Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Stephen Barrett ruled in Appeals Courts in California to be "biased and unworthy of credibility."

NCAHF filed this suit and then hired Barrett and Wallace Sampson as "experts." It was a stunning defeat in NCAHF Vs KingBio. NCAHF (Barrett is one of the founders & is VP & Head of Internet Activities) hired Barrett as an "expert." Here is the direct quote: "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines.NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective,relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility." After this loss, Barrett and his publicists tried to portray themselves as victims ... claiming it wasn't them but the lawyer's fault for the suit. Very typical of them to blame others for their disasters. They also lost to BOTANICAL LABORATORIES, INC and got a judgement of over $100K against them. That's when they got NCAHF suspended from the State of California, which many feel was a ploy so they couldn't get sued nor have to pay the judgement. Gotta run. Thanks for asking. Ilena discuss

I don't see in your quote above where the court ruled that Barrett specifically is "biased and unworthy of credibility". Can you provide a link to that case? And if this is in fact the case that Barrett and Quackwatch are specifically "biased and unworthy of credibility", shouldn't this be included in the lead of their respective WP articles first? Crum375 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. Here is a link to both the Superior Court Case and the Appeals Judges ruling NCAFH loses to King Bio. You will see it applies directly to Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson. Barrett signs his postings with both hats ... Quackwatch and Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF and they co-produce a widely disseminated newsletter. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here [1] specifically use the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility." Barrett is a writer, not a scientist. He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes. This is factual and provable ...not an attack. It is a description of his work, unflattering though it might be. Greetings from the Jungles Ilena discuss
Of course it should be in their articles. The problem is that Barrett and Quackwatch has a fan club here on Wikipedia that vigourously tilt the article into a pro-Barrett POV. MaxPont 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP is not about 'fan clubs' but about following our content rules. I suggest you do your best to convince the editors at those articles, which represent a de-facto WP consensus, to change the leads. But until then, we would have to assume that the court case did not apply to Barret or Quackwatch specifically, until and unless proven otherwise. If you do have some other source showing that Barret/Quackwatch are specifically unacceptable as sources, please feel free to provide it. Thanks, Crum375 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. Here is a link to both the Superior Court Case and the Appeals Judges ruling NCAFH loses to King Bio. You will see it applies directly to Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson. Barrett signs his postings with both hats ... Quackwatch and Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF and they co-produce a widely disseminated newsletter. The Appeals Court case (which I provide the pdf for here [2] specifically use the terms "biased and unworthy of credibility." Barrett is a writer, not a scientist. He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes. This is factual and provable ...not an attack. It is a description of his work, unflattering though it might be. Greetings from the Jungles Ilena discuss
Ilena, I read your sources, and I fail to find where it says that Barrett or Quackwatch are "biased and unworthy of credibility", or that "He wages legal and smear campaigns against those he opposes". Unless you provide better sources (or point me to a direct quote that I missed in your sources), I am afraid your statements can be construed as attacks on a living person, and violate WP:BLP. So please provide better sources that support your above allegations, or otherwise please refrain from making these attacks. Thanks, Crum375 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So sorry. I'll make it clearer for you. Page 22 [[3] ] contains this quote: The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility. Would you like a list of his legal attacks ? I'll be providing evidence shortly to his smear campaigns. Ilena discuss
The selective quoting of court statements, though vaguely interesting, has little to do with the article and the relevance of the link. The link mets WP:RS and the editor in question should have a read of WP:COI. Shot info 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ilena, that quotation does not say that NCAHF, Quackwatch, or Barrett are "biased and unworthy of credibility". Those five words do appear in the quotation, but they are not used to describe NCAHF, Quackwatch, or Barrett. I'm going to be charitable and suggest that you have simply misparsed that sentence. —Psychonaut 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It does seem to say that the witnesses had no knowledge of, experience with, and were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility. Who were the witnesses they are talking about. I guess we have to have the original case for that? -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I found the actual case. It is Barrett and Sampson(?) that were the witnesses. There is a whole section on the Barretts testimony. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Quackpotwatch hey, that would be Tim Bolen's site that has consistantly failed RS? Shot info 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
But the court record passes RS with flying colors. The judge's opinion is a valuable one. If he thinks that Barrett and comapny were acting a bit dodgy, then it is notable. From my understanding of the case the judge thought two things... that is was shady that Barrett was being paid as an expert witness since in effect he was the plaintiff ...and Barrett was not a credible witness because his purported legal knowledge is based on 1.5 years of training at a diploma law school that is now defunct and was noted for advertising in comic books and matchbooks, his medical education is outdated, and his purported expertise with the FDA is not apparent. I find it shocking that a guy who has made a name for himself by "busting quacks" is himself commiting very fraudulent behaviors... paying himself from his supposed non-profit to act as an expert witness for issues in which he is clearly not qualified and touting legal expertise when all he did was go to 1.5 years of a joke law school that the FTC basically shut down. What a hypocrite! Why anyone considers him to be a reliable source, I'll never know.
A few quotes from the judge:
...there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to add...
...both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event...
Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff�s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.
Ouch. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming all of this is right, then why isn't it reflected in the lead of the wiki-linked articles? Crum375 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm new at this and learning but why is there a problem with links to articles in Wikipedia that are about Barrett and Quackwatch? Is there something I should know? --Crohnie 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
those who belive in the effectiveness of alt med object to Barrett's oposition to the practice and in some cases have reacted by wageing campains against him.Geni 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's reliability or otherwise is not really relivant to this article. He is a notable comentator thus it is legitimate that his views be included. Of course of the College has responded to them that should also be included.Geni 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought reliability was relevant to all articles on Wikipedia ... not self promotion and promotion by publicists and promoters. Barrett calls himself "the media" ... he bragged about it in Time Magazine. He is all about promoting his viewpoint through various medium: Healthfraud List, quackwatch.com and related sites connected via "anti-quackery" webring, Wikipedia, Usenet, Blogs, Chirotalk, Quack Files ... to name a few. It is a network to flood the internet and other medium with their opinions, claiming they are unbiased scientists. They are not. They are writers and flacks and wage legal attacks and [Smear_Campaign] smear campaigns against modalities (like homeopathy), and chiropractic and many others. On the Healthfraud List a "cry to arms" was recently put out to bring more of their "unbiased" editors to Wikipedia. This is all factual and documented. Barrett has waged a smear campaign against the subject of this article, and now is using Wikipedia to further it. I thought this was an encyclopedia. When does an encyclopedia put "recommendations" from one engaged in legal battles with the subject of an article such as this one? "recommend[s] avoiding both the school and its alumni." I hope that there are unbiased administators watching this article. Barrett's NCAHF was suspended in May, 2003 and though I gave the link to the State of California's website showing it's suspension, that relevant information was kept off of Wikipedia until December, 2006. He has people who help make his "look good" ... the job of public relations people. This verifiable but not praiseworthy fact is extremely relevant when his viewpoint is pushed here on Wikipedia as RS ... when in fact it is he claiming to be so ... via his media connections. He writes books. He writes articles. He promotes websites. They push his viewpoint about who is and who is not a "healthfraud" and a "quack." It's a public relations media business. He is no scienitist ...nor is he unbiased. His hatred of Dr. Hulda Clark and determination to destroy her and anyone and anything close to her (this college for one, Bolen another) should not be allowed to be played out on Wikipedia. Thank you and I hope you're having a beautiful day. Ilena discuss
Even if it was said during the King Bio case that Dr. Barrett's testimony was "bias and unworthy of credibility", does this also mean that all other cases he testified in were called this? My understanding is that Dr. Barrett has testified in other cases, is this true, and if it is, what did the courts say then? Just playing devils advocate. --Crohnie 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the article? Just because Barrett's testimony in a single (a few?) court of law, with regard to a specific topic, was deemed for those specific proceedings biased ant not credible, that certainly does not undo the many awards that Quackwatch has received for the information on their website. Perhaps Ilena's personal conflicts with Barrett has something to do with her perspective here? Certainly there's a WP:COI issue. --Ronz 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that sometime Quackwatch should be allowed. He has won awards and a lot on his site is referrenced well. I was wondering about WP:COI issues. I am new but I thought this was against policy. I don't agree with everything on Quackwatch and don't go there often at all, actually very seldomly but it just seems that there is attacking that is unnecessary going on, like this talk page. Maybe it's something I don't understand. --Crohnie 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I archive this immediately? The whole topic is disruptive and irrelevant. --Ronz 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but first let's be clear. The court did not find Barrett "biased and unworthy of credibility" in general, as Crohnie picked up on. It's really simple: Barrett appeared as a supposedly impartial expert witness called by the NCAHF. Everyone knows that Barrett is in fact closely related to the NCAHF, and the court recognized that Barrett's relationship with NCAHF biased his testimony and made it less credible. Ilena represents this as the court ruling that Quackwatch and all of Barrett's activities are "biased and unworthy of credibility". In fact, the court ruled, narrowly, that Barrett could not be expected to testify objectively in a lawsuit involving NCAHF because he sits on its board. Misrepresenting that narrow ruling to imply that the court disapproved of Barrett in a more general sense is misleading, inaccurate, and has no place here. I don't object to archiving the thread, but let's be clear. MastCell 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters but I don't mind if the disruption is archived. I am responding since I also posted in this section that is disruptive. I'm sorry to say but I agree with both of you, Ronz and MastCell. I don't care for tensions like this. --Crohnie 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is not telling what something is NOT

I added the link to the exact description of what Clayton College is. All the pontificating by Barrett and all the places it isn't accredited appears to be verbose and attacking. We can certainly have a comment about the criticsm, but I just read the websites and I don't see them claiming to be anything other than what they are ... nothing more. Thank you.Ilena discuss

But accreditation to a college is important and I personally don't see it as attacking, just information. --Crohnie 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I archive this immediately? The whole topic is disruptive and irrelevant. --Ronz 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia ... not Quackwatch-Wiki

This college does not claim to be offering accreditation in dentistry, flower arranging, medical doctoring or anything other than what it offers. We need a tag on this article about the objectivity, please. Barrett's promoters here on Wikipedia are attempting to use Wiki as yet another weapon to attack this college and Dr. Clark. Thank you. Ilena 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably do have a point about, at this point it does look pretty lopsided. The school teaches a naturopathic approach to health that by itself is not a bad thing - that the body heals itself. Is there an accrediting agency for naturopathic schools that is recognized by the US government? Why are they not on that list? -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, what does this have to do with the article, beyond demonstrate that Ilena has WP:COI issues here with anything related to Barrett? --Ronz 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will address your role in keeping the verifiable facts of NCAHF NOT being licensed anywhere off of Wikipedia by removing the evidence and showing your inability to understand state licensing laws. I have no COI with Clayton College but Barrett and his public relations team here does, having been in litigation regarding those mentioned in this article. Ilena 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Take your personal gripes elsewhere. They are not justification for your disruptive editing. --Ronz 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I archive the portions of this section above immediately? It's disruptive and irrelevant. --Ronz 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for contentious claims

Note that per WP:NOR and WP:V, as well the 'synthesis' restriction, we as WP cannot make any of our own conclusions by the juxtaposition of sourced facts. If we have a reliable and neutral source that says something controverial, we can quote it or summarize it, but we cannot construct a synthesis from generic bits of data and come up with our own conclusion. Crum375 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, Crum375 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of link

Lets WP:AGF. Even if we did include the Barrett sentence, is it appropriate to quote, "avoid the school and its alumni." That sounds like an attack. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an attack waht of it?Geni 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant criticism, made in a sober manner without any ad hominem or straw man attacks. It fulfills the NPOV requirement for inclusion of opposing POV. I have now reformatted that sentence to make its relevance easier to understand. Readers who get that far, and who are interested, can read it for themselves. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess a better assessment would be an unjustified attack. Fyslee, your version is better. I'll add some. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That is of course a POV judgment call, and has no Wikipedia-relevant place in determining whether to include it or not. One side considers it justified, and that's enough. The other links regarding accreditation issues, as well as the actions of the named (in the link) notable graduates, make for a compelling case for it being very justified criticism. To even publicly announce that one is a graduate from that school, is to place oneself in the middle of a bullseye for investigation, since some of its graduates have been guilty of dubious practices, and one therefore could be suspicious of others who have bought their degrees there. The whole issue of degree mills and dubious accreditation is now blowing up in the faces of many public employees, politicians, and other notable and unnotable people, and the records of such schools are being examined by journalists and others, since being a graduate of such a school is a big red flag warning of possible misdeeds. McKeith and Clark are just two right here. Their actions lead others to examine the credentials of anyone with papers from Clayton, and if I were such a person, I'd burn those papers as fast as possible and never mention them. The articles in this category are very relevant to study: [[Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning]] -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I still think that we have an obligation to justify why we would include such an attack, rather than just print the attack. It's the difference between being the one with the gun verses the one reporting on the one with the gun (lame attempt at an example;). -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...We need to be careful with that, since our opinion is not to be included, only a presentation of opinions from V & RS. If including more of his opinion, which explains why he is critical, does the job better, go for it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What ya think? -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As always, what you do, you do well. It looks good and NPOV. I have wikilinked it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett/Quackwatch

I don't think Quackwatch/Barrett should be used in this article. The reason is that at the bottom it has a link about Hulda Clark, plus others. There is also other things in the tool bar. Isn't there another source that can be used instead? --Crohnie 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as they aren't used as the sole sources, I don't think there is a problem using them. This same discussion has occurred in many Wiki articles, and the results tend to be that Quackwatch is a source that many people don't like, but the information is reliable. --Ronz 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem with it used in this article is that at the bottom of the page there is a link about Hulda Clark and she is mentioned in this article so it doesn't seem appropiate. --Crohnie 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following. Which link, and what does Clark have to do with Quackwatch being used as a source? --Ronz 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the bottom of the link ^ Stephen Barrett, M.D. Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. you will see a link to Hulda Clark. --Crohnie 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that the article mentions Clark. What's your concern? --Ronz 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"The bizarre claims of Hulda Clark " This is my concern. She is listed as one who has attended this college but yet the bottom on the article has the link about her. This is an attack of her and shouldn't be used in my opinion.--Crohnie 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The Quackwatch article is about the accreditation of the college, and is used here for that information, not for the information on Clark. The comments about Clark are fairly inconsequential, especially in light of what Quackwatch is and how they've gone into great detail in other articles of theirs describing why Clarks claims are bizarre from the perspective of science and medicine. Also, Quackwatch is a respected source here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. --Ronz 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Quackwatch article used here is used because it is about Clayton. That it mentions Clayton graduates like Clark does not detract from it. This article does the same. There are rarely articles or websites used as sources here that are totally devoid of any information about subjects related or unrelated to the article topic, and this one actually has links to subjects that are related, making it a better source. The "contents" of the Clark article would not be appropriate here, but would be appropriate on the Hulda Clark article, either as a linked source, or as information. Wikipedia and Quackwatch are very similar in this regard. They both use internal linking to related subjects, so this is a strength, not a weakness. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Ok, thanks I understand. --Crohnie 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I took out the link to the Barrett page while leaving the comment there due to the potential legal ramifications with the ongoing lawsuit with Hulda Clark, that I am not sure about, but think it is better to err on the side of caution. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unwarrented, but perhaps best to leave it out until Ilena backs down from her edit warring. --Ronz 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as his personal conflict is noted it should be fine. JoshuaZ 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation of Naturopathic

If we don't WP:AGF then I suppose all of us could be considered for WP:COI. The point is have we investigated the article fully. Personally, I appreciate Ilena's ability to see the "other" side just as you present "your" side very well. I think we all have a roll to play here. Do you know if there is an accrediting agency for NDs in the US? -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

California uses the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education [4]. --Ronz 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is listed with the U.S. Department of Education. There doesn't appear to be any listed with Council for Higher Education Accreditation. [5] --Ronz 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work! Ok, so we know that aren't accredited by the USOE through the CNME and the others aren't recognized by some states. So far it looks like we aren't saying anything unverifiable. I think it is also appropriate to mention these in an article to let the reader know that if they are planning on taking classes, they may not be able to practice in some states. Agreed? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer if someone had done all this research and published it in a reliable source we could use. All this research we're doing, though verifiable, is getting a bit too close to original research for my comfort. Still, it's pretty sad that Clayton leaves it up to their students to learn that their education there is worthless towards becoming a licensed naturopath. Also, CNME says this about licensing:

Fourteen states and four provinces allow the practice of naturopathic medicine: Alaska, Arizona, British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Manitoba, Montana, New Hampshire, Ontario, Oregon, Saskatchewan, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have licensing laws for naturopathic doctors.

--Ronz 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Naturopath#Regulation_in_North_America has similar information, but it's unsourced. --Ronz 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it time to take a breath and talk...

Ok everyone, this article needs work as we all know but warring about it gets it no where. Accreditation in a college is very important. If the accreditation is not excepted in some states and consider illegal in some, this should be told in my opinion. I still don't understand why it is continually claimed that this is an attack by Quackwatch/Barrett or some others that are suppose to be working in his behalf. Ilena, can you show where the people/persons you claim are publist for Quackwatch to slander and be a publists for the site? If not isn't this all moot and not important to keep repeating? Everyone need to take a breath and start working together. I'm new but from my readings I would suggest before altering the article and reverting back and forth, which seems to be a big no, use this talk page for changes, let everyone speak their mind and then take a concenses. Isnt' this the proper way to work things out?

As for positives about this college if I remember correctly someone found information about the college. So talk over what they offer for classes, how they do labs and so forth. This is just a suggestion to try to calm the waters here. As for COI, isn't that a conflict when someone (s) is involve in the person or company being talked about? If so, they this should be enforce by whoever does this. For a newbie, I feel like I have walked into a field of minds lately. I am still learning and trying to use the talk pages right now. My husband had a heart attack and is in the hospital so I am trying to keep busy here. As soon as I know he is ok, I will go back to my Sandbox to learn more in the tutorial, so please be patient with me. I am just trying to calm things down for everyone. Thanks, --Crohnie 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, another question, is there a spell check on this site? I sure hope so!  :) Thanks, --Crohnie 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Good advice, Crohnie, for a newbie, you are learning fast. Talk is good. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, most of what I said seems like common sense to me. --Crohnie 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I've shortened Barrett's criticism and attributed it to Quackwatch, which is its source. Stating that Quackwatch has criticized Clayton is not libel, POV, or a smear campaign. It's a fact. People can draw their own conclusions, based on what they think of Quackwatch and Barrett, but let's tone down the rhetoric. I did shorten the criticism substantially and summarize it so as not to give it undue weight and to make it flow more easily. MastCell 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. Thanks, MastCell. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Will anyone object if I remove the neutrality tag? JoshuaZ 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Give us a little bit to get something other than criticism in the article. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agee it's looking better. --Crohnie 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Clayton College, here's the link [6] which has a lot of info on it. I didn't sign up, don't want to get there emails and so forth never mind I haven't gotten far enough in my learning to get brave enough to edit an article! :) I thought this might help. --Crohnie 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead Crohnie, take a shot at it! You can do it! The worst that can happen is that it gets deleted. No big deal. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did my first edit to an article. I don't know if I did it right so please check and make corrections. I put in the college courses. It's short but I don't want to over do. Also, as it is habit I signed it so I edited the signature with a delete. I hope this is the right thing to do too.--Crohnie 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Good work! 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You did it! Good job! I did try to make it flow some, see what you think - that's what collaboration is - we split the labor;) I think we should move this sentence to the top somewhere. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good to me. I didn't know where to put it to be honest so move it where it is more appropriate please. --Crohnie 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, see what you think. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Jonny Bowden here [7] and according to what I read he didn't go to the college as a student. If I am right, then he shouldn't be listed as one. --Crohnie 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do see that he notes a PhD from Clayton College? -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it, you are right that he got a PHD. --Crohnie 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's why we're all here; to get it right! -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that link. Please read mine too. Thanks again. 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

POV, balance, and what can be done with this article

Distractions aside, I'd like to discuss what this article is about, and what pov and balance issues we really have here. First, does anyone think Clayton is notable for reasons other than it being a diploma mill used by two high-profile people (Clark and McKeith)? If these are the reasons for it being notable, then the article will and should focus primarily on these "negative" issues. Still, I think it would be helpful to see what other editors have done with other articles in Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning, especially if there are similar institutions. --Ronz 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read about Clayton then you will see what it offers in classes and so forth. There are other colleges that do use the internet for the classwork and even tests. I didn't read the whole link of theirs but do they have student come to them for any classes? --Crohnie 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that 25 years and 25000 students is notable even if it didn't have notable people that graduated from it. The description of diploma mill is certainly viable if we can find a reliable source saying that. Also, I'm wondering about whether it teaches something like a community college where there may be no diploma, but just information of interest or for personal use. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably notable regardless, but there are reliable sources describing Clayton as a diploma mill - the Oregon state website, the Texas website (which lists Clayton under "Fraudulent or Substandard Institutions with No Known Texas Connection"), etc. Its courses may or may not teach valuable information, but without accreditation it's impossible to tell what they teach or what one needs to accomplish to get an N.D. or Ph.D. The fact that they wouldn't make McKeith's dissertation available is interesting. Looking at other unaccredited institutions, a couple are listed at WP:OFFICE, which handles vexatious legal issues, so it's clear that institutions can get ornery and threaten legal action when being described as such. Fortuntately, here there are reliable sources stating as much, and as long as we stick to those we should be OK. MastCell 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's important for other reasons, I think it would be good to identify those reasons and be sure that the article addresses them. For instance, I'm not sure that 25,000 students in 25 years is notable for colleges like Clayton, and I don't think the issue could be discussed without going into how the numbers are the result of it being a diploma mill. I want to make sure we aren't so focused on the accreditation (or related) issues that we're overlooking something else that's unrelated. --Ronz 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The question is where do we find V and RS for this stuff. We should not use the web site for it, but Barrett can't be the only source either. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My question for how many students there are; how many students did they start with and how many were added year to year? If they started with less then 100 and slowly built up to the 25,000 then it could be notable that the school is growing in interest. Also it would mean that the school's teaching is becoming more popular. What do you think? Sorry, got to go to work. --Crohnie 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I bet they don't provide any enrollment or graduate information by date. Just one of the many problems with unaccredited schools is that no one is checking their enrollment figures, or even what they define as an enrolled student. I wonder what the accreditation mills they're using hold them accountable to. --Ronz 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea. Why don't we start an article on the accrediting agencies and lets see what we can find? I wonder if we can even find anything notable? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was a total waste of time;) I found nothing (other than their own website). Forget that. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking - the lack of third-party sources is suggestive, but without them we can't write an article on it. MastCell 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem and I agree, I put a speedydelete tag on the empty page I created for it if anyone wants to comment differently. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this be of interest to the article?

http://www.ccnh.edu/networking/whoare_grads.asp

Nearly 44% of the people who completed a survey stated that they were in practice. Of those, 35% are in full time practice and 65% are in part time practice.

19% practice as herbalists. 45% practice as nutritional consultants. 34% practice as naturopathic consultants. 41% practice as natural health consultants. --Crohnie 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html I found this site during a search of unaccredited schools. I haven't read through the whole thing but maybe this can give some balance to the article. --Crohnie 12:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it says that "Degree holders [from Clayton] are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure." We already use that reference in the article, but you are definitely on the right track as far as finding V & RS for this (or any other) article. Such references are the best type for this type of situation. It can't get better than that. Good going! There are likely similar references from other states (that aren't already referenced). -- Fyslee's (First law) 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it's decent info. I am having problems finding more because a lot of the links I am finding are either websites or I need to sign up and I don't want to sign up and get emails from them. Any ideas? --Crohnie 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the percentages who go to the college, see my first link in this title, listed. Wouldn't this be an good to put in the article? It says the percentage of how many go and breaks it down. --Crohnie 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it would be useful to add it, especially since we're short on non-critical info about the school (perhaps with the lead-in "According to Clayton's website...") Definitely don't bother signing up for anything on the websites you find (unless you want to for yourself) - sources that require subscriptions etc. are generally frowned upon (see the reliable sources guideline), so it wouldn't be worthwhile anyway. MastCell 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, or anyone else interested, would you put in what you think is appropriate? I don't know exactly how to do it or if it should be in a chart (the percentages) which I do not know how to do yet. I am still gun shy altering any article. :) I have never done anything like Wikipedia, not even a website. I do understand that websites are usually frowned upon but thanks for the info. Thanks! --Crohnie 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot in a bit, but feel free to be bold and go for it yourself - the worst that will happen is that someone will revert it. People tend to take things here pretty seriously, but in the end, it's just Wikipedia - no harm done, and don't take it personally if it happens - it happens to everyone. MastCell 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe later if you haven't done it I'll give it a try. I wouldn't get upset if someone changed it or deleted it to be honest. I am very green at all this and still need to learn a lot. --Crohnie 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it:) I usually just put it in and then if somebody makes changes it is usually for the better. Give it another shot! -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I put in this information above about there graduation rates. If incorrectly done, not appropriate or needs to be reworked, please don't hesitate. --Crohnie 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made a copy edit and formatted the link as a reference. Go for it! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you're a doll. I saw the changes and it looks better than mine. I appreciate your helping. --Crohnie 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the school teach?

Now that we have totally detroyed the credibility of this school, maybe it would be a good idea to write a little something good about it, unless it is all bad. Anybody good at writing for the enemy? Or are all we interested here is naturopathy bashing? -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Their web site has a lot of info - should not be hard to lift/cite some material. Crum375 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
A short list of the subjects they teach, and then wikilink them. That should be good enough. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just a pure and utter extension of the Smear_campaign spread by Barrett, now repeated, almost verbatim here on Wikipedia. Everything Wiki is NOT ... biased, subjective, and part of a legal campaign he is waging. Ilena discuss


Did I miss something? Comments keep being made about Dr Barrett trying to smear this article. Did he post somewhere? Some of this is just not making any sense to me. What does any legal problems have to do with the article? Sorry, maybe I shouldn't mention anything, but this seems to be one side, at least here about smear compaigns. --Crohnie 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett has a team on the internet who promote him and post his linkspam throughout the internet including Wikipedia. That's what Media or Public_relations and Smear_campaigns are all about. Ilenadiscuss

Are you saying others are promoting him in a professional way? I'm new but I thought that on talk pages these kinds of things are discussed and then a consenses is taken. It just doesn't seem right to make these accusation like this. --Crohnie 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesnt seem right. It seems to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is nothing but a smear site. It is the Internet eqivalent of the supermarket tabloid, designed for no other purpose than to create controversy and destroy reputations. They do not fact check or make any attempt to present a balanced point of view. It has been clearly established as unreliable and should not be used here, just as it is not used in other properly written articles.Nicola Cola (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Immediately archiving this section as an old discussion, with one recent comment that's inappropriate per WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Good idea. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)