Talk:Preston University (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why "Preston"?

Why is it called "Preston University" if it is not connected with any geographical place called Preston? A sentence in the article to explain this would help. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Any relation to Preston University of Pakistan?

Is Preston University related in any way to the same named school in Pakistan? http://www.prestonpak.edu.pk/ Piercetp (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Preston University, the ODA, Maine, Michigan, etc. the answer is yes. TallMagic (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might mention this in the article. Piercetp (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that the sentence,

"In 2001, Jerry Haenisch, a Preston official, told the Chronicle of Higher Education that Preston had 30 "affiliated" campuses in 19 countries and about 8,000 students, mostly in Pakistan."

covered it? Actually I was tempted to try to delete the Preston University Pakistan article but, decided it was almost as good to just try to fix it. Anyway, WNU now says that they don't suggest finishing WNU degrees at Preston. Does anyone happen to know if Preston will still provide school registrar services for WNU? TallMagic (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Preston University Ajman? —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 21:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also yes according to the same set of sources, e.g., http://www.preston.ae/affiliation.php TallMagic (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

General discussion of accreditation

The following was recently added to the article.

• <quote>It is nonetheless useful to note that the American Council of Trustees and Alumni undertook an investigation of the accreditation system and concluded that "accreditation has not served to ensure quality, has not protected the curriculum from serious degradation, and gives students, parents, and public decision makers almost no useful information about institutions of higher learning" <-ref-> [1]Can college accreditation live up to its promise?<-/ref->. </quote>

I reverted it because from my point of view a general discussion of accreditation does not really belong in this article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that the above (which shows that accredited schools do not necessarily provide quality education) looks like a general discussion of accreditation and does not belong to this article. But then, how do you explain that the following sentences of the last paragraph (which also look general in relation to all unaccredited universities and not necessarily Preston only) belong to this article:

The use of unaccredited degree titles may be legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[18] Jurisdictions that have restricted or made illegal the use of credentials from unaccredited schools include Oregon,[19] [20] Michigan,[21] Maine,[22] North Dakota,[20] New Jersey,[20][23] Washington,[19] [24] Nevada,[19][25] Illinois,[19] Indiana,[19] Texas[26][27] and Korea.[28] Many other states are also considering restrictions on the use of degrees from unaccredited institutions. [29]

Yashnv (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Yashnv

Hi Yashnv, IIRC, Preston University is mentioned by name in the Oregon, Michigan, Maine, Texas, and Korea references. North Dakota, New Jersey, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, and Indiana also have laws that may carry restrictions for the use of Preston University degrees, as indicated by the references given for each of those states. I believe that this is notable and relevant information for the article. It refers to the utility of Preston University degrees in those jurisdictions based simply on the fact that Preston University is not accredited by an agency recognized by CHEA or the USDE. It is not discussing the educational value of a Preston University degree. If it was referring to the educational value of a Preston University degree based on the unaccredited status, then I believe there would be a stronger case that a general discussion of accreditation would be notable in the article. Instead it is referring strictly to the utility of a Preston University due to laws in those jurisdictions. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

New investigative piece on Preston University

Here's a new interesting piece with some information that should go into the article.

http://www.cheyenneherald.com/_pdf/April%202009/Preston%27s%20new%20location%20in%20LA%20-%203.pdf

I'll get to it in the next few days unless someone else beats me to it. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we make sure that everything that is being written by journalists is true? Are such articles worth being quoted? Many newspaper articles do not look genuine and are there to promote the individual opinions, agendas and biases of those writing them.

Yashnv (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)yashnv

Hi Yashnv, Your question is answered in one of the most important policies here on Wikipedia. Please review the Wikipedia policy, wp:V. The first sentence of that policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." My view is that it is basically saying that trying to argue with other editors about the truthfulness of what journalists have written in wp:Reliable sources is not a productive activity here on Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Talkmagic, Sorry to have put this question without having fully read the wikipedia policies. Thank you for reminding me. But I am starting to get really scared here. Almost anything can be "verified" if you take the time to verify it- But not everything is "truth" and publishing untruth (even if you do not know that you are doing so) could be defamatory in many respects. You probably know better than me the amount of sensational "false" news that gets published everyday by newspapers on this planet for various "obvious" and "not so obvious" reasons. Unfortunately, most people think that whatever they read in newspapers come "straight from Jesus' mouth". Regards, Yashnv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The name Preston

Hi TalkMagic

Can I know the relevance of the following lines in this article:

Preston University has no known connections with the city of Preston in England, or any of the many smaller places called Preston in the English-speaking world. The university in Preston, England, is called the University of Central Lancashire.

I mean, why would anyone like to know whether Preston "has" or "has no known connections with the city of Preston in England". One has the right to choose the name of his organization just like the right to choose a name for a child, as long as it is not illegal. The name of the University could have been Talkmagic University instead of Preston. I do not also know of any other University whose name is or resembles Preston (in which case it might have been argued that the name was chosen to mislead the general public - as in the cases of some Diploma Mills). Do I have an argument here for this line to be removed, in which case please do so? Regards, Yashnv (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Yashnv

It is common for articles to have a disambiguation line as a pretext at the beginning of the article. This is especially true for words that are common names for places. I suspect that many if not most of the articles on the lesser known schools actually begin this way. Oxford, Oxford (disambiguation), Stanford, Berkeley The disambiguation line and the statement about the name Preston has nothing to do with diploma mills or any accusations of anything sinister on anyone's part. People are just generally interested in why schools are given a certain name. As an example, I note that someone on this page requested that information be added to the article. If you think that the way it is stated gives the wrong impression then please suggest an improvement. For example, perhaps that information should be moved to comply better with the more common disambiguation lines in Wikipedia articles? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yashnv, I tried to clean up some of the items that you pointed out. Please let me know of other suggestions or questions that you might have. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

recent changes that I reverted

I've recently reverted some changes and based on edit comments from tohers, I believe that it might be good to discuss the reasons for my reverts more fully here.

Here's one edit that I reverted.

• "However, the Times article cited no tangible evidence for its claims other than to reference previous articles noting Preston's non-accredited status. Also overlooked by the article was the fact that Preston University does not accept any non-academic transfer credit and that graduates must complete a full curriculum of study to earn their degrees. It is notable that the writer did not review the dissertations completed by the Preston doctoral graduates in Singapore."

This is more of a paragraph that belongs on this discussion page not in the article. Wikipedia reports information that comes from reliable sources. Wikipedia articles aren't generally supposed to comment on the journalism involved in articles being cited.

Here's another edit that I reverted.

• "The commentary completely ignored statements from the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) stating that accreditation status should not be the sole criteria in evaluating the quality of a school.Diploma Mills and Accreditation"

The government article does not say what should or should not be the criteria. I believe that the above is a false statement and should be deleted.

Here's the third edit that I reverted.

• "many of the newly enacted (Rules established by edict of the Alabama Chancellor of Education to become effective September 1, 2008) standards for private educational institutions in Alabama. The new rules required all private schools to become accredited and to comply immediately with the new standards."

I couldn't find where it was stated that the new rules required all private schools to become accredited. TallMagic (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The accreditation requirement is on page 13 of the Guidelines for Licensing pdf file.

It is interesting that an editorial article in the Straits Times is considered "reliable" as a source, and excerpts taken from the editorial comments are repeated as facts. Likewise, to consider the Cheyenne Herald as a reliable source is shameful. The Herald is a one-person vanity press containing only editorial comments. The quote referenced in this Wiki entry should be evidence of that. Taking non-journalism editorial articles as sources of fact is a very risky process.

I guess only full quotes from these official sources will suffice. Triweg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.32.202 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 February 2009

Hi Triweg, it seems that you are primarily arguing with sources and want to add personal opinions to the article regarding said sources. This does not seem to be a very productive approach to trying to improve articles here on Wikipedia. May I respectfully suggest that you review some of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Perhaps starting with wp:v, wp:NOR and wp:NPOV? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When selective excerpts are taken, out of full context, from editorial articles it does no service to the system. It is hardly "arguing" with sources to highlight the absence of factual evidence to support claims made by editorial writers with obvious agendas. Drawing "information" from dubious articles that employ circular references to other articles of questionable veracity is also not a very productive approach to improving articles here on Wikipedia. Insisting that obviously biased and unsupported quotes such as from the Cheyenne Herald in this Preston University article is blatantly contrary to the intent of Wikipedia. How about we stick to presenting facts, rather than including sensationalist comments and biased innuendo by editorial commentators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Triweg (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 February 2009

Triweg, please sign your comments on talk pages. It would show more respect for your fellow Wikipedians to review your own comments to make sure that they are readable. You keep placing random white space in your comments like spaces at the beginning of paragraphs and random newlines sprinkled throughout the text. This makes the comments unreadable and requires someone else to clean up your comments so that they are readable.

I disagree that anything was taken out of context from a reliable source and its meaning was changed by the context it was used in the article. Please provide specifics if you really believe that assertion to be true. But, perhaps your comment intended a different meaning? Adding text that is arguing with sources in the article is not reasonable. Please stop doing that. It is adding your own personal opinions to the article which is not allowed. Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Perhaps starting with wp:v, wp:NOR and wp:NPOV? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Triweg on certain points. Absence of factual evidence to support claims made by editorial writers is there. The best example of this is when Sandra Davie's article cite Preston as a Diploma Mill while officisl sources have never referred to the University as such. It has always been referred to as an "unaccredited university". I still do not quite understand wiki's policy to reproduce extracts / articles only on the basis that they have been published by "someone else". Yashnv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.175.244 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2009

Hi Yashnv, please try to remember to sign comments on the talk pages by adding four tilde characters (~~~~). Absence of "official sources" doesn't prove anything either. These kind of arguments can go on forever and never reach a conclusion. From my view that is the purpose of the wp:V policy that was previously discussed. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

General clean up discussion

Hi TalkMagic, I think it is unfair to mention that the University's office is reportedly empty based on a newspaper article that is clearly trying to discredit the university and harm its past and present students in the process. This has been prominently stated in two places (at the beginning of the article (the sentence looks incomplete) - and further down just before the last paragraph). The University has just moved location. In such instance, it would be quite normal for its office (as for any other business that moves to a new location) to be temporarily empty. The newspaper article gives the impression that the University is a mail box operation which it is not. The journalist who has written the article knows full well that the University operated from the Cheyenne Airport Building for many years before moving to Alabama and it is not a Diploma Mill / mailbox operation. The article could therefore be regarded, in my opinion, as plain malicious. Wikipedia is not doing justice to the University and its students/graduates by allowing publication of such articles. Non-accreditation has never been denied by the University. It has always been disclosed on its website. It appears that the main reason for non-accreditation is an increase in the costs of operations rather than quality of education. In any case, there are numerous "reliable" articles that show clearly that accreditation of schools in USA bears no direct correlation with the quality of education being provided by the institution or the quality of graduates being turned out. I do not see where is the problem and why some people are continuing to write unfavorable articles about the university just because it is not accredited. Nobody can prove that the University is a Diploma Mill / Mailbox operation - because it is not. I would therefore very respectfully suggest that the lines about the empty office be removed from both places. Thanks and regards. Yashnv (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Yashnv.

Hi Yashnv, from the Wikipedia article, <quote>The Alabama Department of PostSecondary Education rejection letter to Preston states that "during the on-site visits, it was determined that the location for the institution is based out of a virtual office setting which is not staffed properly nor has operating equipment."</quote> This would seem to undercut your argument that "The newspaper article gives the impression that the University is a mail box operation which it is not." Although the whole argument is moot. Why unfavorable articles may have been written is not really relevant to Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia policy for what information can/should be included in Wikipedia, wp:V. You earlier commented that talk of the name Preston in the introduction gave undue weight or implied something negative where it was. I moved the statements out of the introductory paragraph and broke the statements into two places. That left the introductory paragraph stating that Preston was in Los Angeles. It seemed reasonable to me to include that sentence there as part of the introduction saying that the office was empty. If you don't like it though then I'll look at changing the introductory paragraph. I don't see any valid reason for removing the empty office statement entirely though. If a reliable source publishes notable information about a topic covered in a Wikipedia article then that information may be included in the Wikipedia article. If you don't like what other sources have said then address those concerns with those other sources not with Wikipedia. Contrary to your assertion, Wikipedia did NOT publish that article that you refer to. That was published by the Cheyenne Herald and simply referenced in the Wikipedia article. I don't see any relevance to your accreditation/unaccredited/operation-costs/diploma-mill/education-value/malicious-journalist comments here on this talk page. This page is to discuss the article not to discuss Preston University. Anyway, I'll look at trying to improve the introductory paragraph. If I've just misunderstood your comments then, sorry, please clarify. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yashnv, Thank you for your contributions to improving the article! TallMagic (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently deleted a statement in the article with the following edit comment, "remove statement from Preston website that is contradicted by official in Straits Times article". My thought is that it is okay for it to be added back in but if and only if the official's statement regarding international campuses and how it is really entirely compatible with accreditation is added in for balance. I can add both statements to the article. Yashnv, what do you think? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi TallMagic, I suggest that the lines referenced to the following article - Foster, Andrea (2001). "Some Professors Are Surprised to Be on a University's Roster". The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i28/28a03402.htm. be removed as information from this source cannot be verified fully unless you pay for a subscription. It is therefore difficult for a general reader to verify fully what has been written unless he puts his hands in his pocket. To put it simply, "verifiability" which is one of wiki's main policy is being hindered. Thanks and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yashnv, using reliable sources that require a subscription is perfectly valid.

I would like to take this opportunity though to thank you again for your contributions to the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've completed a long analysis of Google searched articles looking for more reliable sources on Preston University. I found a number of useful articles that have provided some new information and clarified some already existing information. As an aside, it was interesting to me that there was a significant number of articles that called University of Central Lancashire by the name Preston university. Thank you again, Yashnv, for your help on improving the article. I think we've made some significant improvements over the past week and a half. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me or not, I have obtained fresh evidence from relevant educational authority in the USA that suggests that the letter supposed to have been sent to Preston University by the Alabama Department of Education saying that "during the on-site visits, it was determined that the location for the institution is based out of a virtual office setting which is not staffed properly nor has operating equipment" is not genuine. The Alabama Department of Post Secondary Education officials responsible for licensing post-secondary schools do not know about this letter (which they themselves are supposed to have sent)- One more reason why, in my opinion, Wiki cannot go along citing any newspaper or other article they come across just because it is verifiable. Believe me, there are a number of "verifiable" but nonetheless "fake" articles circulating on the web. Please look after your credibility. Thanks and regards Yashnv (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Yashnv

Hi Yashnv, note that I moved your comment to the bottom. Comments imbedded in the middle of conversations can very easily be missed. I hope that is okay? It is not uncommon for there to be conflicting information that both comes from reliable sources. If the information that you've come across has been published by a reliable source then I'm sure that we can come to an agreement on how best to fix the article. In the meantime, I will try to enhance the comment in the article to give a specific date. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sentence from the article that seems to best indicate the timeframe that the office was checked and found to be unoccupied. Please review and let me know what you think, should it be removed, changed or what? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the History section was long and wanted to break it up. If anyone can come up with a better division then great. Or, if anyone liked the large History section better then please feel free to revert it back. TallMagic (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted part of the recent changes.[2] Here's my thoughts why I thought that this was best. Please review WP:SELFPUB. What can be used as self published material is quite restricted. I believe that the second part of what I reverted violated point one and point two.

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

The first part is that I restored more detail on the timeframe that the office was found empty. On this talk page there was concern expressed, my understanding was that it was for two reasons. First that the office was very new barely opened and there was not sufficient time to move in. The other part that I became concerned about was that months from now we probably won't really know whether or not the office is still empty. Therefore, I wanted to make it clear the time context as to what was being reported. TallMagic (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I thought that Wiki was a wonderful tool. I am however disappointed to see that a number of lines that were recently included by me and well referenced to "reliable" sources have been removed. It appears more and more to me that Wiki is presenting an article that is everything but positive for Preston University. Please do not tell me that the lines that were recently included were against Wiki's policies - I know the policies very well now. Unfortunatly, I know the tool is in your hand and you can do anything you want and give whatever reason to justify your stand. You may not like to hear this but, without showing disrespect whatsoever to wiki or its editors, I am of the opinion that that Wiki is presently acting as an instrument for advancing the agenda of those who are threatened by unaccredited schools, maybe because they are taking away students (especially International Students) from accredited ones. It is not a difficult guess. Wiki outright removed the article "Can college accreditation live up to its promise?" from the main article arguing that this was more of an accreditation discussion thing. No need to say that this article is not found in Wiki's article on accreditation. Maybe you do not want the world to know that a number of so called accredited schools turn out students who can hardly read their own diplomas or calculate a percentage. <-ref-> [1]Can college accreditation live up to its promise?<-/ref->. </quote> I mean, how many readers bother to read talk pages except mostly those who edit. But Wiki does not hesitate to cite all sorts of negative comments on unaccredited institutions going as far as to portrait some as diploma mills (e.g., Preston University- which has never been mentioned by an official source as a "diploma mill" but only by "journalists" who, in my opinion, are only trying to make some money). Thanks and regards. ¬¬¬¬ Yashnv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yashnv, I moved your comment to the bottom of the page because it seemed to be referring to my recent removal of some additions you made. Also please try to remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Please see my comment above for the reasons that I removed the addition you made. I don't know how my explanation could be clearer. It doesn't appear to me to require much judgement since the source you provided was self published and the addition had a third party praising the school. This involves a claim about a third party. That means that a self published source is not allowed in this case. Your comment about me or Wikipedia having some monetary gain by making the article negative would be insulting if it didn't just seem delusional. Your statement about independent journalists associated with respected papers/journals being out to get Preston University is not much better. If I've misunderstood your point then sorry, please correct my misunderstanding. You are correct that talk pages are not intended to be read except by editors. Here's the bottom line. Wikipedia can only have articles that parrot already published information about the topic of the article. Your attempt to keep going off topic and grabbing information from sources that are not talking about or related to Preston University is not what should be in the article. You are wrong that I have any special Wikipedia tools or powers that you don't have. If you don't agree with something I say then please let's discuss it. You may also like to review the wp:DISPUTE policy. It seems obvious that you're tightly associated with Preston University somehow. Perhaps it would be valuable for you to edit some other articles that you're not so closely associated with? After some experience on some other articles then the wise Wikipedia policies and guidelines will perhaps be more meaningful to you? Keep in mind that these policies and guidelines have been proven to work. There's millions of wonderful articles that have been created. This proves that these policies and guidelines work and work rather well. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, I never spoke about "monetary gains", neither in your respect nor Wikipedia (but only with respect to the "respected journalists"- which is an opinion based on my view of how things have evolved)) and I am also not profiting from any monetary gain by trying to portrait a better picture of Preston either(without denying its weaknesses). Sorry if I was misunderstood on this issue. Nonetheless I will still maintain what I said just as the "respected" Straits Times maintained their dubious position. I never had any particular respect for journalists like those who are involved here for the good reason that these guys can publish anything based on inaccurate (sometimes,deliberately inaccurate)information. Agreed that Preston is only a "small" unaccredited University, and if you like it this way, making money by educating "monkeys" in remote underdeveloped countries. But the Ivy League guys or other accredited (not necessarily great) universities won't do that because their fee is far beyond reach. I was horrified by reading how low the standard of certain "accredited universities" are in the USA and this comes from a most reliable source (not Straits Times / Cheyenne Herald - these people do not seem to be aware of this document-or maybe they are but only pretending not to be so). I do not totally disagree with everything that's been mentioned in this article. Preston may have had a number of weaknesses. What I totally disagree upon is the insistence of some about Preston University being a degree mill and that is completely unacceptable to me. I am not in anyway "tightly associated" with the University but I cannot bear the injustice that is being done here. I have been a past, distance learning student and I can tell that Preston is very professional in its approach. I am myself a professional in my field, and was already so before embarking on the Preston studies (you may not believe me but its up to you). It took me, however, almost 9 (nine) years of study and research to get a PhD (unlike the 18 months "allegation" in the Straits Times article). I had to submit all my past certificates and transcripts before being accepted as a student (I was not accepted just because I agreed to pay some Dollars). I had to master "Modern Language of America (MLA)(don't know if your "respected journalists" have ever heard about this) before starting my course, because that's the language that is used for Preston's dissertations. I had to complete 5 (five) bulky subjects - 3 core and 2 electives and write a fully detailed dissertation, on a subject never researched, before I was finally awarded my degree (I obtained transfer credit for only one subject based on my past qualifications- and I was already heavily qualified at the time of application as student)). I was never charged a penny more than what I had initially paid as full fee. Nonetheless, all my queries and questions were promptly answered by my tutors and my work was always closely followed up and fully "marked" and mailed back to me with recommendations. I had all possible guidance that should have been available to a PhD student. Now, if all this holds good for me, a student living in a very small country, I don't see why all this should not hold good for students living in bigger countries like certain strong Asian and European countries. How do you then expect me to believe that the University has been literally selling degrees, as alleged in the "respected newspapers", if you can call the Cheyenne Herald and The Straits Times this way. Such allegations are totally unfounded. Furthermore, and most important of all, I had in the past, inquired about Preston from the Wyoming department of Education and they had assured me that the University's programs were "excellent" to quote their own words (Unfortunately I have not preserved this 9 year old mail). Again, after reading the Wiki article and taking note about the "letter" from the Alabama Department of Education, I e-mailed the latter who replied to me that Preston's renewal license was rejected solely on the basis of it remaining unaccredited (and I have preserved this e-mail). They do not know of any other reason and are not aware of the letter cited in Wiki. As you see, I have contacted "relevant authorities" before writing anything on Wiki and I have not been advancing inaccurate information based on random investigations like the ones carried by respected journalists. Unfortunately, the e-mail from the Alabama Department of Education to me would not prove to a valuable source from Wiki's point of view and I cannot blame you for that. I also cannot blame you if you don't believe my story. Just before I end, I wrote a mail to Ms Sandra Davies, the respected journalist of the Straits Times to clarify certain things but she never took the pain to reply back (for reasons obvious to me). I think I have made my point clear and I think its futile to argue any further. The "respected" journalists can write whatever they want and you can quote all of them if you so wish, because it honors your policy. It has been a pleasure communicating with you all these days. As I had said earlier, anything, be it truth or lie can certainly be verified and qualify with regards Wiki's policy - but only "truth" will ultimately prevail, no matter how much time it can take, my friend. Please have it your way. Regards. Yashnv (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Yashnv

Thank you for sharing your story. If there's a problem with a reliable source that is used in a Wikipedia article then it needs to be addressed with that reliable source not with Wikipedia. This is what you've done. That is wise in my opinion. Of course it would be a different story if there were conflicting reports from different reliable sources. I don't think that is the case in this article. There were some mildly conflicting reports regarding the faculty incident but it was really minor and I think has been straightened out. Whether or not I believe your story is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia because personal testimonials cannot be used in Wikipedia unless they have been published in a reliable source and the testimonial is from an expert on the subject. I try not to comment here on Wikipedia on what my personal beliefs actually are. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is mildly discouraged in Wikipedia talk page guidelines. I thank you again for your contributions to improving the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When I said "you may not believe me but its up to you" I never intended to mean that you should believe my story and even less that Wikipedia should publish personal testimonials. I was only trying to express myself in the context of my experience with Wikipedia. Thank you again for your own way of interpreting things and having them portrayed in the way you want to. I'm sure you must have been a "journalist" at some point in your life. Regards. Yashnv (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Yashnv.

Categories

I suggest that Preston University should be placed in Lists of universities and colleges Category. Since Preston University is Accredited in many countries including Pakistan, it should be removed from Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Kashif Shah (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the category you suggest (Category:Lists of universities and colleges) is a category for list-articles. This article is not a list. (See WP:Lists for additional clarification.)

The article is appropriately included in the category for unaccredited institutions because Preston University is unaccredited. The legal status in Pakistan of Preston University Pakistan does not affect the unaccredited status of Preston University. I have also added the article to Category:Distance education institutions. It can be added to additional categories, if Preston is documented to belong within the category scope. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

post graduate Diploma in Energy & Resources

Hi Team

I want to study the above course I would like to request the University Administration to send me a letter of adimision.

thanks

handai Wabiria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.95.200.17 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Preston University IS Accredited in Pakistan

I did not say it was accredited in the US when I edited this article. I said accredited. Accreditation in the US does not make a Pakistani University Accredited (or not).

This is accredited by the responsible Government body in Pakistan. Stop manipulating articles for an American audience. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. I am sure that Pakistan are capable of deciding who they recognize. Or does wikipedia write education policy for the entire globe now? Satinmaster (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you well know, there is a separate article on the Pakistan Preston University. The Preston University in the U.S. is not accredited. And lose the inflammatory rhetoric. It's gotten you in trouble before.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Inflamatory rhetoric? Don't tell me what to do!

The article of Preston U (US) and Preston U (Pakistan) should be merged, they are one in the same school now. Satinmaster (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Preston University is not accredited. At least the references for that are very clear. [3][4][5]. Deleting the Preston University, Pakistan article might be a good idea though? Most references in the media seems to not differentiate between the two? Zugman (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Preston no longer exists in the US. It is the US article that is now obsolete, not the Preston Pakistan article where Preston IS Accredited by the national Body for Accreditation in Pakistan. Satinmaster (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Preston had a residence in the USA for years. Wikipedia is intended to also have historical articles. So, from a historical perspective the current article is fine whether or not they still have residence within the USA. Although, if you have a reliable source for your assertion that Preston no longer exists in the US then I propose adding that information to the Preston University article. Zugman (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Preston issued so many degrees from the USA that there is real value in this article for anyone considering these degrees. Otherwise the public might think they are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.244.85 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They may be one and the same, but governmental approval in Pakistan of campuses there does not convey any sort of approval on operations elsewhere. The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization indicates that Preston, which it says "lacks degree-granting authority", is owned and operated from Pakistan; also had U.S. operations in Wyoming and Alabama; operates under various names in Europe, south Asia and the Middle East; and "recently began selling degrees from California". --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again with your precious ODA. The ODA approval does not convey any sort of approval on operations elsewhere. FYI, the ODA are not the Lord and Masters of Accreditation of Planet Earth. As much as they would probably like to be! So are you saying that Pakistan are not authorized to decide which schools are legal in Pakistan? Or are you saying a Pakistan Degree cannot be used outside of Pakistan? You guys are entertaining. LOL Satinmaster (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your strawman argument is not relevant to the conversation. You're the one that falsely claims that anyone has said the ODA is the "Lord and Masters of Accreditation of Planet Earth". The situation is that the ODA is a reliable reference for information on Wikipedia. If you believe what the ODA says is incorrect then you need to communicate with them and get them to correct the information. We can then use the new ODA information on Wikipedia. Zugman (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Preston University Article is Outdated with Controversial Info

Hello! I have edited the article which contains old, controversial and unrelevant information about the university. The information which I have inserted is up to date. It provides the acurate university information to viewers. Kindly review the article which I have updated. Appreciate for your time. Please do the needful, thanks and regards(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.51.13.116 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The addition "In December 2011 the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) refused Preston's application for approval to operate in the state of California. The reason given for denial included Preston's failure to inform the BPPE about "cease and desist" orders it had received in the states of Wyoming and Alabama, as well as insufficient information about the institution's education programs and resources" is not accurate if we go strictly by the document cited in the reference section. I have therefore changed it to reflect the true picture. I have also removed the line whereby it was stated that the "Cheyenne Herald" was saying the Preston University's address was an unocccupied office suite as this source cannot be considered as reliable, being a small county newspaper edited and published by the the same person (i.e., with no editorial oversight, and therefore, not reliable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 6 September 2012

The changes you made to the article information about the BPPE actions are not supported by the cited source. The source says nothing about any hearing held regarding Preston. Additionally, there is no sourced basis for the assertion that the current content of the Preston website was created after this hearing. Wikipedia content has to be based on published sources, not on the personal knowledge volunteered by various essentially anonymous people who contribute to the encyclopedia.

As for the Cheyenne Herald, it is not a high-stature print publication, but it was published online by a named person on a regular basis for over 10 years, it carried advertising from local businesses, and its full archives are still available online. All that gives it some degree of credibility, particularly regarding local topics in Cheyenne.

PS - In the future, please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) and don't remove the "unsigned" templates unless you replace them with your signature. --Orlady (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you totally. I practically reproduced the "Prayer" section of the document which is found on page 11. The changes I made were therefore totally supported by the cited source ( which is a source not included by me anyway). On the other hand, I have not seen anywhere in the document that BPPE "refused" Preston's application for approval as it was and, is being presently mentioned. Maybe this will come after the hearing which is when you could include it without distorting the truth. Check this out with any qualified attorney at law and he will tell you that what I inserted was way closer to truth than what was appearing before. I therefore request that the inaccurate information, now again appearing, be changed to reflect reality. Regarding the "Cheyenne Herald" the wikipedia editors have themselves mentioned that newspaper articles should have editorial oversight for these to be judged as credible (please refer to the "Talk" section of the article on "Higher education accreditation in the United States"). The Cheyenne Herald is a one man editor/publisher "free" newspaper with no editorial oversight and even if it had been issuing publications for a hundred years, it would still not be totally credible. I therefore request that non-credible information be removed. Regarding Preston's websit, you are again wrong when you say "after the "hearing" as there has been no "hearing" up to now, but only a request for hearing and the notice on the website definitely appeared today (i.f., after the request for hearing) as the site had been disabled for quite some months. I will wait for sometime and if the article stays as it is, I will change it again. If you do not want contribution to the encyclopedia by anonymous people, then include it in your policy and let this be known clearly so that I may stop wasting my time correcting inaccurate material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... When you "practically reproduced" the "prayer" section of the source document, you combined it with some words in the article that were based on entirely unrelated parts of that document, resulting in a passage that is totally not supported by the source. The December 2011 date that you kept is from the top of page 2, where it says that BPPE denied Preston's application in December 2011. You kept the December 2011 date and said that BPPE had requested a hearing then. The "Prayer" does state that "Complainant" (i.e., BPPE) "requests that a hearing be held", but the date of the document is May 2012 (not December 2011) and much discussion has occurred (unfortunately, not here, but at User talk:Orlady#Preston University and at the No original research noticeboard) regarding the impossibility of determining the legal/procedural context of that document. It clearly states that Preston applied in 2010 and BPPE denied its application in 2011; it's not altogether clear why BPPE requested a "hearing" in 2012, nor what the substance/nature of that hearing was going to be. Further, the language you added saying that the hearing should "be held on certain matters alleged and that following the hearing, the Director for consumer affairs of the Bureau issue a decision denying Preston University, CA LLC's application for approval to operate for an institution not accredited" is an altered version of some lawyerly words in the "Prayer" that don't necessarily have meaning outside of their legal context, especially when they are altered.

The current text of the article uses that source document to describe what BPPE said it did in December 2011. It does not speculate on possible future actions of the BPPE, the Directory of Consumer Affairs, or anyone else. Since the meaning of the "request for hearing" in that [{WP:PRIMARY|primary source document]] is not clear, Wikipedia should not interpret it.

Regarding the paragraph that starts "Following the above, Preston University published the following information on its website", I interpreted the words "following the above" to mean "after the above events occurred". I was mistaken when I suggested that the hearing was one of the above events. What particularly bothered me, however, was that the article indicates the current website notice had been posted after those events; I have no way of knowing when the web information was posted. Additionally, quoting that much information verbatim in an article could be a WP:COPYVIO. I've trimmed the quotation and restored it to the article, with an indication that this is the current content of the website. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment, "If you do not want contribution to the encyclopedia by anonymous people, then include it in your policy...", please remember that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is essentially anonymous. (Who can tell who any of us really are?) Accordingly, Wikipedia's policy is to require all content to be based no published sources; contributors' personal knowledge and original research are not accepted. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your input above cannot be serious. I understand English very well. You are just trying to confuse me but I am not going to play your "game". The Prayer" paragraph is the most important part of the document. It says clearly that a "the complainant requests that a hearing be held" and following the hearing, the Director issue a decision denying Preston University, CA LLC's application. It is therefore clear that the"hearing" has not been held yet and no decison has yet been made unless you can produce another document proving that the "hearing" was actualy held and the Director has actually issued a decision denying the application. The present paragraph in the main article saying that BPPE refused the application cannot be supported and should be removed. As for the "Cheyenne Herald" it is a "free" newspaper with no editorial oversight and cannot be treated as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Man, what's your problem? Why do you keep removing everything I write even though I write the truth and reference what I write to the appropriate source. The Cheyenne Herald reference was inserted by Wikipedia itself, not me. Are you related to the "Cheyenne Herald' in any way? Is the owner your uncle or something like that? Are we seeing a "related party" interest here? You are keeping all the negative things written on Preston University by that so called newspaper and removing the criticisms that people have levelled on that newspaper (in that newspaper itself). Please go to the talk section on the article "Higher education accreditation in the united states". Some wiki editors were doing exactly the same thing there as well, but in the process they intimated that newspapers with no editorial oversight cannot be considered as credible (and by default, cannot cited, I believe). You have been citing a one editor/publisher vanity newspaper that has no editorial oversight with articles being based on the opinion of just one person. Why is Wikipedia contradicting itself. It has been treating reliable sources as unreliable and unrealiable sources as reliable in many cases. No doubt, many people do not consider Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. It's because of wise guys like you. You are discrediting Wikipedia even more. Please do not bother to answer. I already know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 9 September 2012

• Off-topic. Please do bother to sign your comments on talk pages. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have edited the article so as to reflect the true reason for the denial of the application("incomplete application" - mentioned immediately below the "Causes for denial of application" paragraph). I have also removed material that was not supported by a reliable source, i.e., the Cheyenne Herald, a one person regional newspaper with no editorial oversight,hence not reliable. The material published online was based on the publisher's personal knowledge and / or original research(unchecked by a third party) which is not at all within wikipedia's policy, as far as I know. So sad that "anybody" can publish almost anything online these days !!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 7 October 2012

Given the fact that the University of Wyoming Library, the Wyoming State Library and 2 county libraries have chosen to keep the Cheyenne Herald in their stocke OCLC 51310460 indicates to me that the librarians consider it worthwhile. Moreover, the material reported in the CH comports with information from other sources which are clearly WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree and there is no reason for me to accept whatever you say as being true. Also, just because a newspaper is archived somewhere in a library does not mean it is credible. You are just trying to justify the maintenance of this particular line in this article by using a reason whatsoever. This line does not convey any valuable information to the reader. Everybody knows that when a business sets itself up in a new place it may surely have premises that will be unoccupied for some days until it is set up appropriately to start its operations. Clearly here, the Cheyenne Herald took the opportunity to write this to discredit the university (as you guys have also been doing so far, I am sure). If you look at the language used by the journalist("fled from Wyoming") it is clear that the latter did everything that was possible to discredit the university. If you refer to the "talk' section under the article "Higher education accreditation in the United States" Wiki's editors have themselves mentioned clearly that newspaper articles with no editorial oversight cannot be completely reliable. If this applies for that article, then it must apply for this article as well. Furthermore, this article itself mentions that the university has been selling degrees from California. If we accept this as true, it should at least have an office that has staff who are performing this operation. It could not have been selling degrees from the pavement. Therefore either Cheyenne Herald is right OR "Oregon Office of degree authorization" (ODA) is right. Both cannot be right. You choose which one to remove. I am removing the Cheyenne Herald's allegations. If you choose to reinstate it, then you must be able to remove the ODA's one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I also have reasons to believe that the Alabama license rejection letter (citation 15) might not be a correct one. I have myself communicated with the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education and they answered that they are not aware of this letter. They mentioned it clearly to me that Preston's renewal licence was rejected because Albama had passed laws requiring all schools to be accredited and Preston was unaccredited. They also mentioned that they do not use wikipedia as a source of reference. Well, I cannot blame them after my own experience with you guys !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

1. The fact that librarians, exercising their judgment in accordance with good library science practices choose to include the Herald in their collections is strong evidence that the source is worthwhile. Your personal opinion to the contrary does not carry much weight.
2. We are concerned with verifiability and not truth. Again, your personal opinions about Preston cannot be part of this encyclopedia.
3. Contacting the Alabama authorities may satisfy you personally in some fashion, but if you add that info you are conducting original research. Again, a Wikipedia no-no.
4. You can, as you so choose, bring up the Herald on the reliable source noticeboard.
5. If you can achieve WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page from other editors to keep the Herald material out, then fine. But you do not have such consensus.
6. To persist as you have, in repeatedly removing the sourced Herald material, is edit warring. Please stop.--S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I had previously been threatened using the "edit warring" concept when I was editing the article "Higher education accreditation in the United States" - but fortunately it backfired on you guys. You did not have the choice but to accept what I had edited although you changed it to fit your own purposes. The "edit warring" threat is your last resort weapon, as I see it. I can only tell that the arguments you have used so far to keep the cheyenne herald's allegations are pathetic.The line re-instated has no informative value. Also, I have not been using my "opinion about Preston" anywhere. Are you aware, by any chance, what the word "opinion" means? I have only been using facts. Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself. At line 2, you say that "we are concerned with "verifiability"" after having said at line 1 that the source is "worthwhile". With what are you actually concerned then? "Verifiability" or "worth"? Cheyenne Herald itself conducted "original research" to publish what it had published. On this basis, the article cannot be cited. A Wikipedia no-no, as you yourself put it. I do not understand line 6 when you say that I have been "re-adding". I though I was doing just the contrary. Looks like you are falling short of arguments my friend. Try to get your thoughts right before you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replacing the word "re-adding" by the word "removing" at line 6 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My edit was again removed. Yesterday I was blocked for edit warring. Looks like you cannot bear the truth (even verifiable truth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.236.50 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Cheyenne Herald has been criticised on the basis of "bias" by readers. It may or may not have been biased. We don't know. But we know that it is a one man operation with no editorial oversight and therefore this gives ample weight to the "bias" factor. I am mentioning it because the reader has to exercise caution when reading a line that might potentially be biased against the party it is attacking. There is no valid reason why my edit should be removed everytime. You are therefore "edit warring". Please stop immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.236.50 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AP story

AP wrote holds the copyright on the story -- that does not mean he spoke to the AP. They have gotten it from another source and then distributed it. Using the words "Not on my watch" is a copyright violation because those are the exact words from the AP story. Also they imply a quote from the Superintent, but the story does not use those words as a quoted statement.--S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For more information, please see Associated Press.--S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Preston in Los Angeles?

Rationale for May 17 revert: 1. school's website does not use term "incorporatation"; 2. Manta gives a 2009 date, but this is does not comport with other dates; moreover, it does not say Preston was incorporated in LA. Businesses in California get their incorporation status by registering with the Secretary of State. The SoS website does not list a "Preston University". Search was done under the term "Preston". 206 corporation results came up and 69 Limited Liability results came up. Accordingly, say PU is incorportated in LA lacks WP:V. Also, a search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Fictitious Business Name website did not produce a "dba" for Preston University. – S. Rich (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Grateful if you could explain the meaning of the term "incorporatation". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The word "office" has not been mentioned on any source. I believe it is inappropriate to use this word as it does not reflect the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Moved" is fine with me. Preston really doesn't exist, so it is no big deal. (You had used the term "incorporation". What did you think it meant?) – S. Rich (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. No big deal, I agree. The institution may or may not exist. We are not concerned with this. What we are concerned with is that facts should not be distorted, intentionally or unintentionally. I used the word "incorporation" (I know what this means). I did not use the word incorporatation as I do not know what it is supposed to mean and thus asked a question just in case that was a new term or some new terminology. If it was a mistake, no problem. This happens sometimes when we do things in a hurry. No big deal again. By the way, if you have reliable evidence that "Preston really doesn't exist" as you say, then please mention it with appropriate reference on the article page. I would be interested to know how the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education was able to deal with something that did not exist !!!! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything that says it does exist as a corporate entity. Perhaps it is a partnership that has registered its dba in another county. Maybe the CBPPE has not checked on its corporate status -- I don't know. But for us, as WP editors, to put something in articles we need to WP:PROVEIT. The Manta listing is not very good sourcing and Preston itself doesn't seem to be able to update its website or its legal status. While I live near Los Angeles, I don't think I'm going to visit the "office" or the City business license bureau. – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)