This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Life University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's much more to write about the controversy surrounding Life's loss of accreditation, including the recent restoration of accreditation. However, I'm out of time at the moment to finish. Others are welcome to take up the torch here; otherwise, I'll be back to complete the section at a later time. SwissCelt 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Per Controversy section - either the section needs to be completed or needs to be deleted, currently it does not have all the facts and leaves the reader with just partial truths. Tpalmer70 4:06, 1,Oct. 2011
Under Controversy - the episode starts in 2002 and doesn't truely finalize till 2006 when the US DoE rebukes CCE for its handling of the LU accreditation and CCE's ignoring its own accreditation rules. The way "controversy" ends leaves the reader not seeing the whole picture that the US DoEd found CCE lacking in four major areas over LU's dis-accreditation. ~Controversy is a way to slap LU on Wiki without telling the entire truth and really should be deleted per the 2006 USDOE findings, if CCE had followed its own rules, the outcome would have been different~ Do you need the source for the 2006 USDOE letter? Tpalmer70 15:11, 28,Oct. 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.182.118 ( talk) 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Some words of advice.... You have added a number of sources to your own conversations and letters. This violates our original research policy and those sources should be removed immediately. If they can be found in secondary or tertiary sources, then suggest those sources on the talk page (see below). Your use of such sources jeopardizes all you have been doing. Please familiarize yourself with our sourcing policies and follow them before proceeding any further. We both know that what you're writing is true, but that doesn't justify violation of policies. Information must be from verifiable and reliable sources that are preferably independent of yourself. If you link to your own sources, then you have a conflict of interest and can be barred from editing this article. In that case you can only make suggestions on the talk page. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Life University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's much more to write about the controversy surrounding Life's loss of accreditation, including the recent restoration of accreditation. However, I'm out of time at the moment to finish. Others are welcome to take up the torch here; otherwise, I'll be back to complete the section at a later time. SwissCelt 12:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Per Controversy section - either the section needs to be completed or needs to be deleted, currently it does not have all the facts and leaves the reader with just partial truths. Tpalmer70 4:06, 1,Oct. 2011
Under Controversy - the episode starts in 2002 and doesn't truely finalize till 2006 when the US DoE rebukes CCE for its handling of the LU accreditation and CCE's ignoring its own accreditation rules. The way "controversy" ends leaves the reader not seeing the whole picture that the US DoEd found CCE lacking in four major areas over LU's dis-accreditation. ~Controversy is a way to slap LU on Wiki without telling the entire truth and really should be deleted per the 2006 USDOE findings, if CCE had followed its own rules, the outcome would have been different~ Do you need the source for the 2006 USDOE letter? Tpalmer70 15:11, 28,Oct. 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.182.118 ( talk) 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Some words of advice.... You have added a number of sources to your own conversations and letters. This violates our original research policy and those sources should be removed immediately. If they can be found in secondary or tertiary sources, then suggest those sources on the talk page (see below). Your use of such sources jeopardizes all you have been doing. Please familiarize yourself with our sourcing policies and follow them before proceeding any further. We both know that what you're writing is true, but that doesn't justify violation of policies. Information must be from verifiable and reliable sources that are preferably independent of yourself. If you link to your own sources, then you have a conflict of interest and can be barred from editing this article. In that case you can only make suggestions on the talk page. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)