Talk:John Bear (educator)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Bear (educator) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Alternative education (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternative educationWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative educationTemplate:WikiProject Alternative educationAlternative education

Breaking the Ice

This is the proper place to discuss the John Bear article. Bill Huffman 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bear's real name is John Andrew Klempner and he owned several diploma mills. He is part of a cabal that now frequents degreediscussion.

JeehongJeehong 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeehong, It's unclear to me what the purpose of your post is? Are you proposing that this information be made part of the article? Exactly what do you propose adding? My understanding is that John legally changed his name to John Bear when he got married which was after he got his doctorate. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeehong, the topic is included in the article. gidonb (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject notability

It is important to explain the wp:notability for the subject of a Wikipedia article. The following was removed form the article with the edit comment, "The opinion of a single journalist does not constitute fact". I reverted the removal the following statement because ithelps to explain why this subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia.

He is widely acknowledged to be a world authority on distance learning and perhaps the leading authority in the country on diploma mills.<-ref1->The college of Web knowledge, by David Shamah, The Jerusalem Post, Feb 22, 2006</ref><-ref2->Best-Selling 'Maker's Diet' Creator Has Shifty Qualifications, WPBF, May 27, 2004</ref><-ref3->'Fake doctor factory' awards degrees, BBC News, 26 November, 2000</ref>

First please note that three different sources have been provided for this statement, not one as the edit comment seems to erroneously state. There are dozens of such statements in reliable souces. I purposely picked three from the many choices from three different places around the world. If someone feels that three in the article are insufficient to support this important assertion then please explain why and express how many you think are required. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. One of the articles is not valid, it requires login.

Another one does not mention his world "authority".

Even if 50 articles said he was an authority, it does not make it so. The wiki page also cleverly skirts around the fact that Mr Bear was involved with several degree mills. Yes, diploma mills.

Why is a "mill" that Bear promoted or was intimately involved with, called an "unnacredited startup" ? Furthermore, you are using his own website to verify this claim. That doesn't smell right to me!Degreeoftruth (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the commercial google books link to his 15th edition also be removed. Degreeoftruth (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bear is mentioned as a recognized authority in all three references that I provided. Your argument about him being referenced as an authority in 50 sources is basically not relevant. Wikipedia reports on what is verifiable not what is true. Please see wp:verifiable. Your own personal issue with the subject[1] is not relevant to Wikipedia. I respectfully suggest that you find some other Wikipedia articles that don't trigger such strong emotions in yourself. TallMagic (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions? Who says I am emotional about this? I am only interested in the truth. Not in speculation. Where is the evidence that he is an authority? he is a writer, an author, that's all. That does not make someone an authority. The article is the opinion of a journalist, that is POV. Degreeoftruth (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three solid references that support him being an authority. If you would like more then they may be chosen from this list. [2]. The opinion of someone when documented in a wp:verifiable source is something that can be used in Wikipedia. Whether or not someone is an authority is an opinion that should be in the article. Please review the wp:verifiable policy. TallMagic (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books link

User Degreeoftruth has asked me on my Talk page to remove the "commercial" link to Google Books. My intention was in no way to advertise Bear's book. In fact, until this afternoon, I had never even heard of Bear. I found the article interesting and after taking note of the ongoing edit war, I decided that for myself and other wiki users, it would be useful to read portions of what Bear actually writes about. As I interpret Wiki policy, it is appropriate to link externally to Google Books. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is appropriate if it is an ISBN link, which it is not.Degreeoftruth (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that's news to me, but then again I am not a newly registered user with a personal agenda to pursue. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bear as an "authority"

The Chronicle of Higher Education reference link requires a login. So you logged in I take it? Also, when does the opinion of a journalist constitute someone becoming an "authority" ?

I cannot find any mention of "authority" on the CBS article either.

The BBC article says he is "widely acknowleged to be an authority" but this is POV. On what evidence were the BBC assuming this was so? Degreeoftruth (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for a source to be available free on the Internet for it to provide verifiability or be cited in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles also cite publications that are available in the old-fashioned form of paper, as well as sources that available on the Internet only to subscribers or that were once available on the Internet but are no longer accessible.

As it happens, I have read that Chronicle of Higher Education article in the past, and I am confident that the Chronicle has characterized Bear as an "expert" or "authority" or both. TallMagic has given you links to several online sources that say the same thing, as well as a Google News search that found numerous different news media outlets calling him an "expert" or an "authority" at different times. The Christian Science Monitor article that you falsely described as an "invalid link" also calls him "an expert on diploma mills and fake-diploma operations."

I don't know what your personal agenda against John Bear is all about, but I do know that continued disruption of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS article says, "The country's leading authority on diploma mills, Dr. John Bear". Please be more careful about making false statements here on Wikipedia. Or perhaps in this case making misleading/reckless statements. One's reputation as a Wikipedian can suffer when one makes reckless statements like you seem prone to make. TallMagic (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Can one indicate where in the CBS article one found this statement? Also, I have no agenda. I am only interested in the truth. I was unaware that the POV of a CBS journalist was enough to brand someone an "authority" on a given subject? Degreeoftruth (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TallMagic's quotation is found in this article. CBS said something slightly different. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my statement was not "misleading & reckless" ??? Thanks for the apology. I would agree that Mr Bear has acted as a consultant to the press. But a POV statement about him being an "authority" is unfounded. You don't agree? Degreeoftruth (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not TallMagic and I don't speak for him.

As for being "recognized" as an "authority" or "expert," if you are the first person that most major media organizations call when they want to interview someone about Topic X, that's strong evidence that you are are recognized as an authority on Topic X. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are beholdant to this character Mr Bear in some way. Perhaps you were once duped by one of the schools he promoted which turned out to be bogus? No you feel you must defend his judgement? Strange. You will not be the first to be duped by this rogue and you won't be the last. Good luck with your crazy editing. This man Mr Bear is no authority. Since when does an appearance in an article constitute someone becoming a world authority. It is from this kind of thing I now realise why Universities prohibit wikipedia being used as a source of information. Degreeoftruth (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to grind an axe against one of your personal demons, please do it else where, not on Wikipedia. TallMagic (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Degreeoftruth" seems to be missing the point in this debate. Editors are not meant to promote their own POVs in articles but they can refer to verifiable comments of others that may express a POV. If a number of newspaper and other media commentators are referring to John Bear as an "authority" then it is legitimate to say that he is "recognized as an authority". The extent that such recognition is actually deserved is another matter which cannot be easily determined. For better or worse one of the principal policies of Wikipedia is that all statements should be verifiable by reliable sources - not that the statements actually reflect reality. Unfortunately many articles do contain verifiable statements about things even when the actual truth is otherwise. But as far as I can tell this article is written in accordance with all relevant policies. Afterwriting (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid citation for FBI claim

The article claim, "He has been engaged by the FBI in its investigations of diploma mills for some twenty years.[6]"

I took a look at footnote 6. Clicking on it went to a site which has only a few words on about diploma mills. It says nothing about the FBI. Should not this statement should have good secondary source or be deleted? (EnochBethany (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]