Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] "Accreditation"
I did some independent research to get a viewpoint not reliant upon Quackwatch and Bad Science. Basically, their "accreditation" is worthless:
The American National Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board is an accreditation mill [1].
This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education [2].
Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama [3].
The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill [4] [5]
--Ronz 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that if the accreditation is not accepted someplaces and might even be illegal that the beginning of the article should be reverted back until this get clears up. It sounds inconsistent to have the first paragraph say it is then to go a little further and say it isn't. --Crohnie 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are countless types of accrediation. Should we list everyone that a college is NOT accredited with? Of course not! As an encyclopedia, we tell what it is ...not what people suing their graduates and waging smear campaigns against them want people to know. No, it's not an accredited dental school either. It's exactly what it claims to be. Nothing more. The rest is POV. 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)
-
-
-
- Agreed. Anyone with more than two brain cells that can communicate can then see the clear spin the institution is placing on the real facts, when the facts (as clearly documented by official sources) so clearly document the dubious nature of their accreditation. The spin is betweeen the lines. They are telling the truth, but definitely avoiding telling the whole truth. In the very next section on their website they pawn off all responsibility on the hapless student:
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What are the laws in my state? How do I practice? Do I need a license?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Students are responsible for determining the legal issues involved in conducting a natural health practice in his or her state. The laws differ in each state or locality and our policy is to not offer detailed legal information. We recommend you contact your state or local government for legal interpretations, conduct Internet research or visit your public library as it is important for you to know what your legal boundaries as a consultant are.[6]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So basically they are flying under the radar by not directly lying. Their type of "honesty" isn't worth much, so caveat emptor: "Let the buyer beware". -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am going to change word "unaccredited" to "non-traditional" because they clearly are accredited by some institution, even if not the usual college accreditation agencies. There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. Calling it "unaccredited" just seems like an attempt to smear the college,which really isn't appropriate for NPOV standards. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- "There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. " Yes there is. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We already have articles such as Educational accreditation which define in detail what accreditation means. By removing this link and changing the wording, we'd be encouraging a different definition of accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Ronz - the difference in standards between recognized accreditors and the organizations which accredit CCNH is vast and well-documented. "Accredited" has a widely understood definition, which the existence of accreditation mills should not obscure. MastCell Talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply say "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" instead of falsely and non-neutrally suggesting that they have no accerditation whatsoever? I can agree that their accreditors are not recognized, but it is illogical to suggest that accreditation can only happen through "recognized" institutions. That's like saying it is impossible to have my car fixed by a mechanic that hasn't been approved by AAA. The idea that these institutions that accredit non-traditional programs cannot provide accreditation is your opinion, not an established fact. The articles you cite discuss the way accreditation is established in traditional educational arenas, not in the case of distance learning. You say that you are trying to adhere to encyclopedic standards, but both of you seem be defending a negatively biased version of the article. If you truely wanted to make a neutral, fact-based article, why does it read like a scandal report? Nicola Cola (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- "...why does it read like a scandal report?" Because NPOV requires us to report scandals when they exist. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- A tabloid-style scadal report is NPOV in your mind? Of course you should include them, but you are supposed to speak of those scandals in neutral language, and you defend letting the controversial nature of the college totally dominate the article. This article is definitely not written in a NPOV. It might as well be retitled "Why You Shouldn't Enroll at Clayton College of Natural Health," which is obviously not neutral. Of course the controversy should be included, but it should be dealt with properly. The article as you have defendeded it throughout this disscussion board and through your quick reverts shows your determination to slant the artical negatively, when in fact it should just give the facts as they can be properly cited. Your defense of a very questionable, non-neutral word is an example of how rigorously you are defending this negatively slanted article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Cola (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- In answer to your previous point, "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" is the best example of WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time. Anyone can create a non-recognized institution of accreditation and accredit themselves. I'm not saying Clayton did that, but that phrase wouldn't eliminate that possiblity as the source of their "accreditation". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I am no fan of these sort of phrases either, but my attempt to change the word "unaccredited," which is factually incorrect, was rejected. I was merely offering this phrase as a happy medium. So let's be direct and get rid of the word "unaccredited" all together. It is obviously non-neutral, contentious, and illogical. Nicola Cola (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your previous point, "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" is the best example of WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time. Anyone can create a non-recognized institution of accreditation and accredit themselves. I'm not saying Clayton did that, but that phrase wouldn't eliminate that possiblity as the source of their "accreditation". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- A tabloid-style scadal report is NPOV in your mind? Of course you should include them, but you are supposed to speak of those scandals in neutral language, and you defend letting the controversial nature of the college totally dominate the article. This article is definitely not written in a NPOV. It might as well be retitled "Why You Shouldn't Enroll at Clayton College of Natural Health," which is obviously not neutral. Of course the controversy should be included, but it should be dealt with properly. The article as you have defendeded it throughout this disscussion board and through your quick reverts shows your determination to slant the artical negatively, when in fact it should just give the facts as they can be properly cited. Your defense of a very questionable, non-neutral word is an example of how rigorously you are defending this negatively slanted article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Cola (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "...why does it read like a scandal report?" Because NPOV requires us to report scandals when they exist. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply say "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" instead of falsely and non-neutrally suggesting that they have no accerditation whatsoever? I can agree that their accreditors are not recognized, but it is illogical to suggest that accreditation can only happen through "recognized" institutions. That's like saying it is impossible to have my car fixed by a mechanic that hasn't been approved by AAA. The idea that these institutions that accredit non-traditional programs cannot provide accreditation is your opinion, not an established fact. The articles you cite discuss the way accreditation is established in traditional educational arenas, not in the case of distance learning. You say that you are trying to adhere to encyclopedic standards, but both of you seem be defending a negatively biased version of the article. If you truely wanted to make a neutral, fact-based article, why does it read like a scandal report? Nicola Cola (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Ronz - the difference in standards between recognized accreditors and the organizations which accredit CCNH is vast and well-documented. "Accredited" has a widely understood definition, which the existence of accreditation mills should not obscure. MastCell Talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- "There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. " Yes there is. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We already have articles such as Educational accreditation which define in detail what accreditation means. By removing this link and changing the wording, we'd be encouraging a different definition of accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to change word "unaccredited" to "non-traditional" because they clearly are accredited by some institution, even if not the usual college accreditation agencies. There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. Calling it "unaccredited" just seems like an attempt to smear the college,which really isn't appropriate for NPOV standards. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
On the contrary. "Unaccredited" is factually correct and entirely neutral. A clarification about which bodies are recognized accrediting agencies in the U.S. is reasonable. Efforts to disguise or downplay CCNH's lack of such accreditation are not. MastCell Talk 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- edit conflict Agreed. We are using "non-accredited" and "unaccredited" exactly as they should be used. I don't see anything illogical or biased about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, brother. How could any word that has caused so much contention possibly be "neutral." No truly neutral word needs any discussion of this sort. I am not the only one to have pointed out both its lack of neutrality and its illogic in relation to the rest of the article. I suppose you think the article as a whole is also "neutral." In my opinion, the entire article is an example of how people with a negative bias take control of an article. (That is not a person attack; it is an observation, so lay off the user page. I am never going to just sit back and let that stand. I have a right to stand up against the biases that give Wikipedia a bad reputation, and I will continue to do so.)Nicola Cola (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unaccredited
I think that {{unaccredited}} should be worked into the lead because it was specifically created for just such cases. --Ronz 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. MastCell 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I cant figure out how to fit template into lead without major rewrite, but it seems fit nicely at the start of the second paragraph. --Ronz 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I gave up and instead made a slight pov change. All the information from the template is already in the article. It's just confusing that we start saying it's not accredited, yet we try to explain what Clayton is claiming when they say they are accredited. --Ronz 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wording
I restored this wording change. While I still feel we're unecessarily dancing around a fairly clear-cut accreditation issue, this wording is much easier to read than the previous version. We're not crafting a legal contract here - the goal is to create an accurate and easily comprehensible sentence. The meaning is both clear and fully accurate/sourced: CCNH is not accredited by any accrediting body recognized by the USDOE or CHEA. The fact that some other, unnamed schools attempt various dodges doesn't necessitate complicating the sentence further. MastCell Talk 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Having wasted far too much time sparring with Wikipedia contributors who are determined to whitewash diploma mills and similar dubious institutions, I figure it is best to be as explicit as possible so as not to invite challenges about what terms like "accreditation" and "recognition" really mean. Thus, for example, "educational accreditation" is more specific (and meaningful) than "accreditation" (for example, Warnborough University claims "accreditation" from an accreditor of certification, testing, inspection and calibration services, which has nothing to do with educational accreditation but probably fools many people). Similarly, because "recognition" can come in many forms, I think it desirable to make it clear that we are talking about something very specific. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
