Talk:John F. Kennedy University

File:JFKU Seal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JFKU Seal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

[The following was C&P'd from my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)]

You have no right to remove my updates, they are not biased, and all have references and are supported by fact and provided with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Regarding the JFK material, we can discuss via the WP:BRD process. But here are a few problems I see with the material and your effort to add it. 1. You posted it at the top of the article, not in a lower section where it would be more appropriate. 2. You added a red-linked category. 3. Most importantly, adding case names and numbers constitutes WP:OR. That is, you see the cases and interpret them as dealing with particular subject. A lawsuits contain allegations, not facts and do not contain proof of any sort. If these cases go to trial and a jury or finder of fact makes a determination, then we might be able to add the cases as WP:RS. But we much prefer that such info come from secondary sources such as newspapers. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the citations provided. Several of them contain docket notices that the case was dismissed. Others require PACER log in or lack specific info via the url provided. As none of the cases show that actual discrimination took place, it is improper to include such info. For more guidance, please see WP:SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, I do not know how to find these pages you direct me to, second you state that "I posted it at the top of the article, not in a lower section where it would be more appropriate", I disagree, I find that this information is very important and something prospective students should be aware of prior to going into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. "You added a red-linked category". I have no idea what this means. "Most importantly, adding case names and numbers constitutes WP:OR." again I have no idea what this means, but adding case names & links to the cases allows others to evaluate the standing on their own accord. I have not reported that JFKU was found guilty or liable, just that there is a pattern of similar allegations over a period of time and I simply provided information that others can evaluate for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs)

POV Notice removed due to failure of poster to state why POV Notice tag was placed without an explanation via talk as is customary. I would like to point out that Srich32977 clearly identifies that he has an investment in a private university in CA and question HIS neutrality on the matter. Only facts have been provided with links to Govt sources, Srich32977 may not appreciate that this information has become public, however free speech laws do not support his personal interest. If you have any concerns regarding the neutrality of the content, I urge you to follow up on the references provided or do your own search.

The issue of POV is stated above. It is improper for you to remove the template. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion pasted from Srich32977 talk page

John F. Kennedy University

You have no right to remove my updates, they are not biased, and all have references and are supported by fact and provided with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Regarding the JFK material, we can discuss via the WP:BRD process. But here are a few problems I see with the material and your effort to add it. 1. You posted it at the top of the article, not in a lower section where it would be more appropriate. 2. You added a red-linked category. 3. Most importantly, adding case names and numbers constitutes WP:OR. That is, you see the cases and interpret them as dealing with particular subject. A lawsuits contain allegations, not facts and do not contain proof of any sort. If these cases go to trial and a jury or finder of fact makes a determination, then we might be able to add the cases as WP:RS. But we much prefer that such info come from secondary sources such as newspapers. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've cut & pasted these comments to the JFKU talk page. Also, I've added another comment. If you would, please, that is the best place to discuss. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing my post, you don't have to agree or like it, but it's fact backed up with citations, if you have a problem with people knowing the truth about the universities actions then maybe you should talk to someone at the school about it. I will continue to reject your changes and I will also notify the site if you continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

First off, I do not know how to find these pages you direct me to, second you state that

"I posted it at the top of the article, not in a lower section where it would be more appropriate", I disagree, I find that this information is very important and something prospective students should be aware of prior to going into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

"You added a red-linked category". I have no idea what this means.

"Most importantly, adding case names and numbers constitutes WP:OR." again I have no idea what this means, but adding case names & links to the cases allows others to evaluate the standing on their own accord. I have not reported that JFKU was found guilty or liable, just that there is a pattern of similar allegations over a period of time and I simply provided information that others can evaluate for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Be patient. You'll learn. Take the tutorial to study up on this stuff. Keep in mind that we are part of a community and I'm happy to help. That's why I posted the welcome message on your talk page and why I started a discussion on the Talk:John F. Kennedy University page.

You will see links posted in various edit summaries and on the talk pages. For example, WP:UNIGUIDE gives us guidance on how to set up articles related to universities. Another link is WP:REDLINK.

The fact that you, as an individual, think that these lawsuits are important should not overcome your responsibilities as an editor. And you are POV pushing, which is not acceptable. One, you say these are important; two, you want the info at the top of the article page; three, you are SHOUTING by using all capital letters; four, you reverted my edits even though I've said we should discuss the info on the article talk page.

Again, please consider the advice that I've provided. You will be a happier editor.

Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ALSO, please don't take my remark about POV pushing as an WP:UNCIVIL comment. I do not mean it as such. Rather, I'm hoping you will consider what your objectives are. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to educate me, however I do not have time to learn a new Wiki language as I am very busy, I posted the info as a member of the public not a wiki troller. I am fully aware of my objectives, My objectives are the same as yours, to provide the public with accurate and factual information. Additionally, I as an individual am not the only person who finds this information important, many student have and will be impacted by the outcomes and as such, have a right to find all relevant information in one place. I direct you to the section that reports that the universities PSY.D program is on probation with the APA, again important and factual information (which you do not dispute). I have placed no statement or value on the cases themselves, I have simply reported that they exist, provided a link for conformation and noted that they are occurring frequently. As a matter of fact they are occurring at the rate of one per year for the last 5 years. As a judge, you of all people should know that if such an occurrence arrises and only 50% of the claim was factual it would still represent an alarming trend. One in which potential students and the public is entitled to know about. And yes, I stand by my assertion that the statement belongs at the top of the page because the reported incidents occurred in both the graduate and undergraduate programs, placing the content in one or the other would otherwise be misleading. I understand your point about the capitol letters and I will in fact edit that portion.

So, I don't really get what your issue is, overall nothing that has been posted is inappropriate, do I think the university want's people to know about these cases? NO, but that has no bearing on the fact that they have and continue to occur, its public information protected by free speech and that's all it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please. You are a new editor. If you cannot take the time to do this right, then you should defer on your efforts. Your edits are not in the right format, they do not follow article layout paramaters, they create useless redlinks, they consist of original research. Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor, and it is critical that you cooperate in this endeavor. Moreover, WP is not a platform for free speech. (See: WP:FREE and WP:FORUM.) The interest I have in a particular business has nothing to do with these issues. JFKU does not compete with my business -- rather, I am more interested in having all of these California school articles improved. (Consider -- if I really had a conflict of interest, I would want JFK to fail so that students would utilize other schools. Moreover, the geography of these schools makes competition an irrelevant point.) Simply splashing information onto the article in an ill considered fashion does not inform the public or improve WP. Please consider the advice of someone who has a bit more experience. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not a wiki hobbit, I have no time or interest in wiki posting university, I simply posted information with factual basis and support allowing for others to draw their own conclusions on the matter. it's nothing personal but I have no idea who you are or why you seem to care so much about the matter. I do however know people who have been negatively impacted by not having this information and I stand by my choice to post it and although I did edit the caped words as you requested, I will not willingly retract the information regardless of your efforts to silence the facts, to many people have been impacted already by similar efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you wish to WP:RGW. Sorry, this is not the place to do it. Your edits are disruptive. Stop. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I referred the matter to DR & 3O as it appears you are not willing or able to process the content I have posted, I will not respond to any more of your posts and I will continue to revert your attempts to remove my posts, this is totally lame, some of us have more important things to do than fight with obviously bored strangers over matters that have nothing to do with them. DONEAnonymouswriter1 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to WP:3. In fact, I am quite pleased. I have not seen WP:3 in the past. That is part of the wonderment of WP -- there are nooks & crannies to be discovered. As far as posting to DR goes, it is better to have a single discussion. If we get responses, 3O will suffice. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

POV -- lawsuits

Posting a raw list of lawsuits concerning JFKU at the top of the page smacks of POV. The references for these cases are indistinct. Mainly they are case summaries which say the cases were dismissed. Filing a lawsuit is simple -- people make allegations and the trier of fact decides upon the evidence presented. The posting of a list of cases does not address the merits of the claims. Moreover, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR. The editor who posted this section has made comments on my talk page which suggest WP:RGW is a motivation. Other editors are invited to opine as to the appropriateness of this information in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

References are clear and basic for the average reader and provide links to PACER the federal governments own website for individuals who seek additional information on case disposition. There are many reasons why cases are listed as "DISMISSED" As a matter of fact dismissal was mutual in the two most recent cases due to settlement. A disposition of Dismissal does not refer to the merits of the original complaint. AGAIN you continue to argue that posting the FACTS that these cases were filed constitutes some type of violation. No statements as to the universities guilt or liability have been posted, only that multiple people have reported having similar experiences with the university, people have a right to this information GET OVER IT! Troll another topic already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswriter1 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for 3rd opinion

Response to third opinion request (Dispute revolves around whether or not it is "biased" to post factual public information related to frequent complaints against the university for civil right violations, references and links to federal sources are provided & no statement of guilt/innocence has been posted.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on John F. Kennedy University and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The proposed edits are a list of lawsuits filed against the university. None of the lawsuits appear to be particularly notable and absent some other reason for their inclusion they should be outright excluded. Anonymouswriter1 on the talk page gives one possible reason for their inclusion, that " they are occurring at the rate of one per year for the last 5 years. As a judge, you of all people should know that if such an occurrence arrises and only 50% of the claim was factual it would still represent an alarming trend." However, he provides no notable source to back up the claim that one law suit a year filed against the university is "an alarming trend". It very well may be typical for a university of its size to have these many lawsuits filed against it. If multiple reputable, reliable, sources were to state that lawsuits against JFKU are rising "at an alarming rate", including this may be worthy of inclusion at the end of the article. As an aside, I looked up these lawsuits. I found additional information on two, Williby v JFKU and Addison v JFKU. Williby's case was dismissed outright, and Addison's case was settled out of court. And while the case may be amusing to some, its inclusion in the article gives wp:undue weight to its importance. Work permit (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks like we'll have to disagree there is nothing biased about calling a goat a goat & thats how I see posting the FACT they multiple people have made similar claims. My "alarming trend" statement is not posted on the JFKU page and has no value against the original posting, It was simply a explanation to another person regarding my concerns. looks like we're just gonna have to disagree on this one, because I'm not looking for permission to post what I know is FACT, it is what it is, this guy can have his little banner, but it's not gonna change the reality of the facts Anonymouswriter1 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Characterizing a number of lawsuits filed over a decade as an "alarming trend" is pure WP:OR. Moreover, from other comments by AnonymousWriter, it seems that WP:RGW is the motivating factor. Consider, it is easy to find lawsuits filed against various defendants in California. For fiscal year 2010-2011 alone, 204,178 cases were filed in the Unlimited Division of the Superior Courts. See: [1]. (This does not count cases filed in federal courts.) Accordingly, it is not surprising to find such cases filed against JFKU and other schools. Now if there are WP:SECONDARY sources which describe a trend, alarming or not, that source or sources might be used. But use of these particular PRIMARY sources (e.g., the actual cases) is against Wikipedia policy. Please, WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Therefore, simply saying these are "facts" does not justify inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree to disagree and I will repost the content each time you remove it without further discussion as it is clear to me that your motivation for pressing the matters is of personal nature and has no bearing as to the right of others to be informed, I don't care if you approve, I don't care about all your magical acronyms and most importantly, I don't care if you think my posting publicly available information is a matter of a "fact" or not. You will not bully me into going away. So if you want to spend every day checking back to see if the info has been reposted, be my guest, but I am finished with this juvenile back & forth and as I said, I will repost if you remove it again... Might be one to pick your battles on since you say you have "no interest" in the matters (except that whole you have stake in a private university in CA thing) which clearly signifies WP:BIAS:BS:IDK to me! Get over yourself and find something productive to do with your life instead of trolling Wikpedia picking fights with strangers for no reason. DISCUSSION ENDEDAnonymouswriter1 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a request for ANI at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anonymouswriter1 – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal issues posting

Hi all I meant to chime in on this yesterday but forgot, anyway since the discussion is closed on the admin board I would like to reopen it in talk, I have to be honest that why I see the point that some of you have about whether or not the sources provided are reputable, I also can imagine that based on the tone here & on the admin board the the original poster who has said he is new might be feeling attacked. Imagine if you were new to the community and this was the welcoming you received when you posted something that appears to be of value to he/she, regardless of who is write or wrong, it appears that the discussion was unfruitful possibly because no on bothered to tell the original posted what you thought he/she should do to remedy your concerns. Just removing another persons posting or telling them to take it down only leaves people feeling unheard or that their contribution doesn't account for much (at least in your eyes). I urge you to consider how this could be resolved more constructively in the future considering that you have now blocked the user from further posts. Situation like this verge on the line WP:BULLY as it is clear that this person was not feeling understood.

With that said, I have reverted the original post and urge you guy to think of ways to evaluate ways in which both sides can be accommodated, I know the original poster is blocked for now but if/when he or she is unblocked I hope that they will come first to this page and consider the ways in which you suggest making the content manageable for all. 90% of the message we convey in comes from out tone & context, I'm not picking sides, but if I felt ganged up on, I don't imagine I would be very friendly either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyslink13 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 April 2013‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006084905/http://www.nusystem.org/News/News/NUS-JFK-University.html to http://www.nusystem.org/News/News/NUS-JFK-University.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)