Revision as of 03:34, 15 February 2007 editShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:36, 15 February 2007 edit undoShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::It would only be relevant if they were claiming to be accredited in something they are not. It is definitely a continuation of the legal and smear campaign attacks by Barrett against Dr. Clark. Further, 100% of the linkspams to QW link to their product: "anti-quackery" books, soliciting for donations. ]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">[[User_talk:Ilena|discuss]]]] 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | ::It would only be relevant if they were claiming to be accredited in something they are not. It is definitely a continuation of the legal and smear campaign attacks by Barrett against Dr. Clark. Further, 100% of the linkspams to QW link to their product: "anti-quackery" books, soliciting for donations. ]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">[[User_talk:Ilena|discuss]]]] 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::Given that you find the NCAHF's trading location "notable" yet strangely you don't find this organisations status notable just smacks of yet more COI. Time to let some of the scales fall from the eyes... ] 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==When did Clark get her ND?== | ==When did Clark get her ND?== |
Revision as of 03:36, 15 February 2007
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Archives |
Criticism added
I feel that objections to her methods should be noted, and we can discuss them here. Such things as 'a lack of double blind testing' and 'not submitting to peer review' don't require sources as they are backed by the lack of information submitted for the article or in any of her books. Tyciol 07:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the criticisims added, and I believe that the opposing viewpoint should be shown. Thanks for adding it.
- It does come off a little like a smear campaign, but I'm going to leave the article as is, because I know you are just playing the advocate for the benefit of all.
- Cheezerman 21:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd actually like to prevent that conception though, so if you or anyone wants to make it better worded, more polite, then I'd be fine with it as long as nothing is dismissed. By the way, did you write both of the last two paragraphs? Tyciol 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article is significantly lacking in references to support it's content. This is especially important in a biography involving a living person.NATTO 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Plenty of references for the criticisms, please feel free to add cites for the publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals which support her claims. Guy 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Clayton College of Natural Health Accredited?
Wasn't accredited by "American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" until 1996 --Ronz 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education . --Ronz 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Degree holders are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure." --Ronz 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama . --Ronz 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill --Ronz 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The International Iridology Practitioners Association is not a recognized accreditation body.
Given all of the above, I've removed the edits by 12.143.242.135. --Ronz 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed the several repetitious attack linkspams by people suing Dr. Clark
Unless we add that Barrett is unlicensed in opening comment ... no reason to mention for Dr. Clark. Ilena 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is an odd way to edit an article, ie/ article A is "bad, so we must make all articles "bad". BTW, there is this line at the Barrett article "He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993". So using this odd logic, if Clark is currently unlicensed, then it needs to be stated ie/ "She was a licensed <whatever> until XXXX" or "She has never being licensed as a medical practitioner" (or something similar). And again, WP:COI. Shot info 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please understand. As I meander through various Wiki articles of people and modalities being attacked by QW and Barrett throughout various internet medium (Healthfraud List, Chirotalk, Quack Files, "anti-quackery" webring, blogs, etc.) I find the identical pattern. Promoters of Barrett / QW using the same attacks and pejorative, slanted edits against the very people Barrett is suing and/or attacking on his websites. It took over 6 months of battles and distraction to get the verified fact about NCAHF's suspension to stick there was so much effort to keep this negative and factual information all of Wiki. On the Hulda Clark article, there were 5 links to the plaintiffs linkspam. They stick "questionable" and "dubious" and identically bring the QW campaign here to Misplaced Pages. I thought Wiki was about balance and not promotion. Barrett's operations he calls "the media" are just that ... a operaton to promote their product, their "anti-quackery" . They sell their books, articles, POV, solicit donations and are linkspammed throughout Wiki by the same people promoting them on other internet medium. You want to talk COI, there it is. Thanks, gotta run. Ilena 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- We understand perfectly well. You have a conflict of interest in editing this article, and you resort to disruptive editing when an article has a link you personally don't like. Stop assuming bad faith of others. Stop being uncivil. Stop using the excuse that Barrett is doing such-and-such to validate your inappropriate behavior here on Misplaced Pages. --Ronz 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ilena, better go read WP:COI if that's what you think "COI" is. Last time I looked what you call linkspam, WP calls V and RS. So who is right, WP or Ilena? Hmmm, tough choice there. Shot info 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- We understand perfectly well. You have a conflict of interest in editing this article, and you resort to disruptive editing when an article has a link you personally don't like. Stop assuming bad faith of others. Stop being uncivil. Stop using the excuse that Barrett is doing such-and-such to validate your inappropriate behavior here on Misplaced Pages. --Ronz 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please understand. As I meander through various Wiki articles of people and modalities being attacked by QW and Barrett throughout various internet medium (Healthfraud List, Chirotalk, Quack Files, "anti-quackery" webring, blogs, etc.) I find the identical pattern. Promoters of Barrett / QW using the same attacks and pejorative, slanted edits against the very people Barrett is suing and/or attacking on his websites. It took over 6 months of battles and distraction to get the verified fact about NCAHF's suspension to stick there was so much effort to keep this negative and factual information all of Wiki. On the Hulda Clark article, there were 5 links to the plaintiffs linkspam. They stick "questionable" and "dubious" and identically bring the QW campaign here to Misplaced Pages. I thought Wiki was about balance and not promotion. Barrett's operations he calls "the media" are just that ... a operaton to promote their product, their "anti-quackery" . They sell their books, articles, POV, solicit donations and are linkspammed throughout Wiki by the same people promoting them on other internet medium. You want to talk COI, there it is. Thanks, gotta run. Ilena 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Accreditation is relevant
The accreditation status of Clayton College of Natural Health is relevant. She's a health care provider and described as a "naturopath". The fact that her degree is from a school recognized in a number of states as a potential diploma mill is relevant. If we were talking about a physician who got his/her MD via "distance learning" from an unaccredited medical school, we would certainly be in remiss by not mentioning that in the article - particularly as a number of reliable sources have drawn attention to the issue. Do you really think that if someone claims expertise in health care, that the unaccredited nature of their training is irrelevant? Please stop referring to this as an "attack". It's not an attack. It's a verifiable, sourced, relevant fact. MastCell 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would only be relevant if they were claiming to be accredited in something they are not. It is definitely a continuation of the legal and smear campaign attacks by Barrett against Dr. Clark. Further, 100% of the linkspams to QW link to their product: "anti-quackery" books, soliciting for donations. <font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif">]]] 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given that you find the NCAHF's trading location "notable" yet strangely you don't find this organisations status notable just smacks of yet more COI. Time to let some of the scales fall from the eyes... Shot info 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
When did Clark get her ND?
I've been trying to answer this question, but haven't got far. Clayton was founded in 1980, the same year New Century Press published an early version of her "The Cure for Hiv and Aids: With 68 Case Histories". It would be interesting to see what this early version says about her. I wonder if there are early (pre-1993) versions of her other books. --Ronz 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it cannot be proven via a RS and V source that in fact she has a ND, then really, what does BLP tell us to do?? Shot info 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)