredited by the state of California. Max Lobkowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B63:CE80:4167:E44:6A8B:AF39 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Updated image
OTRS received a professional image from the subject. I've taken the liberty of replacing the existing image with this improved one.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)