Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) at 08:37, 11 July 2023 (Task 40: template replacement following a move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:37, 11 July 2023 by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) (Task 40: template replacement following a move)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	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.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Article updated to show that Ms Clark died

I did a quick search and could find nothing to verify this. What is shown is a website memorilizing her death and people signing up and saying things. This site is not a reliable source unless I missed something. I am leaving and do not have time to correctly search this out so I am passing it on and bringing it to others attentions. Thanks and sorry, --CrohnieGal 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Worse, when I searched for the same thing, all I found were rumors from late March 2004 on Amazon. Hopefully we'll have a reliable source shortly. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Clark said on her own website that New Century Press, her publisher, was a reliable source for information about her. The new domain is inmemoryofdrhuldaclark.com. Here is a copy of the official registry information for that domain:

Registrant:
  New Century Press
  1055 Bay Blvd
  Suite C
  Chula Vista, California 91911
  United States

  Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
  Domain Name: INMEMORYOFDRHULDACLARK.COM
     Created on: 04-Sep-09
     Expires on: 04-Sep-10
     Last Updated on: 04-Sep-09

  Administrative Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

  Technical Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

It is a reliable source. --TS 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We've verified the source is New Century Press. That's no WP:RS though. There should be some obituaries available soon that we can replace it with. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that a publisher is not a reliable source on the demise of one of its clients is simply flat-out false. --TS 16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness no one is saying that. I think we can all agree that real obituary is preferrable. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I did a search again now that I've returned. I've found verifications in multiple blogs and one site that we already use in this article Quackwatch. I marked the other site with a ? for WP:RS as I do think we should be able to use a better source than this kind. I don't think the Quackwatch site is good either but I do think that she has passed away. Maybe her publisher announces something about her death in a cleaner way than what we've found? I think that the source used should continue to be marked for reliablity until we can find a better obituary notice, thoughts? --CrohnieGal 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Century Press website itself is now saying:

In Memory of Dr. Hulda Clark

October 18, 1928 - September 3, 2009

We are all saddened at the news of losing Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark. She was loved, cherished and respected by so many.

There will be a memorial dinner for Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark, Saturday, September 26th, 2009 in Chula Vista, CA.

Memorial donations can be made to Amnesty International, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hulda Clark's own website says:

There are other websites and companies using my name, selling my books, or selling products that claim to be approved by me, but with two exceptions, I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website or company. The two exceptions are this page, www.huldaclark.net and www.newcenturypress.com, because New Century Press publishes my books.

So you heard it from Hulda Clark: New Century Press is authoritative. --TS 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No longer a BLP article

"We owe respect to the living. To the dead we owe only truth." - Voltaire

Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

O - she died? Shot info (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that she is no longer living, we should be able to use these documents:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/huffman.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pappas.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorno.html

Brangifer (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very wary of changing our bar for sourcing based on a person's recent death. If these were good sources, then they should have been strong enough whether Clark was alive or deceased. If these sources were unacceptable while she was alive, I'm not entirely clear on why they are suddenly acceptable now that she is deceased. Could you elaborate? MastCell 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without checking the details: If the sources were only unacceptable because of WP:BLP violations, and they no longer violate WP:BLP because the only person about which contraversial information is provided is dead, then there's no policy or guideline which suggests exclusion is now appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. However in saying that - I think both Arthur and Mastcell are saying the same thing - that being - if they are RS and satisfy WEIGHT then they should be ok. -- Shot info 00:26, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, and that's a big "IF", the arguments used by her supporters were that the hosting was the major problem. Barrett has been in legal conflict with her, and he hosts the documents. Now all those concerns should be laid to rest and normal RS rules should apply, with no BLP concerns. Note that I am not certain that the original arguments used were legitimate, but were simply wikilawyering attempts to whitewash her. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the discussions above, the attempts to keep out this information were directed at keeping out anything connected with Barrett and Quackwatch. The main instigator of this witchhunt was involved in deleting all mentions of Barrett and Quackwatch (he had done it before, going on deletion rampages), and is now on a topic ban from these topics. We need to get back to working by the normal RS rules and include sources that apply. If they are factual, as the deposition is, they can be included as facts, if they are opinions, then they can be included as opinions and attributed properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't gone through the article and talk history enough to find all the context, but do we have some reliable secondary sources to provide context for information from these documents? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of tactfullness and respect I find it somewhat inappropriate to start with major changes of an article very soon after a person passed away. Do you want the same to happen the day dr S. Barrett dies? MaxPont (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one has done any such thing. Here are the sum total of changes between Clark's death and the present day. You will note that they consist mostly of changing the present tense to the past tense. MastCell 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording?

Anyone else think that, "Clark stated that she actually cured diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, unlike conventional treatments only aiming to relieve symptoms" is confusing or misleading? I can see how she might be weaseling with the fact that there is no cure for AIDS. However, does she actually claim that all conventional treatments for all types of cancer only relieve symptoms and never actually cure cancer? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, will reword a bit (the word "often" got lost in the copyedit). Avb 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of all the changes made after August 16. Avb 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The certificate of death states the cause of death was anemia and hypercalcemia with multiple myeloma being a significant contributing condition. I'm sure this can be worded better in the article. Because she claimed to be an expert at identifying and treating cancer, it is extremely notable that multiple myeloma was the significant contributing condition. This information is from her certificate of death, which should be included as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009) was born in Canada and, during some 50 years within an occupation of scientific research into human physiology, became a controversial naturopath, authoress, and practitioner of alternative medicine who claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including all cancers. Claims (including an authoritative proposition by a qualified professional oncology surgeon) suggesting that cancer was the underlying cause of Clark's death are not the truth. Documentary evidence of the preceding months of: (A) anemia (immediate cause); and (B) hypercalcemia (underlying cause) are documented, as the specific "cause of death", upon section 107 of her death certificate. She died following medical treatment for the hypercalcemia and, in relation to that verified "underlying cause" of death, section 112 of her death certificate further factually details: "... Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause ... multiple myeloma ..." (a blood cancer & bone cancer). Clark was last seen alive by a physician, on 12 August 2009, more than 2 weeks before her death in California. Also, according to section 109 of the San Diego death certificate, a biopsy (that could have provided evidence for a medical diagnosis of any existence of multiple myeloma) was never done and cancer was never proved, as causative of the hypercalcemia, by any other medical laboratory test. -- WATerian (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 GMT

The fact that the "biopsy" box is not checked means only that a biopsy was not performed after death. It does not mean no biopsy was ever performed.====='

- Nunh-huh 20: 09, 25 December 2009 (UTC); Got any reliable sources for your additions? A personal statement by a physician doesn't count, unless published by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the cause of death in this specific case, allow me a few general comments. Hypercalcemia and anemia are common sequelae of myeloma. Fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia don't just happen; they are caused by some underlying condition. In the presence of lytic bone lesions and renal failure, myeloma is fairly high on the list. Blood tests can be diagnostic in and of themselves (see serum protein electrophoresis), although I think most oncologists would perform a bone marrow biopsy regardless to complete the workup. The material on Clark's website is incorrect when it claims that the "treatment" for myeloma would be "watch and wait". For someone with symptomatic myeloma, the treatment of choice is generally (in an elderly patient who is not a candidate for stem cell transplantation) oral melphalan, prednisone, and probably at least a trial of thalidomide. In any case, I don't see a need for further discussion here. Both the death certificate and Clark's website indicate that myeloma was a proximate contributor to her death; other reliable sources could be discussed, but we don't really need to entertain unsourced and uninformed argumentation any further. MastCell 22:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 112 of Clark's official death certificate is reliable evidence that the "underlying cause" was not a result of multiple myeloma because section 112 states: "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" -- WATerian (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2009 GMT

I'm not so sure what it means. It seems a bit self-contradictory. The editors and bloggers who are medical experts don't seem to have trouble with it, but it's not clear why. Could someone give a detailed explanation of what section 112 of the certificate of death is used for and what "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" means? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The dubious tag was the best I could find to identify the disputed content and direct editors here, but I think some simple clarification is all that's necessary to resolve this situation. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want my view as someone with relevant medical training, then the answer is obvious. She likely had myeloma, although her doctors apparently did not follow the standard diagnostic approach to confirm that suspicion. Two major and extremely common complications of myeloma are anemia and hypercalcemia, either or both of which can be fatal if unaddressed. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable as to specifics of causation - not only are many doctors unclear on the difference between causes and mechanisms of death, but they are often completed by physicians without firsthand knowledge of a patient's clinical course over time. Based on the death certificate and the material from Clark's website, the overwhelmingly logical conclusion is that she had myeloma, which led to fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia. That's my opinion, based on the available (admittedly incomplete) sources and my personal knowledge and training. It is also largely WP:SYN, and keep in mind that I am pseudonymous, so for all my claims of medical expertise, I may very well be a 24-year-old college dropout. I am very tired of the close parsing here - it seems driven by a desire on one editor's part to bend over backward to evade the obvious conclusion that Clark died of a form of cancer - her own website says as much, which makes the denialism here particularly odd. MastCell 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

References

In Memoriam website, domain registered by Clark's publisher, New Century Press: "On the evening of September 3rd 2009, Dr Hulda Clark’s celebrated life came to an end.)"
^ "Hulda Regehr Clark's death certificate" (PDF).
^ "Dr. Clark's Home Page".

Deadlinks

Copied from the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the below links are no longer available, neither is doing a search for Hulda Clark at signonsandiego.com, have left the links here in case they come up again 28/11/2009! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgee2 (talk • contribs) 2009-11-28T15:40:57

Fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

cause of death related to cancer unconfirmed

Was unable to find verifiable information that her death was related to a type of cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.2.165 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were unable to find it, but it's been found before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's even been found before on "her" web site, but reference 25 states: "Dr. Hulda Clark, 80, passed away in September of multiple myeloma...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Split/redundant criticism

There is currently criticism in both the Claims and the Criticism sections. It looks like all the pieces are valid and warranted, but they are kind of a double-hit as currently set up. Should all criticism be moved to the criticism section, or should the criticism be incorporated into the claims section, or is this the best arrangement? Ocaasi (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

Link 2 works, link 4 doesn't, but they're both referencing the same article. Link 4 should be merged into Link 2.

I don't have time to do it now, but will later if no one objects. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Avb 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Serious pruning

This article appears to need serious pruning of its sources. Any of "Dr" Clark's personal sites should ripped out of the article as having no WP:V value. AndroidCat (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ph.D. major/minor?

The terms 'major' and 'minor' are not applicable terms to describe Ph.D. training in the US. Ph.D. training is usually described in terms of the trainee's department and the content of his/her thesis. When an undergraduate declares a 'major', it determines the specific and pre-determined requirements he/she must complete to obtain a degree through that department, from that institution. The same mechanism does not exist in any institution (that I am aware) for Ph.D. programs in the US. Ph.D. students must complete some rudimentary classroom requirements determined by their department, but completion of the research component of the program requires ratification by a thesis committee, which has quite a bit of say as to whether the student has earned the degree, according to their interpretation of what "earned" means. Since Ph.D. students do not declare majors and minors, and only some of the requirements are pre-determined, the terms 'major' and 'minor' don't really apply. HC should be said to have obtained a Ph.D. in whatever her home department was at the University of Minnesota, and she should be said to have studied whatever her thesis was about. I don't know why the U of M would say that she had a major or minor, but I'm willing to bet this is incorrect info.174.23.251.18 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, I just pulled the register (http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/108493/1/RegisterOfPhD_1966.pdf, page 67) and found out I was wrong - it really does say she had a major and a minor. I still find it very strange, and I still think it's wrong. Anyway, that UMN conservancy link is probably a more informative source than the generic "Library, University of Minnesota" that is there now, if someone who knows how to do put it in correctly (ie not me).174.23.251.18 (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't confirm the specific data, but I can confirm that, when I got my Ph.D., I had a major in mathematics and could have had a minor in physics had I taken and passed 2 of the 5 qualifying exams in physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My PhD is in Biochemistry, so I wonder if maths and physics do it differently, since I've also never heard of anystudent taking more than one qualifying exam, even after switching departments mid-program. The only way I could have gotten something similar is by doing a joint program with another department, which is not terribly common at my PhD institution, and would still require only one qualifying exam. I'm probably wrong here, since I have firsthand knowledge for only three institutions, 50 years after HRC graduated, but I've known people from many others (full disclosure, all from a biological science background) and none have ever mentioned a 'major'. That's all anecdotal though, and I think it's a minor (no pun intended) point - that section of the article is technically correct as written insofar as the U of M register really does say she had a major and a minor.174.23.251.18 (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but it might be more correct to say that, at Caltech, you have to pass 4 of the 5 parts of the Physics qualifying exam to get a major in Physics, and 2 of the 5 parts to get a minor in Physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While I would say that PhD programs with 'major' and 'minor' program options are rare, they are not unheard of. The University of Minnesota, where HRC picked up her PhD, still offers a number of graduate-level minor programs, both those associated with specific PhD majors and a smaller-number of free-standing graduate minors. Mostly they seem to involve completing a specified amount of graduate-level coursework in the relevant area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to a Number of Sections

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

I am contracted as a freelance writer with the Dr. Clark Information Center. More details can be found on my talk page.

Since I have a conflict of interest, per Misplaced Pages policy I would like to submit edits here for other Misplaced Pages editors to review instead of applying them myself.

I have quite a few edits. What is the best way to submit these? My ideal method would be to upload a word document with tracked changes. The edits, additions, and organizational changes would be cumbersome to submit as singular line items.

Please let me know how I should proceed. Thank you!

Skywrites (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate that you've been up-front about disclosing your conflict of interest. Before I write anything else, thank you. It's good to keep the air clear.

Do you have any previous experience in editing Misplaced Pages, or with the collaborative editing environment here? Particularly in editing Misplaced Pages articles related to medicine, or especially with respect to topics that involve "fringe" theories and therapies?

How would you describe your familiarity with the letter and application the relevant policies and guidelines, including those on neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) (especially the bits about undue weight of coverage), reliable sources (WP:RS), and sourcing for medical claims (WP:MEDRS)? To be clear, "neutral point of view" doesn't mean giving equal time and credence to both 'sides' of an argument when the preponderance of scientific and medical evidence do not support such equivocation. Further, Misplaced Pages isn't meant to be a promotional vehicle or platform for publishing treatment protocols.

I'm going to be honest—looking at the website for the Dr. Clark Information Center greatly concerns me. The site contents are written from a very narrow, very specific point of view that is far from the mainstream of science and medicine. It presents as miraculous fact an assortment of claims and assertions which – to all but a tiny number of followers – are objectively false. It strikes me that you, as a paid writer, are going to be in an awkward position. It would be great to be proven wrong, but I strongly suspect that any description and evaluation of Clark's claims that is compatible with Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and NPOV...well, it just isn't going to be compatible with the Clark Information Center's preferences.

So, all that said, if you still want to see changes to this article then there are a few ways we could proceed. You could post a summary of the changes you believe should be made here on this talk page and invite discussion. You could post a copy of your draft on a subpage in your userspace and invite critiques. You could post some portion of your suggested changes (please, not the whole thing all at once) on this talk page for us to examine or discuss. You could list some of the things that are specifically incorrect in this article, and describe specifically and precisely how you think they ought to be corrected.

Mind you, I can't make any promises. The organization that has hired you looks pretty dubious. The vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors aren't being paid to contribute, and bluntly, there's little incentive for us to spend a lot of time on an article about a minor crank who sold books about a bogus cure for cancer. You are going to get a lot of pushback if you try to add medical claims that aren't robustly sourced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I understand your concerns. I’ve been hired as a third party and this is my first project working for this organization. I am a freelance writer and my goal is to maintain an objective article and neutrality as much as possible.

This is my first time using Misplaced Pages. I have read the links you posted and I have also read several other pages. I understand what the end content should be like and what sources are acceptable. However I’m still getting used to the editing tools and how they work, so I apologize if I don’t format a comment or response correctly. For example, I just read the talk help page to learn that a colon is used to indent this paragraph. I’m sure there are many little tips like this that I will learn along the way.

Per your suggestion, I will go piece by piece so as not to overwhelm anyone with too much content at one time. I will begin by posting the first paragraph.

I think you will be pleased with the changes and it will make for a stronger article. I don’t anticipate that any of the changes will be that controversial because most of them are based on fact. For example, the current article’s summary of her legal troubles is incorrect. A quick read of the affidavit will see that the facts are different than what is currently written. Not better or worse, just different.

I look forward to working with you on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywrites (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to First Paragraph

Here are my proposed changes to the first paragraph. I wasn't sure how to best visually represent the changes so I decided to try and make it look as much like Microsoft Word's tracked changes as possible. I am also including a broken out list of why each change was made below the paragraph.

Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009) was a science researcher, naturopath, author, and practitioner of alternative medicine. Clark claimed almost all human disease was related to one of two causes: parasitic infection or pollution. She ~~and~~ also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by using a holistic program that included several elements (see Treatments and Methods below) and by destroying ~~these~~ parasites using an electrical device called the Zapper. ~~by "zapping" them with electrical devices which she marketed.~~ Clark wrote several books describing her methods. She had a private practice office as a nutritional consultant in Indiana before moving to San Diego, California. Eventually she relocated to~~. and operated clinics in the United States. Following a string of legal difficulties and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, she relocated to~~ Tijuana, Mexico where she ran the Century Nutrition clinic. Her books have been translated into 17 languages.

Here is the list of why each change was made:

I added "science researcher" since she had a history of working in government-funded research and her education as a PhD was as a biologist.
I added "almost all" to the second line. She may generalize and say all diseases at times, but she also lists some conditions where she does not mention parasites, but rather bacteria or something else. “Almost all” or “practically all” would be more accurate.
I added pollution as a second cause - she always included two causes in all of her books.
Zapping was not the only method she used, so I added detail for that line.
I removed the fact that she marketed the devices because the reference (2) does not say that.
She didn't operate any clinics in the United States, so I updated that line.
For the second to last line, previous wording implied her move was directly linked to FTC action, which is untrue. First, the FTC action was much later than her move and so could not have caused it. Secondly, it should be noted that FTC action was not against her and was to a separate organization called Dr. Hulda Clark Research Association of which she was not a part. She did not move in relation to a string of difficulties, and no actions were taken before her move date.
I added the last line because the notoriety of her books is most likely why anyone would look her up in the first place. Mentioning her books more in the first paragraph seems pertinent.
When I add new sources I'm going to write "NS." The source for that last line is:
- “Dr. Clark Translations.” New Century Press. Accessed March 3, 2015.

Skywrites (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To take only the first item, I don't think it's appropriate to call Clark a "science researcher" (sic; I think you mean "scientist") in the lead sentence. First of all, a PubMed search for "hulda clark" does not show any publications, which makes it hard to argue that she was a researcher in any meaningful sense. More to the point, she is not notable as a researcher or scientist; her notability stems from her promotion and sale of highly dubious devices and the ensuing public and legal scrutiny. MastCell 18:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As the WP:LEDE should summarize and introduce the main article, it would be best to start on some other section. As you're new to all this, you might want to start by identifying potential new sources, or content changes that you feel would not be disputed. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. After thinking this over and reading the comment from Ronz, I realized that it would be difficult to do this in sections. It is too lengthy to post on this talk page, so I took the advice of TenofAllTrades and posted a draft of the article on a subpage in my userspace. I posted it both clean and with markup. The article can be found HERE. Thank you again for your help and expert editing eyes as this article gets updated and improved! Skywrites (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing to check in about this article. What are the next steps that I need to take, if any? I posted my changes on a subpage in my userspace (at this link). Please let me know if there is anything further I should do as I know that I am not allowed to edit the article directly. Thank you so much! Skywrites (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Address the concerns and advice above. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this note for me or for one of the editors? Are you asking another editor to advise on what happens next? Or are you asking me to address the concern of the lede summarizing the main article? After the concern about the lede, I went ahead and posted the entire article so that it would be faster to review all of the changes as a whole, including the lede. I was following the advice of TenofAllTrades in the earlier thread where it was said "You could post a copy of your draft on a subpage in your userspace and invite critiques." Here is the full draft of the article for comments and critiques. Are you able to comment directly on that page inline? Skywrites (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring the comments and advice above. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which comments and which advice? Please be more specific.Skywrites (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! It has been two months since I posted the revised article on my talk page, and I have seen no comments or feedback. I am hesitant to post each change here individually. There are too many changes and it will take up too much of everyone’s time. I am posting the Background section below for your approval. Alternately, if this article is low-priority for all of the editors here, could you give me clearance to go ahead and make all of these changes directly in the article myself?

Thank you and I look forward to hearing back!

BACKGROUND

Clark began her studies in biology at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, where she was awarded Bachelor of Arts with high honors in Biology in 1949 and a Master of Arts degrees. (with no field of study or major stated) in 1950. After two years of study at McGill University, she attended the University of Minnesota studying biophysics and cell physiology. She received her doctorate degree in 1958 from the University of Minnesota. Her website's~~own~~ biographical sketch states her degree was in physiology, but the Graduate School's Register of Ph.D. Degrees conferred by the University of Minnesota, July 1956-June 1966, states she received a Ph.D. in 1958 with a major in zoology and a minor in botany, with a thesis entitled "A study of the ion balance of crayfish muscle; evidence for two compartments of cellular potassium."

In an interview she stated “I am a very broad spectrum biologist including botany, zoology, physiology and biophysics and the math and chemistry to go with it.”

After completing her degree, Clark moved to Indiana where she conducted government-funded research at Indiana University. In 1974 Clark began private consulting and her own research. ~~In 1979, Clark left government-funded research and began private consulting and her own research.~~ She held a naturopathy degree from the defunct Clayton College of Natural Health (which operated from 1980 to 2010) a school lacking accreditation from any accreditation agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. The state of Indiana does not have a naturopathic licensing law requiring accreditation.

Almost twenty years later, in 1993 Clark moved to San Diego. This was the same year that two of her books were released--The Cure for All Cancers and The Cure for HIV/AIDS. The move to California came two months before charges were issued against her in Indiana. In California she published several more books.

From 2002 until her death she operated the Century Nutrition health clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where her focus was primarily on late-stage cancer patients. Clark and her son Geoff separately owned businesses her patients and others used, including a restaurant, her self-publishing company, and a "self-health" store that sold her inventions. ~~Her son continues to operate the self-health store. She published several books, including The Cure of All Cancers, The Cure for HIV/AIDS and The Cure For All Diseases.~~ According to civil court records, her books generated over $7 million in sales by 2002, although Clark disputed this figure.

COMMENTS:

I verified her degree title with Registrar Services at the University of Saskatchewan. However, they do not have an online repository of degrees that I can link to. Also, I am unsure if biology should be capital or lowercase.
I added a few lines to the second paragraph to make the sequence of events clear. There was no source for the date of 1979. The only source I could find to verify this was her biography here: http://www.drclark.net/about-dr-hulda-clark which states that it was 1974 (not 1979) that she left.
I added the years of operation to Clayton College since I do not have an exact year that she graduated. The school is closed and previous transcripts are unavailable.
I removed quotes around "self-health"
The store is no longer operated by her son, so I struck that line
I removed the line with book titles since they now appear in the previous paragraph and it would be duplication of information.

KEY TO MY MARKUP

Changes are marked in red
Sections moved to another part of the article are marked in green
New passages that may be controversial due to the undue weight rule are marked in purple
New sources are marked with "NS" and listed at the bottom of my talk page in the New Source section

Skywrites (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Another month has gone by with no response to my edits. Do I have permission to make these edits directly in the article myself since it seems that this is a low-priority article for everyone? Skywrites (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You have no permission. I suggest you make some radically different proposals but most importantly that you radically change how you are making proposals: Make small proposals where you clearly identify the sources that support them, with detailed justification for anything that is a major change over what is currently in the article. Just creating a huge proposal is getting you nowhere. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. This is the most well-formatted and presentable Request Edits I've seen all night. The proposed edits are small and they are clearly indicated. You should see some of the junk I've been wading through all night! Some of them are just plain jibberish. The problem is with stuff like "I verified her degree title with Registrar Services at the University of Saskatchewan." We rely primarily on published secondary sources, like press, books, and scholarly works. We generally don't use stuff like official court records or verifying with the organization directly. So you need to cite press articles, books or journals and include those citations in your proposed changes.

Here's a madeup example "In the first paragraph of the Early life section, the current page says she was born in 1920. The statement is unsourced. This press article from The New York Times verifies that she was actually born in 1973. I propose replacing that sentence with "So and so was born in 1973" I recommend using this tool to get the citations properly formatted so the material is easier to review. CorporateM (Talk) 07:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like me to submit line by line edits. I will submit the first one now. Thanks! Skywrites (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Update to the second line:

Original line:

Clark claimed all human disease was related to parasitic infection, and also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by destroying these parasites by "zapping" them with electrical devices which she marketed.

Proposed new line:

Clark claimed almost all human disease was related to one of two causes: parasitic infection or pollution. She ~~and~~ also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by using a holistic program that included several elements and by destroying ~~these~~ parasites using an electrical device called the Zapper. ~~by “zapping” them with electrical devices which she marketed.~~

I added pollution as a second cause--as I was researching her I learned that she always included two causes in all of her books. On page 2 of Cure for All Diseases (already referenced as 13 on the current article) she names the title of a section “Only Two Health Problems” and then goes on to say “No matter how long and confusing is the list of symptoms a person has, from chronic fatigue to infertility to mental problems, I am sure to find only two things wrong: they have in them pollutants and/or parasites.”

I added “by using a holistic program and included several elements.” In all of her books she explains a treatment program that does not just include zapping. She also used diet, food, supplements, dental work, liver cleanses, and a device called the Syncrometer. If you need a reference for this change, the book 13 is a good example. That said, I believe that zapping should be the only one singled out and listed in the opening paragraph, (the rest can just be relegated to “several elements” at this early point in the article) because zapping was what she was most known for.

She did not market the Zapper, it was sold through her son. I looked through all the newspaper articles and didn’t see any references to her marketing it. Of all the accusations against her, this doesn’t seem to be one of them. I read the source currently listed but it doesn’t say that she marketed them. In fact, in her book Cure for All Cancers (reference 11 in the current article), she gave the plans for people to build their own devices themselves, and she encouraged them to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywrites (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 August 2015‎

You're making all sorts of claims, but they're not supported by the one (primary) source you provide.

If her treatments require her products, I don't think it SYN to claim she markets them. What do others think? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

All claims for the small changes I am proposing are supported in my notes above. I even gave a direct quote from her book. On the contrary, the current article gives no source to support that she marketed the Zapper.Skywrites (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone else will agree with you. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What do others think of these proposed edits? CorporateM and TenOfAllTrades, should they be applied (all, some, or none)? Skywrites (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to invite other editors to weigh in on this thread so that we can resolve this and move to the next point? I tried searching through the Misplaced Pages help pages but am at a loss as to how to do this.Skywrites (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

First sentence, I disagree with "almost", but agree with "or pollution", if that is actually supported in her published material. I agree in principle with getting rid of the word "zapping" in quotes because it's ambiguous (maybe "applying a small electical current to the supposedly affected area"?). Your re-write, "destroying these parasites using an electrical device", implies that the electrical device was, in fact, capable of destroying parasites. Even if she did not sell zappers, I think it's fair to say she marketed them by prescribing their use, and it's also worth noting that you'd have to purchase the book to get the zapper design. I wholly disagree with all other changes (e.g. "holistic program", "elements", etc.) as hagiographic. This was not a 'program' with 'elements', it was pseudoscience. MRotten (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Example reference

Do Not Link?

Propose that the official websites of KNOWN quacks like this are set up via Do Not Link. Given that most people use Google and Google places Misplaced Pages (out) links high on its rank, by including their official pages were actually helping to improve their SE ranking! This is a very bad thing since so many people just bypass (Misplaced Pages) in this case and go right to the "source".

It's not the final solution for this but it would be a start. The same applies to Natural News, Mike Adams, Jeffery Smith and all the other natural cancer cure quacks out there. Marcdraco (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

AIUI all external links on Misplaced Pages are marked as nofollow. Alexbrn (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the link no longer meets ELOFFICIAL criteria, I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Apols

Apols if edits I made in good faith do not apply to all the complicated searches you all have made. Please change anything awry. Manytexts (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Status elevation due?

Hi, should the article rank higher than "Start" class? It appears to be carefully constructed and thorough enough to be a C or more. Thanks Manytexts (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hulda Regehr Clark. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929145046/http://www.drweilselfhealing.com/print_friendly.asp?iDocumentID=183&iBDC=2196 to http://www.drweilselfhealing.com/print_friendly.asp?iDocumentID=183&iBDC=2196

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hulda Regehr Clark. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602215124/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/wp-content/blogs.dir/445/files/2012/04/i-f02fb1a655460ccf788c35e79d792127-HuldaClarkDeathCertificate.pdf to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/wp-content/blogs.dir/445/files/2012/04/i-f02fb1a655460ccf788c35e79d792127-HuldaClarkDeathCertificate.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hipal, below is the content you'd like to delete. ~~Note that the article is (to enforce BRD) back to its status quo state, as you should not have restored your rejected (REVERTed) BOLD deletion~~:

This college is viewed with deep suspicion by the medical community.

Please explain your objections. Your first edit summary was "seems to be OR". Your last one was "please take to talk page - we can probably get by with just rewording since BLP doesn't apply." So what rewording would resolve your concerns? -- Valjean (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, this situation affects the other places you have deleted these words and references. Note that even when the article is about a person, the part of the wording is not about the person, so QW can be used. -- Valjean (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valjean. Thanks for starting the discussion. Since BLP doesn't apply to this article, it should be the easiest to resolve.

First, I'm not clear that it's verified.

Second, I'm not clear that what is in the references about Clayton apply to the status of Clayton when Clark was a student with them.

If we have references that clearly show that Clayton had some relevant status when Clark was with them, then we can figure out wording. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Clayton has never been accredited and was not when she attended. She had a dishonest mindset, so her seeking out an unaccredited program makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that even when the article is about a person, the part of the wording is not about the person, so QW can be used. Not in a BLP, so the other articles will need a different solution. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP is about specific wordings about living people, not about whole articles. In that sense it both does and doesn't apply to all of Misplaced Pages.

It can thus apply to one sentence and not to the next sentence. -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, she is not a recently deceased person, so BLP no longer applies, at least not as strictly. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I agree this is not a BLP. That's why I think it should be easiest to resolve the problem here first. We'll have to dig up the discussions about BLPs for the rest, but my understanding is that it applies to BLP articles in their entirety.

References

Barrett, Stephen (18 January 2015). "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates". Quackwatch. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
Jones, Adam (2007-02-11). "State's diploma mills draw academic ire". Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved 2007-02-14.

The statement under contention is vague and badly sourced. "Viewed with suspicion" means almost nothing. The second source, which is available only on archive.org, doesn't mention Clayton at all, although it appears to be a multiple-page article and only the first page is archived. If the Quackwatch source is to be used, it's best just to use proper attribution and say Quackwatch's analysis concludes that the school is not legitimate. Quackwatch isn't "the medical profession", it's just one guy. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree.

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch summarizes the general consensus on the use of Quackwatch. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm not saying Quackwatch is unreliable (and neither does RSP), but rather I'm saying that we shouldn't attribute Stephen Barrett's writings as coming from "the medical profession". We should attribute his statements to him. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. So proper attribution and phrasing should solve the problem, right? -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so. The phrase "viewed with suspicion" is not acceptable because it's original research, an editor's personal interpretation of what a source says. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) While not giving it undue weight, yes. The use of footnotes or quotations within references might help in that. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories: