| Revision as of 21:19, 16 February 2007 editI'clast (talk | contribs)1,511 edits →Removed the several repetitious attack linkspams by people suing Dr. Clark← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:27, 14 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,286,819 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}, {{WikiProject Alternative views}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}. |
| (375 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|living=no|listas=Clark, Hulda|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|auto=inherit}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Archive box|]}} |
|
{{Archive box|]}} |
|
==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. ] 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. |
|
|
:] 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? ] 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.] 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. <b>]</b> 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Clayton College of Natural Health Accredited?== |
|
|
Wasn't accredited by "American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" until 1996 --] 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education . --] 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Degree holders are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure." --] 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama . --] 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill |
|
|
--] 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. --] 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, ]. ] 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 ] 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. --] 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ilena, better go read ] 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. ] 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::To the extent IR is referring to general/historical, documentable issues at WP during a content dispute I don't have a problem with her comments, civility or AGF here. I would write slightly differently since the ambiguity of the "A" word's use might be negatively constructed if one doesn't read it carefully or AGF in one case. Perhaps her comments are sometimes being over personalized by the readers (other editors) here. As for linkspam, whether V RS, BLP, COI or farm issues, I think IR's concerns have merit. Pls avoid saying anything that might be construed as provocative to IR and try to respond to her on the direct merits or with constructive, perhaps piquant, suggestions, damping down any perceived slights. Also, the pro-QW COI issue appears to be not yet fully explored - I have preferred to just AGF and let things alone, so far.--] 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure where this is going. I have no connection to Quackwatch. I'm not sure how to avoid "over-personalizing" Ilena's statements when each of them asserts she's being personally smeared by "Barrett's henchmen" at every turn. I don't intentionally provoke anyone. I prefer to focus on the article content, but that's been difficult. Ilena's been at the center of a lot of this, including the current ], and excusing disruption by suggesting she's being provoked isn't constructive. Please explain the pro-QW COI - I see Fyslee, who has had some connection with Barrett's organization in the past. Are you implying there's more? Would you agree that someone fresh off a major legal battle with Stephen Barrett is in the big leagues in terms of conflicts of interest, and probably can't be neutral enough to edit these articles? And at the very least, should not be edit-warring? ] 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry MastCell, I was addressing the earlier editors in ''this'' section. I think it is worthwhile to recognize IR takes exception to QW authors and authored material rather than automatically assign IR's comments to WP ''editors''. I am not phobic about COI but there may be more parity than is generally recognized.--] 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Ilena's in the mess she is now because editors like you don't have a problem with her totally inappropriate behavior. What a friend you are for her! --] 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't agree with your thesis and I think you could be more helpful in damping the spiral of hot edits.--] 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Then prehaps you should agree with the intent of the WP policies and condemn disruptive and inappropriate behavior? ] 09:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You mean like disrupting conversations, tendentious editing, promoting hidden agendas, using Misplaced Pages for self promotion, incitng known trolls and misrepresenting oneself (interests)?--] 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Accreditation is relevant == |
|
|
|
|
|
The accreditation status of ] 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 ] 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 ], ], relevant fact. ] 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. ]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[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) |
|
|
::::I have edited the DoEd sentence to improve it. Leave the COI part at home, please.--] 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===cn licensed, mail order=== |
|
|
On one hand, '''unlicensed''' naturopath seems redundant since Clark only claims her naturopathy degree from Clayton rather than being a 4-5 yr naturopathic physician (ND/NMD), which can be licensed in a number of US states. Also, WP:BLP around various individuals who seem to swap or be involved in lawsuits frequently (I include counterparties), so I would consider checking for '''*any* licenses''' (e.g. business license) or legal/medical associations (like a PA, physician's assistant, in the US) in Mexico, California, Canada and Indiana as well as ({cn}} and considering the potential impact of any found on the other hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mail order appears to be uncited OR, at least as it is often connoted, without a citation since even the WP article says "distance learning" (which usually includes or relies on internet facilities) for Clayton currently.--] 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with ] here. I didn't like the phrase "unlicensed naturopath", and left it out of my revisions, because the absence of ''any'' licensing is very hard to prove, and we are talking about a ] here. Same with mail-order - it seems most Clayton degrees are distance-learning (modern equivalent of mail-order), but I don't see a source specifically dealing with where Clark took classes. I think it's clearly relevant that her degree is from an unaccredited school, as I mentioned above, but I agree with I'clast that a generalization like "unlicensed" or "mail-order degree" requires more sourcing than what we have at present. ] 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Naturopaths aren't licensed in Indiana and Mexico (having some difficulty confirming Mexico). They weren't licensed in California until 2004 (or '05). I wasn't aware she practiced in Canada, so didnt investigate if licensing applied there. Overall, it looks like licensing is irrelevant at the time and locations of her practice. Unless someone wants to argue that it clarifies the situation of naturopathic practice at the time, I think it's probably best to leave it out. --] 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're forgetting something here, and thereby in danger of falsifying history. We need to go back to when she got her degree from Clayton, and ignore what Clayton does now. (That would be appopriate for the Clayton article.) Back when she got her ND, it was a mail order degree correspondence course. (I certainly wouldn't want anyone treating me or diagnosing me with only a correspondence course. For that matter I wouldn't want an ND doing it even now with a full normal course of education from Bastyr, which is likely the best school.) Because of the historical facts at the time, it is perfectly proper and accurate to describe it as a mail order degree. Anything else risks being false. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> (<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b>) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. It's a mail order degree. That's why I asked about when exactly she got here ND, to make a water-tight case of it. --] 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If the degree is by substantial mail correspondence, I think for many readers, "degree by mail correspondence school" would be less likely to be confused with mail order certificate with virtually no basis. I do think that the earlier 1985 quote $695 / 100 hour (semester-hours?) is of merit for the Clayton College article if that is V RS.--] 01:13, 16 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. --] 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?? ] 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
