It started in Dallas Tex not Alamosa. This directly from Dr. Skinner, also found on Patriot website, in the catalog, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

Okay, fine. Please provide sources that it was approved in 1988. Also we do not list the places that don't refer to it as a mill. We say what people have said about, not what they haven't. Arbusto 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Colo Commission on Higher Education provides the official list which displays the year it was listed. This is official and not hearsay source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

The link your provided, [1], does not lead to a list that you describe. Is this the link you are referring to? Also removing criticism that is cited is not acceptable and will result in a block. Arbusto 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I found the link. You are right, 1988. Do not remove criticism from the article. Arbusto 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have attempted to leave all criticism's no matter how untruthful it is. I am simply adding the other side of the controversy as controversy infers two sides. I believe that would mean you have to follow the same rule? Thank you for working with me on this. I'm new to Wiki and don't quite have all these buttons figured out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

No problem, working on wikipedia is a process. However, I fail to understand why adding a ftc.gov list that they are not on is important? Perhaps adding in lists (good or bad) that they are on would be better. Arbusto 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can sign your user name by type ~ four times when communicating on talk pages. Arbusto 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for putting the ftc list is that an individual (Steve) is accusing Patriot of being a diploma mill. Diploma mill business is illegal activity and certainly immoral. Given that the FTC who is charged to enforce the law states what diploma mill definitions are, it would seem to be a fair link. If you prefer that I find someone who says PBU is not a diploma mill and why, I can find such. It is however, a lesser authority much the same as Levicoff. The Levicoff info is very dated and he is personally opposed to fundamental Christianity. This makes him a biased source. His facts on why Patriot is a diploma mill are not accurate either. (the 4 tilde's seemed to erase the comments)

Are we in agreement now about reinserting the ftc link stating that PBU is not listed by the government as a diploma mill yet?

Put it in for now, but we'll get some more opinions from other users of whether to include it. It would be a first to do that for an unaccredited school. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the change that the 2004 was out of the skinner home... that was never true and there is no credible source on that. The fact that the school was in the church is proven and is a direct statement from Dr. Skinner.

We do need a source for that. When did it move from Skinner's home to a church? Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also be sure to use your "edit summary" to explain your edits space (right above where you click "save page"), and note below that it says sign your name ~ x 4. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asking dumb question - what is edits space and is it asking about the user talk edits or the info page edits? Mdis 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just lets other people know what your change did to the page. So if you fix a spelling mistake write "spelling correct" in the space. For commeting on a user talk page you can put "reply" or "question." It just makes it easier to track the good edits because usually the bad users who vandalism pages don't use the summary. Arbusto 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get the exact date of moving out of the home into the church. It was in the 80's as I recall.Mdis 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common misconception is that the catalog address was their home address is because their home was the church manse where the pastor lived - seperate building on church property. Thus the same address as the church. Mdis 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information like that supported by a link that is WP:RS should be included. However, without a RS it can't. Arbusto 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Levicoff link on his page does not go to a page that lists Patriot as a diploma mill. It is a list of 75 signs to detect a diploma mill. His book is sourced on the info page; is there a way to verify that it is a legitimate book and that it in fact lists Patriot? Mdis 01:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His book lists it as a diploma mill. The archive.orged website contains only parts of the book. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon following the link to Barbara Forrests site I see that upon careful reading that Steve's book only lists AATI as an accreditation mill and does not indicate that Patriot is listed as a diploma mill. This source then would not be appropriate as the ref for that criticism. Mdis 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the criticism in the first paragraph to the Controversy and Criticism topic. It is criticism and it is not fact. It appropriately belongs in the criticism topic. Mdis 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That it has been called a diploma mill and his most famous grad it Kent Hovind says something about the quality of instruction that must be included in begining remarks. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responding to your comment - It would be a first to do that for an unaccredited school. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unaccredited by regional accreditation. That in itself does not make it a diploma mill. One who would read the previous versions of this entry would believe that it is a diploma mill instead of fairly understanding that some people have criticised it as a diploma mill. This is a defamatory statement that gets repeated throughout the internet. I have been all over the place and everyone who states Patriot as a diploma mill always always points to this wiki article. I can only assume if you Arbustoo keep insisting that the article give the reader the understanding that it is a diploma mill instead of being criticised as a diploma mill that you desire to spread this about Patriot too. I hope that isn't true about you and that you are interested in the wiki values. Patriot should not have to defend its institutional merits on wiki against a professor who is ardently against creationism and the Bible and a man who graduated from Patriot. It is ok for the professor and wiki to disagree, but that is between them and not Patriot. Patriot does not attack Forrest on her beliefs, credentials and life work. Furthermore, given the age of Levicoff's book I believe we should see that the book actually lists Patriot or if it only lists AATI as the link to Forrests site. Mdis 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unaccredited by all senses of the word. see the ED.GOV database. What sources do you have that is better than the USDE website? Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, look at this link from the Fox news page

Encyclopedia: Patriot Bible University Source:Wikipedia Patriot Bible University, formerly known as Patriot University, is an independent, unaccredited Christian-based religious Bible correspondence school providing higher education courses located in Del Norte, Colorado. Critics charge it is a diploma mill, lacking sufficient academic ..

Note that one reading that link would immediately believe that Patriot is a diploma mill. The first topic of Wiki is to be a definition and/or a factual statement. There is plenty of room for the criticism's in the criticism topic. Agreed? Mdis 12:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can only include what it cited about it. If you have any articles on noble prize winners that teach there it should be included as well. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, the resolution guidelines say that you should not keep reverting things back to the original (and incomplete) version. You and I are to improve it. There are no rules that say the criticism must be in the first paragraph and good article organization dictates that it should be grouped with the heading titled as such. Mdis 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the guidelines. You will be blocked if you continue to remove cited information. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbutsoo, per wiki guidelines; Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. You appear to not be limiting your bias on this. I am oppositely biased but am not insisting that untruthful statements are taken out, rather that just the opposite side of the controversy and bias also be presented. I am sourcing them as well. Mdis 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never attended nor care about this school. You on other hand admit above you are connected to it. You need to limit you bias and avoid removing cited criticism. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) A school's question academics must be mentioned in the introduction. Removing it is not acceptable. If you continue in this manner you WILL be blocked.

2) The FTC list, is pointless to include. However, I will hear from others on it. However, bolding certain sections is not acceptable. Arbusto 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a source which explicitly identifies Patriot as a diploma mill, and added the claim that it is not, based on your interpretation of the criteria published by FTC, which is original research and banned by policy. You have no edits outside of this subject. If you continue to make tendentious edits to this article you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged source is likely no longer and print and pulled from the market as per Amazon.com. However, the criticism is not the issue here, it is the placement within the article. It does not belong in the first paragraph it belongs in the criticism page. It is obvious you desire to slander the name of Patriot rather than present a criticism and it's other side. I will move to the next level of mediation with Wiki. Mdis 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be in print to be cited. Arbusto 06:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Patriot Bible University repeat the same kind of behavior that you were warned about 4 years ago (above). If you continue to remove valid sources, remove independently sourced content and replace it with "spin", and/or make spurious accusations against other contributors, you can expect to be blocked without further notice. --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]