Jump to content

Talk:Patriot Bible University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diploma mill

[edit]

I don't see a listing of Patriot Bible University as a non-diploma mill on the Colorado site linked on this page [1]. In fact, under the guidelines given, they seem to fit much of the descriptionj ("Can degrees be purchased? Is there a claim of accreditation from a questionable accrediting organization? Is little, if any, attendance required of students? Are few assignments required for students to earn credits? Is a very short period of time required to earn a degree? Are there few requirements for graduation? Alternatively, is the fee so low that it does not appear to be related to the cost of providing legitimate education? Does the operation fail to provide a list of its faculty and their qualifications?") --Fastfission 18:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was in the previous link. I'm re-arranging them a bit. --Fastfission 18:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technical issues

[edit]

Most of this discussion is about content so thought i'd create a technical discussion section.

Deadlink - i've tagged citation 2 as a deadlink. i wasnt able to/didnt know how to go into the actual footnote to make the tag more specific so ill explain- the footnote for citation 3 has 3 wikipedia links in it (they all work) plus one external link to "archive copy" (presumably of the work "name it and frame it') - that link doesnt work/is inaccessible. --Brunk500 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTC diploma mill list

[edit]

Mdis (talk · contribs) added in that Patriot isn't on the 2006 FTC diploma mill list. Is this worth noting they aren't on a list? Seems unwiki worthy. Arbusto 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter if an institution offering diplomas is accredited or not? I attended state-run colleges in California and Nebraska, receiving a total of three separate degrees, and I declare that those official accredited pieces of paper are useless, that I could have learned as much or more via my own efforts. Obbop told yah' this.68.13.191.153 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does matter. I can set up a home page and sell books then offer degrees, but that does not make it a school. Your personal claims are meaningless. PatriotBible 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that whether or not an institution is accredited is a noteworthy fact for a university. 66.75.8.138 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lonnie Skinner

[edit]

Can anyone give specifics on Skinner's educational background. He uses the title Dr., but does not say in what or from where. The whole page webpage neglects to mention where anyone received their degrees from. PatriotBible 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot doesn't list any credentials of any staff or instructors. They also doesn't make graduate work available. May56candoit (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

Most of the article is critical. If there is a large belief that this institution is a diploma mill, then sources need to be provided to show the number of adherents to this claim, otherwise it is representing a minority, and is unbalanced. Sfacets 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is well enough documented. In the current article. Granting a doctorate with the dubious circumstances should simply not happen in any respectable institution (not to mention being accredited by an accreditation mill). This is important information, so the parts of the article discussing this needs to be there for the article to be complete, and so their presence does not make the article unbalanced. If you are concerned that that discussion takes up too a too big percentage of the article then you are welcome to add a section describing their facilities or whatever... Thue | talk 10:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually incorrect, and most people probably know it...

[edit]

As much as I dislike Kent Hovind, Patriot University IS authorised under the "Degree Authorisation Act" (Article 2, Title 23, C.R.S)

http://www.state.co.us/cche/authlist.pdf

Yoda921 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

How so? C56C 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks

[edit]

Obviously we can't host the Hovind "dissertation", but can we link to the Wikileaks page that offers links for download, (link removed)? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no. See WP:ELNEVER and the discussion on Talk:Kent_Hovind. North5 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm just looking into this and I can't see any claim of copyright, by PBU or Hovind. I know it's his IP but dissertations are generally created under an open license, free to distribute. It seems he would have had to make special mention if that was not his intent. PBU's refusal to release the documents hasn't, as far as I can tell, been on copyright grounds, but rather on not having permission from Hovind. Does he says anywhere that the work is not licensed for reproduction? Otherwise, its status as a "dissertation" would mean it was under an open license. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Veering OT, this rather eloquently illustrates the controversy surrounding the supposed "dissertation". :) More relevantly, whoever does actually have permission to reproduce the text, I'm willing to bet my odd socks that it's not Wikileaks.North5 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask one of the law prfos about it when I get to school. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole idea about keeping a dissertation "secret" is ridiculous. A dissertation is supposed to push back the frontiers of academic knowledge. If it is kept "secret" then that can't be done. This is no more a dissertation than would be doodles that were written on a piece of toilet paper and then flushed away. Has there ever been a real dissertation that was secret? When this question was asked of John Bear, his response was, "Yes, in the late 1930's a dissertation was done in Germany debunking the "super race" idea. It was kept secret because they thought the student would be in mortal danger if it were not kept secret." TallMagic (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That then raises the question of whether we are allowed to link to it. If it is a private writing, then we must obtain permission. If it is a dissertation, then we don't. Yes, he got a PhD from it, but not from a recognized school. Does it count? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that Kent Hovind's doodles and personal ramblings are private if he wants to keep them private. Michigan has Patriot on it's list[2]. There is probably legal restrictions on the use of PBU degrees in other jurisdictions as well. The bottom line though, what his PBU PhD counts for is a personal opinion that each individual is entitled to make. My personal opinion is that it doesn't make him a doctor, instead it makes him an academic fraud. TallMagic (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he calls it a dissertation, however, does that not imply that it is intended to conform to the academic norms regarding such documents? Whether it is a good dissertation is another question, but by calling it a dissertation does he not open it to academic license? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the legal copyright perspective, a dissertation has no special significance. In all accredited schools that I know of, the dissertation copyright is owned by the school. Although I think that some schools may share the copyright with the author. For example, there are a few schools that list their dissertations with UMI but do not allow UMI to send out copies. Instead to get a copy the requester must request it from the school library directly. If I have a copy of a dissertation that I got from UMI or the school library, I cannot legally give a copy to you, at least not without getting permission from the copyright owner. TallMagic (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, if the existence of the dissertation on Wikileaks is reported in a reliable source we can mention it without linking to it. However a quick search doesn't turn up any such.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's likely to happen. Hell, a quick email to HuffPo and I'm sure they'd pick up on it... Throwaway85 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., almost every document is automatically copyrighted, even without any notice or action by the author or publisher. The only major exemption are documents produced by the federal government. See WP:COPYRIGHT for an intro.   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does US copyright law preclude fair use, such as criticism or satire? I know WP policy probably does, so it's more an academic question than anything. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, fair use is not copyright infringement. It is fair use. If it was copyright infringement then it wouldn't be fair use. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throwaway85, all documents are copyright unless explicitly released into the public domain either by the rights owner or because the copyright has expired. The policy here is to avoid linking to material unless we know it is clean, because of Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (see WP:C). So even if we had a reliable independent source that said this actually is Hovind's thesis - which we don't - we would not be able to link to it on Wikileaks because Wikileaks makes it perfectly plain that it does not care about copyright. We also can't use Hovind's thesis as a source for our own judgments on its merit. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least not in the article, :-) TallMagic (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article on that case specifically mentions that the defendants did not attempt to claim fair use. I can't see why they wouldn't as criticism is quite clearly FU. Anyways, thanks for the read. It was enlightening. I wonder, then, why wikileaks doesn't get sued. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As most legal issues seem to be, I think that it's complicated. I suspect that the main obstacle to a lawsuit in this case would be showing damage. If I made a copy of a new block buster movie about to be released and showed it on TV without permission, it would be an easy arguement that my actions hurt expected movie ticket sales and even subsequent expected DVD sales. In this Hovind dissertation case trying to show damages would be difficult. The main damage would probably be negative publicity. Having a court case (especially with the plaintiff in jail) on this would just cause even more negative publicity and what financial damage could be proven? TallMagic (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the negative publicity itself could be considered damage, although I can't see them arguing that his reputation was harmed by how shitty a writer he is. In the above case, mormon documents were hosted on an anti-mormon website. If those documents painted mormons in a bad light, I can't see how you wouldn't claim it was fair use on the grounds of criticism. I guess fair use only covers excerpts, not the entire document. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Wrong venue, folks. We're not a newspaper or campaigning journal. You need to get this published in a reliable independent source and come back with the citation - that's our policy and it would apply just as firmly if the document proved to be a work of impeccable scholarship. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even without the copyright issue, drawing any conclusions in the article based on the dissertation would be a violation of wp:NOR. Even trying to extract any statements for repetition in the article would require extreme caution since primary sources require caution. TallMagic (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a review of the "dissertation" made by a person in some other country than US as then US copyright laws do not apply for such a case. Linking to a such article is not illegal and if for some reason the wikileak-link to the dissertation could be found on that same article, it is once again illegal by any of the local legistlation for the country where the article is hosted. Interesting how debunking a fraud can be made impossible by the legistlation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.204.173 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. We can't link to any source that contains copyrighted material. although oddly enough the wikileaks article links there. Not sure how that works. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot issues a statement on Hovind's dissertation

[edit]

With the unveiling of Wikipedia’s new site “Wikileaks”, which seeks the “Latest Leaks and Censored Media”, has come the “never-before-revealed” Kent Hovind dissertation from Patriot Bible University. But is this the real thing?
...
1. Patriot does not retain ownership to student thesis’ or dissertations, as is commonly practiced by many schools. Instead, Patriot grants each student full control over the circulation of his/her work. Therefore, Patriot cannot release student work to the public. Patriot issues Bible degrees for the purpose of equipping students for ministry; Patriot is not a research institution.

2. Hovind’s dissertation was part of a graduate “project”. Thus, the paper being posted online was only a portion of Hovind’s initial research notes for his dissertation requirements. It is obviously not a finished product.

Yes, it's actually his thesis. I've also seen the copy that NCSE has in their offices.[3]

Thus, Patriot says they can't show anyone Hovind's work, but denies the leak is Hovind's final product. Myers, who has seen what Patriot gave to Karen Bartelt for her review, says it is the final dissertation. I don't think there is any reason to exclude a mention of this controversy.

(Just so readers are not confused with Patriot's false claim, Wikileaks has nothing to do with wikipedia. They are two separate organizations.) DD89crid (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PZ Myers just posted a response to Patriot's claims about the dissertation. DD89crid (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of Patriot's response has been added. May56candoit (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Diploma mill

[edit]

While amusing to read, if you read Hovind's dissertation, it is quite lengthy, over one hundred pages. Thus, as Patriot Bible University requires a significant amount of work to obtain a credential, one must conclude that it is most certainly NOT a diploma mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.93.152 (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the dissertation? Had I ever turned in something like that in school, I would have gotten a big fat F, even when I was in the 5th grade. The complete lack of research/citations, the spelling and grammar errors, and the complete failure to use 3rd person perspective as is proper when writing any formal paper, even a one page essay all makes it perfectly obvious that it was not a significant amount of work. I could have churned out something comparable in 1 or 2 days and even a mediocre dissertation should take multiple months. It can hardly be called work at all, but is more like a bloated blog post. Length does not impress. This makes it very obviously a diploma mill - at least when Hovind was there.Farsight001 (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100 pages or 1,000 pages of junk, is junk not a dissertation. (Some of the pages are repeated so its under 100 pages.) If Hovind or anyone ever passed a class, much less received a degree, from handing such a work, then it is a diploma mill. A high schooler can do better and is expected to do better ("My name is Kent Hovind.").
A real school makes a dissertation publicly available to ANYONE in its LIBRARY. That is the point of a dissertation! But alas, Patriot doesn't keep those records, and the double-wide in the picture doesn't appear to have a library. Also what earned degrees and from what schools do the people who grade work and hand out degrees at Patriot have? Unlike every other accredited school, Patriot doesn't list that. Strange? On the other hand, they allow "students" to earn degrees in months, as long as they pay.
Just a question for the person above. If length makes a dissertation, would a coloring book of over 100 pages be acceptable for Patriot to award a degree? Or does content matter for a Patriot degree? If content does matter, then why was Hovind given a degree? May56candoit (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions citation

[edit]

View the archive.org version and the current link. The current links redirects to a new page that omits mention of American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions (AAATI). The archive.org says Patriot is AAATI approved.

Also if you notice the redirect link says it was last updated on "23 May 2006." But the archive.org link from 2007 shows many differences. I'm not sure if this is just another mistake on Patriot's website or if its on purpose. Nonetheless, the archive.org link supports the claim, but the current link (that redirects to a new page) doesn't. May56candoit (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Disbrow, Dean of Students

[edit]

I was trying to find out about the credentials of the people running this place and found the following:

According to Patriot Bible University, there are four people involved in Patriot. This includes Dr. Mark S Disbrow, who is listed as the Dean of Students. His resume is online and lists his education as:

  • Bachelor of Arts in Pastoral Studies, Patriot Bible University, Del Norte, CO. 2007
  • Master of Arts in Christian Education, Patriot Bible University, Del Norte, CO. June 2009
  • Doctor of Ministry Pastoral Studies, Patriot Bible University, Del Norte, CO. June 2011[4]

According to Patriot Bible University, Dr. Lonnie Skinner is another significant figure at Patriot. There is no information about where his doctorate is awarded, but Lonnie Skinner wrote "... was Executive Vice-President of Baptist Christian College in Shreveport, Louisiana when I was a student there."

Also according to Patriot's magazine in 2004, "Dr. Lonnie Skinner has announced his early retirement (at age 56) as pastor of College Heights Baptist Church, where he and his wife Toni have served for the past nine years. As Patriot University has continued to grow God has shown us that the time has come to focus all of our efforts in reaching and teaching others through this higher education ministry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I noticed the link www.prepaidlegal.com/go/lonnieskinner in numerous Patriot Bible University's newsletters, including these issues:

Does anyone know about Lonnie Skinner's connection to PrePaid Legal? Why is there this advertising in Patriot's publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patriot Bible University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriot Bible 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriot_Bible_University&oldid=1209659798"