Talk:Life University

Not the end of the story

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)

• I've finished the edits I intended to do at this time. I invite others to add information about the university's culture, alumni, and much more. -- SwissCelt 02:42, 26 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

(A bit amazed to be participating in a discussion first started in 2005) What in the section needs to be sourced? What information needs to be added? ElKevbo (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, the simplest way to resolve it is to point out that chiropracty is not a recognized medical specialty and thus all accreditation boards and higher learning institutions associated with it are not recognized institutions. Accuracy Banshee (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Sources

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)

Brangifer, since this is the Life University page please identify who you are speaking to. I assume it is me since I have been doing much of the writing in the past few days. Now regarding those sources, they should be allowed because they are in correspondence with recognized reliable and verifiable entities: the US Department of Education, Council on Chiropractic Education and Life University that are independent of myself. They are verifiable through Freedom of Information Requests to the US Government. No conflict of interest exists on my part.Abotnick (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the only one to whom my comments could apply, so you are obviously the one I was speaking to. Sources must be easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors and must be in published sources. Not all the truth can be told at Wikipedia. Verifiability is more important than truth here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's people who can't understand that who make civil debate impossible. Ever seen an argument between two people who both had privileged access to the truth? Not pretty. Accuracy Banshee (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)