| Revision as of 03:30, 15 February 2007 editShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:10, 10 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,790,814 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (394 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Clark, Hulda|blp=no|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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
==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) |
|
