Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Criticism added

I have tried several procedures described by Dr. Clark and they proved to be 100% true. This article is written by someone who is trying very hard (I'm wondering why?) to discredit Dr. Clark. I agree that following all Dr. Hulda's recommendations is too radical but using a common sense and Dr. Hulda advices can improve your health. Start with the liver cleansing. Open your mind. Earth is not flat (as drug companies are telling you). AndrzejK 21:14, 8 May 2007

That's cool. But don't use the article as your personal essay. If you have reliably sourced material to add to the article, please feel free. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Tyciol 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.
Cheezerman 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? Tyciol 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.NATTO 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. Guy 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton College of Natural Health Accredited?

Wasn't accredited by "American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" until 1996 [1] --Ronz 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education [2]. --Ronz 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Degree holders are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure." [3] --Ronz 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama [4]. --Ronz 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill [5] [6] --Ronz 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. --Ronz 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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, WP:COI. Shot info 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 Wikipedia. I thought Wiki was about balance and not promotion. Barrett's operations he calls "the media" are just that ... a [Public_relations] operaton to promote their product, their "anti-quackery" [Smear_campaign]. 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 disruptive editing 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 Wikipedia. --Ronz 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ilena, better go read WP:COI if that's what you think "COI" is. Last time I looked what you call linkspam, WP calls V and RS. So who is right, WP or Ilena? Hmmm, tough choice there. Shot info 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To the extent IR is referring to general/historical, documentable issues at WP during a content dispute I don't have a problem with her comments, civility or AGF here. I would write slightly differently since the ambiguity of the "A" word's use might be negatively constructed if one doesn't read it carefully or AGF in one case. Perhaps her comments are sometimes being over personalized by the readers (other editors) here. As for linkspam, whether V RS, BLP, COI or farm issues, I think IR's concerns have merit. Pls avoid saying anything that might be construed as provocative to IR and try to respond to her on the direct merits or with constructive, perhaps piquant, suggestions, damping down any perceived slights. Also, the pro-QW COI issue appears to be not yet fully explored - I have preferred to just AGF and let things alone, so far.--I'clast 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is going. I have no connection to Quackwatch. I'm not sure how to avoid "over-personalizing" Ilena's statements when each of them asserts she's being personally smeared by "Barrett's henchmen" at every turn. I don't intentionally provoke anyone. I prefer to focus on the article content, but that's been difficult. Ilena's been at the center of a lot of this, including the current WP:RfArb, and excusing disruption by suggesting she's being provoked isn't constructive. Please explain the pro-QW COI - I see Fyslee, who has had some connection with Barrett's organization in the past. Are you implying there's more? Would you agree that someone fresh off a major legal battle with Stephen Barrett is in the big leagues in terms of conflicts of interest, and probably can't be neutral enough to edit these articles? And at the very least, should not be edit-warring? MastCell 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry MastCell, I was addressing the earlier editors in this section. I think it is worthwhile to recognize IR takes exception to QW authors and authored material rather than automatically assign IR's comments to WP editors. I am not phobic about COI but there may be more parity than is generally recognized.--I'clast 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ilena's in the mess she is now because editors like you don't have a problem with her totally inappropriate behavior. --Ronz 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with your thesis and I think you could be more helpful in damping the spiral of hot edits.--I'clast 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Then prehaps you should agree with the intent of the WP policies and condemn disruptive and inappropriate behavior? Shot info 09:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean like disruptive editing (refactored by Ronz) ?--I'clast 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to poke my nose into this and I usually don't. First off, I just started to look at this article because Clark has come up on issues about 'curing' crohn's disease on the net. Please, all you editors, don't get caught up in flaming and being uncivil to each other. As you know it doesn't help anyone nor the article. I hope I haven't upset anyone but I just want to try to stop the arguing before it gets too bad. I wish you all well, --Crohnie 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Nice to have you here. --Ronz 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation is relevant

The accreditation status of Clayton College of Natural Health 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 reliable sources 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 verifiable, sourced, relevant fact. MastCell 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. <font color=&quot;999900 face=&quot;times new roman,times,serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Ilena|Ilena&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;#FF66CC&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Ilena|discuss]]]] 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that you find the NCAHF's trading location "notable" yet strangely you don't find this organisations status notable just smacks of yet more COI. Time to let some of the scales fall from the eyes... Shot info 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the DoEd sentence to improve it. Leave the COI part at home, please.--I'clast 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cn licensed, mail order

On one hand, unlicensed naturopath seems redundant since Clark only claims her naturopathy degree from Clayton rather than being a 4-5 yr naturopathic physician (ND/NMD), which can be licensed in a number of US states. Also, WP:BLP around various individuals who seem to swap or be involved in lawsuits frequently (I include counterparties), so I would consider checking for *any* licenses (e.g. business license) or legal/medical associations (like a PA, physician's assistant, in the US) in Mexico, California, Canada and Indiana as well as ({cn}} and considering the potential impact of any found on the other hand.

Mail order appears to be uncited OR, at least as it is often connoted, without a citation since even the WP article says "distance learning" (which usually includes or relies on internet facilities) for Clayton currently.--I'clast 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with I'clast here. I didn't like the phrase "unlicensed naturopath", and left it out of my revisions, because the absence of any licensing is very hard to prove, and we are talking about a living person here. Same with mail-order - it seems most Clayton degrees are distance-learning (modern equivalent of mail-order), but I don't see a source specifically dealing with where Clark took classes. I think it's clearly relevant that her degree is from an unaccredited school, as I mentioned above, but I agree with I'clast that a generalization like "unlicensed" or "mail-order degree" requires more sourcing than what we have at present. MastCell 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Naturopaths aren't licensed in Indiana and Mexico (having some difficulty confirming Mexico). They weren't licensed in California until 2004 (or '05). I wasn't aware she practiced in Canada, so didnt investigate if licensing applied there. Overall, it looks like licensing is irrelevant at the time and locations of her practice. Unless someone wants to argue that it clarifies the situation of naturopathic practice at the time, I think it's probably best to leave it out. --Ronz 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're forgetting something here, and thereby in danger of falsifying history. We need to go back to when she got her degree from Clayton, and ignore what Clayton does now. (That would be appopriate for the Clayton article.) Back when she got her ND, it was a mail order degree correspondence course. (I certainly wouldn't want anyone treating me or diagnosing me with only a correspondence course. For that matter I wouldn't want an ND doing it even now with a full normal course of education from Bastyr, which is likely the best school.) Because of the historical facts at the time, it is perfectly proper and accurate to describe it as a mail order degree. Anything else risks being false. -- Fyslee's (First law) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a mail order degree. That's why I asked about when exactly she got here ND, to make a water-tight case of it. --Ronz 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If the degree is by substantial mail correspondence, I think for many readers, "degree by mail correspondence school" would be less likely to be confused with mail order certificate with virtually no basis. I do think that the earlier 1985 quote $695 / 100 hour (semester-hours?) is of merit for the Clayton College article if that is V RS.--I'clast 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Ronz 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?? Shot info 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I did a Google search about her and crohn's but..

All I found so far are websites promoting her stuff, esp. the zapper written by others. Very frustrating to try to find anything written by her. She puts clauses in that she doesn't support what is written on these sites. --Crohnie 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is coming somewhat late but the article does include am external link to the entire text of her major book (hosted by a site named after one of the biggest quacks of all time!). There you can read what she herself says, so there is no need to get it second hand from other sites that sell her products and violate the law. She's already in violation and keeps her business in Mexico. Anyone with a little knowledge of pathology will quickly discover that it's nonsense. So the article includes all the "advocacy" external links it needs. -- Fyslee/talk 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Well, in light of the issues raised, I've gone through and tried to improve the sourcing. I'd welcome other sets of eyes to take a look at the sourcing and ensure that controversial or potentially negative statements are properly sourced. MastCell 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks really good to me. I just read through everything this morning. The references really look a lot better. --Crohnie 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drclark.net

Well, it's not an official site, or she'd still be in jail, but it may be informative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know too much about her case, but I agree that the site is very informative. Ecommerce seems to be a minor part of it and given that she is subject, I think this site meets WP:EL on the particular article. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The site is not her site (and she shrewdly distances herself from all other sites than her own) and there are myriad sites with lots of information about her protocols and also selling her products. We are not obligated (nor allowed) to list any of them. This one is David Amrein's site, and he is the one specifically named by the FTC/FDA as breaking the marketing laws using this very site. I'm surprised that someone who has so often claimed that Barrett's site is commercial (because of a little notice that donations are accepted) would even consider allowing this site that actually sells products officially considered bad by the government! There is a world of difference between a non-profit accepting donations (as they all do) and a large commercial operation (he has publicly admitted that on hidden camera) that is operating illegally and hiding in Switzerland. Here's the FTC/FDA report. -- Fyslee/talk 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. She even says so on her one page site [7] that she does not support or back any sites that use her name. This needs to stay out do to WP:EL. Sorry, but it is just a spam site. --Crohnie 10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Seems to violate, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." (WP:EL)) It's an interesting example of deception though. --Ronz 15:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I see and agree now. However, note that the main reason that Barrett's site fail as a WP:EL is not that it is commercial with its prominent donation links, but rather that it is not a reliable source of information on anything other than Barrett and his opinions. Baiscally, it is equivilent to a personal blog. But I digress, on this subject, I do agree not that the Armein site does fail as a WP:EL here. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you're digressing, I disagree. You're confusing WP:EL with WP:RS, in what appears to be an effort to make a yet another point supporting your bias against Barrett.WP:POINT. --Ronz 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that Ronz should read WP:EL#What_to_link and learn how WP:RS is entirely relevant to WP:EL. (By the way, Ronz, by repeated falsely accusing me of disruption, you are being incivil. Please refrain.)-- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I see the words "deception" and "disagree" but not "disruption" though. It would seem that (once again) you are either incorrect or just trying to prove a point. Shot info 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that Shot info reads WP:POINT which is entitled "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". IOW, claiming WP:POINT means that Ronz was claiming disruption on my part, a charge which he/she has often launched at me unwarranted. By definition, that is uncivil. So I am asking nicely - once again - please refrain from such false accusations as they are viewed as uncivil and unbecoming of a Wikipedian. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly being disruptive now if not earlier, but perhaps WP:POINT was going to far. --Ronz 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we all agree about removing the drclark.net link. Let's leave it there, accentuate the positive, and not look for things to fight about. MastCell Talk 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. Let's also strive to remain civil here. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of court record

Regarding these deletions of material, I'm not sure that this is a correct application of WP:BLP. These particular court records are cited by a secondary source, quackwatch.org. They arguably fall under the portion of BLP which states: "Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source." I'm not going to revert the deletion, because I'd rather talk it out here, but I'd appreciate more input on this. MastCell Talk 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of Quackwatch is in question, especially with regards to Clark - both of which have been involved in litigation with each other. Further, I don't think that mere republication of a court record on a website constitutes coverage by a reliable secondary source. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Further note: Per WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles... Let's figure this one out before we re-insert anything which might violate BLP. Perhaps there is a third-party source covering this trial (like a newspaper article). -- Levine2112 discuss 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Editors other than Levine2112 consider it a reliable source per WP:RS. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. And your removal of information without taking it to talk first when it's V and RS. The ArbCom decision (and clarification) doesn't back you up. I note that another editor (above) disagrees with your impression of the RS. Stop trying to make a WP:POINT. Shot info 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, your current rampage (one of several you have made) of deletion of anything related to Quackwatch or Barrett is now going too far. You have sometimes replaced such a reference with one that is more directly to a better source. Fine. But this hatred of Barrett and love for the subjects he criticizes is going too far. You are now misusing BLP and wikilawyering to get rid of what you don't like. It's well documented and properly sourced and therefore is well within the limits established by BLP for inclusion. Your arguments are doubly interesting (disengenuous) because of your double standard on the use of just such sources and even worse to smear Barrett. Take your anti-Barrett, anti-Quackwatch, pro-quackery campaign somewhere else. Such POV pushing isn't needed here. This whole series of edits and your history of making such rampages needs investigating and an RFC or worse. If telling it like it is and what is easily documented in your edit history is something you don't like to hear, tough luck. It's not a personal attack. It's just the facts many other editors are also witness to. -- Fyslee / talk 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Levine, let me understand, you remove Quackwatch because you don't think it's a good link showing what the legal link shows, right? Quackwatch is considered a reliable link in some cases and I truly believe this is one of them. You then delete the legal link due to nothing supporting it. If everything was left the way it was then there is no problem. I'm sorry but you can't delete all of the links to Quackwatch, which seems to be a lot lately.--CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have taken this matter to WP:BLPN#Hulda_Regehr_Clark. Let's await responses from outside opinions. Fyslee, please chill-out. Your mischaracterization of me above is highly abusive. I thought this behavior of your was supposed to stop after your ArbCom. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My sense of the previous endless discussions about quackwatch as a source was that in many cases, quackwatch itself was iffy, but it could be used as a "meta-resource" - in that the objective sources gathered and used by quackwatch could be used as appropriate on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. There are many times when the use of Quackwatch as a source is perfectly fine. In this case however, especially with regards to the affidavit source, Quackwatch is gathering but not using this source in any way which would qualify it as a secondary source. They have merely reprinted it. Back on the BLP for Stephen Barrett, we all went through this discussion regarding Barrett's lack of board certification and it was left by the parties above that unless the information was covered by a reliable third-party source, it could not be used. Based on that reasoning, some editors said that without a third-party source, it was impossible to gauge the weight of the information. It was a very similar situation as mainly we were dealing with sources which were court records reprinted and hosted on Quackwatch (of course, with Barrett, we did in fact have secondary source, but none of which were recognized as reliable by a couple of editors, even though they were found to be perfectly reliable at RS/N). I guess I don't see the difference here and why the people who were arguing against inclusion of Stephen Barrett's lack of board certification are the same editors arguing for inclusion of criticism based solely on court records here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, I argued in favor of mentioning Barrett's Board status, if I recall correctly. Actually, I didn't argue much at all on that topic... I'm tired. But I don't see a lack of consistency in my approach here. Quackwatch hasn't just collected the court documents - it cites them in the course of its article on Hulda Clark, to support its contentions. To me, that's a secondary source citing primary sources, and satisfies BLP. But perhaps waiting for outside input is the way to go. MastCell Talk 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest any lack of consistency on your part whatsoever.
My feeling here is that Quackwatch is not a reliable secondary source in terms of Clark, no more than Ilena Rosenthal is a reliable secondary source in terms of Stephen Barrett. Remember, Ilena's website - which included articles that use reprinted court docs to support her contention - was not deemed a reliable secondary source because of her direct legal entanglements with Barrett. Similarly, Quackwatch/Barrett has many legal entanglements with Clark. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Ilena's website was not considered a reliable source because it attacked and "outed" Wikipedia editors on the front page. Perhaps the new ArbComm "Attack Site" ruling would allow non-attack pages on an attack site to be used if otherwise reliable, and we could then address the question of whether the site is reliable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please point us to the new ArbComm ruling on "Attack Sites". If Ilena's site is a bad example because of attacking and outing editors, then what of Bolen's site? It to made the same contention about board certification and referenced reprints of court docs and it didn't attack or out editors anywhere on its site to the best of my knowledge. BTW, there were/are a lot of other sites which discussed Barrett's lack of board certification and pointed to either reprints of court records or to the actual court record itself. In this case, I still don't see how Quackwatch is any different. They are merely reprinting a court doc (not even a ruling, just an affidavit) and referencing it in an attack piece against someone with whom they've been in direct litigation. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Without checking Bolen's site, my guess is that it's (1) not acceptable as a "third party" because it's the primary source for the libelous material, and (2) as it was the source for the "delicensed" libel, it's assumed that other lies would be on the site, even in allegedly quoted material. But that's just a guess. And the ArbComm decision is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, although I don't know why it isn't under "recently closed". Quackwatch and Barrett have rarely, if at all, been sued for libel; they've lost or settled most of the suits Barrett they have filed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Libel has never been proven in court. It is a legal term, so it is inappropriate to call it libel. Look, I don't think Bolen's site is great either. It is an attack site for sure. But no more than Quackwatch is. If we are going to apply the rules, we need to apply them the same across the board. The fact remains that we have a possible BLP violation here and until it gets resolves, this information should be removed from the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is against you in this regard, albeit I would personally accept a direct link to a court document rather than it hosted on a secondary site. As for all the stuff about Bolen, other than Ilena, it seems that the Community disagrees with you. Shot info 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too early to determine any consensus. The ArbCom did rule that Quackwatch is partisan and often times unreliable (and it certainly is partisan against Clark and I am arguing unreliable too given their legal history). Let's wait to see what comes back from BLP/N. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I say put the info back into the artcle. I didn't see ARB Con saying any of this above. As a matter of fact, this is the type of article I believe it referred to as being a good source, along with Homeopathy. You seem to be trying to erase all of the Barrett sites. Just my opinion. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Crohnie, please quote where you are getting your info about the ArbCom. I think it is rather plain that they are saying that Quackwatch is partisan and unreliable. Recently, Kirill interpreted that to be representational and Quackwatch/Barrett sources should be looked at per use (which is what I am spending time doing). -- Levine2112 discuss 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT. This discussion has drifted far from what's appropriate here. Let's get it back on track. Probably the best way to do this is just ignore inappropriate comments, and if necessary take disputes to proper venues. --Ronz 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. We are keeping on topic here and discussing things with civility. I think this is a dispute which we can easily figure out here. Bottomline, we have primary source court documents being used to criticize the subject without any third-party source to show the relevance of this material. This is expressly prohibited in WP:BLP:
Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.
I added the bold for emphasis. My issue here is that an argument has been made that Quackwatch merely republishing these primary source court records turns them into reliable secondary sources. I don't believe that this is true. If it were true, then the court records which Quackwatch republished which demonstrate that Barrett is not Board Certified should also be acceptable as secondary sources. Since many of you thought that the Board Certification content should not be included (even as criticism), then I am confused why the same editors would argue that court records republished on the same site (Quackwatch) can be used to criticize the subject of this article. It seems inconsistent. Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I want to point out that though I have pointed out the above BLP concern from the start of this discussion, no editor here (aside from MastCell) has attempted to address this policy concern. Still waiting for outside opinion on BLP/N, but if in the meantime someone on the inside wishes to address the argument I have laid out above, I am open to discussion. Until then, we are in doubt about BLP... let's leave it out. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it's always amusing to see an editor admit to his distruptive editing in order to make a WP:POINT. Shot info 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Someguy1221 provided me with an answer that I can live with. I am surprised that I got the answer at ANI and not at BLPN or even here. Anyhow, I am curious to see how this same logic will apply over at Barrett. That being said, I am ready to move on from this matter here. Cheers. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note, it would probably be best to finish that paragraph with mention that the case was dismissed (without decision on whether malpractice occurred) [8]. I haven't managed to find a better source for this, so I'll leave it to you all. Someguy1221 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Someguy1221. Funny enough, the source you mention is a personal blog of one of our editors here. Anyhow, I am quite certain that there must be a reliable source out there which will serve as a ref to what you are asking. Anyone care to help locate one? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The trial court of Brown County, Indiana, is permitted but not required to publish its decisions on the internet. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have a website. This link contains contact information for the court, if anyone is interested in really digging for that source. Also, I'm merely assuming the decision came from that court, for it was in that court that the charges were originally filed. Someguy1221 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the input on how to proceed. For the time being, would it be wrong to just say that the case was dismissed without decision on whether malpractice occurred and leave a "citation needed" tag there? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I would add it in with a link to the blog, in addition to a {{Verify source}} tag, so that someone hunting for a source has a starting point. Anyone who thinks the facts in the blog are false is free to delete it. Someguy1221 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am always uneasy about adding a blog as a source. It usually begs for deletion from other users. I am going to hunt around too and see what else I can find as a source. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How's this for a source? [WorldNetDaily.com. Also, Reference #2 (The San Diego Tribune) states: A judge later dismissed the case on grounds that too much time had elapsed between the filing of the charges and Clark’s arrest. Since we've already used that as a source, perhaps that one would be best. Thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And here's another source: [Alive.com]. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I somehow missed reference 2. Issue status: nonexistent. Someguy1221 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I would personally accept a direct link to a court document rather than it hosted on a secondary site. especially as there can be issues of "doctoring" without formal verification. However in saying that, Quackwatch is a reliable source, while other examples (for example Bolen's personal website, or Ilena's personal website, previously mentioned above) fail RS in so many ways, even though the court documents may be correct. What is disturbing is the editwaring lengths that Levine went to, rather than just starting on the talkpage and then forming consensus....you know, what we do here in Wikipedia. You can see a glipse of the real goal however in this proving of the point Anyhow, I am curious to see how this same logic will apply over at Barrett. Sad, but unfortunately a lot of editors, noticeboards and talkpages have all experienced it before... Shot info 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concerns

Please do not use affidavits or witness testimonies in WP:BLPs, unless these have been described or referred in a published secondary source that meets the conditions stated at WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not link to external sites that do not meet the guidelines established at WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch does generally meet the guidelines established at WP:EL. They're biased, but there's no evidence that they've ever (intentionally) lied. Restoring link (but not the affidavit). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is a source recommended by numerous news organisations, scientific societies, and even the U.S. Government. How is it in violation of WP:V#Sources? Adam Cuerden talk 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it recommended by any of these groups as a reliable source of legal information? Specifically, legal information pertaining to someone with which Quackwatch has had litigation? "Reliable source" is not a carte blanche label. It needs to be applied to each source for each article and each topic within the article. Stephen Barrett has been in direct litigation with Clark in an embittered battle spanning many, many years. Therefore, I agree with Jossi that Quackwatch is not a reliable secondary source for this article and thus we should not use not use affidavits or witness testimonies in this article per the guidelines of WP:BLP. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You're assuming that QW is an alter ego of Barrett. I don't think that's a fair assumption. Without that assumption, your argument fails. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't even an assumption. Barrett is the owner, operator, webmaster, editor and publisher of Quackwatch. It is his site. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Quackwatch, Inc. is the owner/operator of quackwatch.com / .org , and cannot be considered an "alter ego" of Barrett, as it's a 501(c)(3) corporation which must operate under certain rules. Even if Barrett is webmaster and editor, Quackwatch, Inc. owns the site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
And Quackwatch, Inc. is registered to Stephen Barrett. Thus ownership. Bottom line, Barrett controls the editorial content on Quackwatch. This means that he published the primary source court materials trying to be used in this article. Thus we are dealing with a WP:SPS. And the Quackwatch article you mention which references these document is authored by Barrett. So we have Barrett who has been in litigation with Clark, publishing an article on his own site which makes references to primary sourced court materials which he has republished on his site. Enough said? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is a self-published source and cannot be used for anything than to support material about itself, with some caveats. As this is a BLP, there are stringent extensions to WP:V. An affidavit that has not been mentioned or published in a secondary, reputable and published sources, cannot and should not be used in a living person's biography. If the affidavit was noteworthy, you should find secondary sources that describe its content. Wikipedia is not a first-time publisher of information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly wrong (except possibly in a BLP context), as is noted by the fact that a number of organizations and magazines point to Quackwatch as a good source of health information. Although I agree that the affidavit may not be included unless referenced by an organization without "a dog in the hunt", other legal documents can and should be included based on QW as the only secondary source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for article protection?

Let's stop the edit warring please. Do we need page protection until this is worked out? It appears that editors are canvassing to support their point of view. --Ronz 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If thees is WP:CANVASS, please provide diffs, and these editors will be warned. Page protection does not seem to be needed at this point. BLP violations will be addressed separately and do not fall withing the 3RR rule. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The canvassing is specifically about the use quackwatch as a link, in the case of this article as a BLP issue, so I disagree about the usual exeption of BLP issues. Old Arbcom BLPN ANI ( Full ANI discussion) BLPN Individual editor --Ronz 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, with regards to BLPN and ANI, you personally told me to take this issue to these places. So how can you say that I am canvassing? I am merely following your advice and generally the advice of WP:DR. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Please follow WP:TALK. Jossi asked for diffs, and I gave them. --Ronz 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. And you made a claim that I was canvassing, which warranted my response that shows how you instructed me to do the very action which you are now criticizing me for. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Ronz 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no dog on this dispute. Please note that WP:BLP violations will not be tolerated. If material that violates BLP keeps being added, the article will be protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But it *doesn't* violate BLP. The affadavit is out in the public domain. Quackwatch is a well-known news source and information site, recommended by arge numbers of orginisations. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. You are being very strong over what is at the very worst a very borderline case. Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We then have to agree to disagree. I do not see this as borderline at all. It does not matter that an affidavit is in the public domain (all such court documents in the US are publicly accessible); it does not matter that a partisan web site (that seems that has been invol;ved in litigation with the subject of the article) re-reproduces it; what matters is that a primary source such as a witness testimony is never a reliable source and less for a BLP. Open the case at WP:BLP/N and let's hear other editors viewpoints on the matter. Surely I will not wheel-war about this (or about any other subject for that matter). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But the affadavit is by a governmental investigator. This isn't a partisan witness. Adam Cuerden talk 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Still, a primary source such as a witness testimony is never a reliable source and less for a BLP. Further, the information restored [here is very much sensationalist, another reason for BLP concern. Adam Cuerden, isn't the usual practice when there is BLP concern is to leave the text in question out until resolution can be achieved and not the other way around? Also, what do you mean in your edit summary by: "...before we bury it where no one will ever be able to see it and use it again"? We can always go back in the edit history and restore if we decide that is the proper way to go. Right? Or am I missing something? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Adam, I am not sure you understand what I am saying and note that I dislike straw man arguments. Please re-read my argument above yours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I am re-opening the case as WP:BLP/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hulda_Regehr_Clark_.282.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Would not the material restored here qualify to be examined by the same BLP/N? As far as I can tell it is a court document (an evaluation of Clark filed for an FTC lawsuit) merely republished by a WP:SPS. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a link to a republished affidavit about the subject as it too violates WP:BLP by using a primary source document merely republished on a WP:SPS attack site. Further, I feel the evaluation of Clark for the FTC suit should be removed from the criticisms section as it too is a primary source document merely republished on a WP:SPS attack site. (Considering the legal history between Clark and Barrett, I think it is fair to call Quackwatch an attack site with respect to Clark. Regardless, these sources fail BLP.) -- Levine2112 discuss 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The link has been restored with the following edit summary: "And Quackwatch *is * a reliable source, known for its fact checking and accuracy". My issue here is that whether or not Quackwatch can be considered a reliable source for information about a subject with whom they are/have been in direct litigation, all Quackwatch has done is repost the primary source court documents which I believe does NOT magically transform them into secondary sources. BLP is quite clear about not using primary court documents. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, not exactly. BLP indicates we should not use court documents unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. The affadavit is cited by Quackwatch in its piece on Hulda Clark (see the section entitled "Legal Troubles"). They haven't just reposted the court documents; they've cited them in the course of what is clearly a secondary-source piece. Whether Quackwatch is a reliable secondary source or not is a question I have ceased caring enough about to debate. MastCell Talk 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In this particular instance - given the legal battle between Barrett and Clark - I would say that they are not a reliable secondary source. They are much to close to this. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Jossi's BLP/N description of the dispute is exactly right. The fact that it has not been not challenged at BLP/N probably indicates support by uninvolved editors for this description of the dispute. MastCell has also formulated the same dispute ("Whether Quackwatch is a reliable secondary source or not is a question I have ceased caring enough about to debate".) I already did so in the previous Clark BLP/N discussion. Levine2112 has also picked up this reason not to include the disputed content (after initially misunderstanding Jossi's "a primary source such as a witness testimony is never a reliable source and less for a BLP" by reading it out of its context "unless already cited in a reliable secondary source").
As always, the disputed content stays out until a consensus develops to include it. Such a consensus is only possible if there is also a consensus that Quackwatch is a reliable secondary source for this affidavit. Avb 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch published the affidavit long before Barrett et al. sued Clark et al. for libel etc. See this waybackmachine snapshot. It seems to have been one of the reasons why Clark and Bolen started a campaign against Barrett. For me, this chronology invalidates Levine2112's argument: Considering the legal history between Clark and Barrett, I think it is fair to call Quackwatch an attack site with respect to Clark. In fact, the existence of the Bolen/Clark/et al. campaign supports the viewpoint that Quackwatch was, certainly at the time, an independent reliable source for information on Clark's therapies etc, as seen from a legal and mainstream medical POV. Avb 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The earliest list of the doc on WayBackMAchine is from 1999. The original filing for the Barrett v. Clark case is in 2000. It is reasonable to assume that it took at least a year (if not more) for the filing to be put together. Clearly, Barrett (Quackwatch) and Clark were adversarial before Barrett posted this legal document. This clearly demonstrates that Quackwatch in not neutral with this topic and thus cannot serve as a valid secondary source. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the sequence of events is very clear. Comment on Clarke's cancer therapy announced for months. "On or about September 28, 1999, Dr. Clark's son, Geoffrey, hired Bolen and/or JuriMed to assist Dr. Clark". Comment on Clarke's cancer therapy added to Quackwatch Nov 7 1999. Suit filed Nov 2000; all charges referred to actions by defendants "starting on or about November 7, 1999" and after. Avb 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. And the affidavit you pointed us to with the WayBack Machine only goes back to November 1999. Clark was with Bolen before then and it took them a year to file the suit. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And so your Considering the legal history between Clark and Barrett, I think it is fair to call Quackwatch an attack site with respect to Clark. argument falls apart: The legal history started with the filing of the case one year after the affidavit had been posted on Quackwatch. The idea that it took a year to put the case together is your guess. At any rate, the filing specifically mentions that the Bolen/Clark campaign had started "on or about November 7, 1999": Barrett et al. are not suing for anything that went before. QED. Avb 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. We all know that a lot goes into a suit before the actual filing, so it is hardly a guess. It is not like someone says that they want to sue and the very next day they file a suit. I think what your research (which is very good BTW) has shown that Barrett and Clark are and have been very adversarial from the very start regardless of who posted what first. Therefore, the bottomline, is that there is no way we can consider Quackwatch a neutral third-party source here, which is what would be required per BLP. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
no way we can consider Quackwatch a neutral third-party source here, which is what would be required per BLP. -> this is one aspect of WP:BLP where your understanding is still shaky. There is no WP:BLP requirement for sources to be neutral. I think I have explained this before, see also below. All we have to do is keep in mind what has never been a secret and did not need to be established per my research (which consisted of reading the QW page and checking its sources): namely that QW is against HRC's theories, therapies and whatnot. We only need to keep in mind that QW is not expected to mention the good sides (if any) of said therapies/etc. For that we will need to look elsewhere. If the material itself has a negative bias, we need to explain the type of source to the reader. Avb 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree again. "Third-party" by definition means only having an incidental connection. Clearly, Quackwatch is much too entangled with Clark to be considered a third-party. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, assuming for a sec that the argument would fly if true, you are conflating Quackwatch as of 6 November 1999 with Barrett as of 3 November 2000. There was no "entanglement" on 6 Nov 1999. One can't sue for libel that hasn't happened yet. Note that well-sourced negative information is not a problem at Wikipedia. Note that someone's being in a legal conflict does not mean we can't use material written by them. On another note, such a legal conflict automatically becomes relevant to both parties and should be described if reported in acceptable sources - as such you have presented some very compelling reasons to describe the conflict between Barret et al. and Clark et al. in the Clark article. Avb 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have finished checking Quackwatch/Barrett's Clark article. The problem with Quackwatch as a secondary source is, of course, that it is not neutral. Its basic POV is mainstream science (as evident from the many mainstream sources citing and supporting it). This bias needs to be taken into account and mentioned in the article when citing QW. A number of its assertions in a number of its articles go farther than that, and represent a skeptical POV. This bias should also be taken into account and mentioned in the article, and may in many cases render the related content unusable for Wikipedia (other than to document skeptical POVs/subjects). Some of its material may be outdated and can only be used as such. I think these drawbacks don't apply to this specific article. I see it as as well-researched, a reliable review of the available sources that stands out positively when compared with the average fact-checked newspaper article. It contains very little opinion (and even there supportive sources are given - "bizarre", "absurd"). Therefore, I view this Quackwatch page as a good secondary source for just about everything it says. And even if WP:consensus would view a QW article as a primary source, it can still be used when cited itself in reliable secondary sources. Avb 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This article, and this one seem to be independent sources for the incident anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; the Herald-Times articles are acceptable third-party sources. From there we can go to the court records including the affidavit. Avb 13:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
PS I see you have restored the disputed content. Please remove it until a clear consensus to include has emerged here on the talk page. Avb 13:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you: If we have two new sources, doesn't that negate the arguments against it, which was that there were no third-party sources mentioning the incident? Adam Cuerden talk 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it's a BLP issue we need a clear consensus to include. Let's wait and see if people agree, or perhaps new arguments are found. We'll make the deadline anyway. Avb 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the new sources, I see no reason to wait. --Ronz 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The new source (it's just one source, Ronz) does not mention anything about the two court documents (the affidavit nor the evaluation). So let me spell out what you are saying in general terms and let me know if my understanding of your position is correct: A primary source court document is acceptable to use as a source in a BLP if a reliable secondary source exist which mentions the court case the document is from but does not mention anything about the actual document (what it says or who wrote it). Right? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It mentions what is described in the affidavit. -- Fyslee / talk 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It does? Where? Please find where it mentions what we are using from the affidavit and quote it here. I am unable to make such a correlation. What about the evaluation? Is that also dealt with in this secondary source? Again, I can't find it. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
From one of the Herald-Times articles: "The charge stems from an investigation by the state health department and attorney general's office. An undercover investigator visited Clark's Brown County office and said he thought he might have AIDS, according to a charging affidavit. Clark said the man did have AIDS and she could cure it, the affidavit says." MastCell Talk 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good. And the evaluation? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy on primary sources in BLP's exists because it's fairly easy to highlight testimony from a primary source to advance whatever WP:OR one would like. If a secondary source (e.g. the newspaper article) cites the court case, then the court testimony could be cited in the same context as the reliable secondary source sets forth. In other words, the secondary source does not provide carte blanche to mine whatever we'd like from the primary sources, but it is reasonable to cite the primary source and perhaps to quote relevant sections in a manner which does not contradict or exceed the context of the reliable secondary source. MastCell Talk 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, MastCell. Avb 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... when I read it over after I wrote it, it looked kind of opaque and abstruse. MastCell Talk 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of this material will make the rest of Hulda Clark's encounters with the law make sense. She moved very quickly for a reason - she knew the jig was up. She had been caught very, very, very red handed committing crimes. The rest is history. -- Fyslee / talk 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That said, it may make sense to include Clark's defense, which (if I read correctly) was that she was planning to move anyway, was unaware of the charges, and that the Brown County police dept was negligent because they failed to track her down in Tijuana for 6 years ("The reason for the delay is that the officers didn't look," Thomas said.) MastCell Talk 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why she moved so suddenly (she was totally moved out two days later!), especially after she tried to talk the guy into making more appointments: 18. HC: "But you will also get it back so you will need to commit yourself to coming here six times. I'll see you once a week or once every five days, ...."[9] She was obviously (so many years later) trying to make up some excuse for her odd behavior which was inconsistent with what she had done and said at the time. The charges were filed after she moved, so she didn't leave because of the charges. She only knew that she had been caught red handed, and on the spot (after getting a warning phone call while they were still at her office) she tried to modify what she had told him. Obviously they didn't buy such a flimsy story and they did file charges and much later arrested her on a fugitive warrant. -- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, this comment is getting to be a borderline BLP violation. You are pronouncing Clark guilty of a crime here of which she had never been legally charged and pronounced. I hear you, and I completely see your point, and you know how I really feel, but you may want to consider removing this and/or discontinuing such pronouncements of guilt. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 discuss 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It may seem obvious to you and me, but it is still speculative. The charges didn't stick, so we can't assume. Does the article support what is said in the evaluation? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the charges not sticking, the newspaper coverage makes it pretty clear that the case was dismissed because it took the police 6 years to track down Dr. Clark in Tijuana, thus compromising her right to a speedy trial. No judgement about the strength, weakness, validity, or invalidity of the charges was made. Fyslee, I'm sure we all have our opinions about the ingenuousness of Clark's defense; my question is only whether it should be mentioned, as the newspaper coverage mentions it. MastCell Talk 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) We can only report what our sources have said. If HRC has published a defense, it should be added for balance (insofar it is acceptable per our rules). Avb 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Has anyone found a third-party source to cover the Pizzorno evaluation of Clark from "F.T.C. v. Western Dietary Products"? I'm looking but have yet to find it yet. If we cannot, should this evaluation be removed per BLP? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Pizzorno evaluation, how about [10]? I don't know Seattle Newspapers that well, but it does seem to at least have a print edition. Adam Cuerden talk 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks reasonable to me as a source... Pizzorno's affadavit is also cited in AVERT's piece on fraudulent AIDS cures (re: the Zapper). MastCell Talk 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then this all looks solid then. We just need to add in the refs and Clark's side of the case. This definitely merited the attention for without these third-party cites, we were in BLP violation. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
without these third-party cites, we were in BLP violation --> we did not establish whether or not the QW material was an acceptable secondary source; several editors were of the opinion that it was, several editors did not agree. We haven't moved far beyond Jossi's BLP/N report: that discussion was superseded by the new sources. Avb 02:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What's important is that Quackwatch is clearly not a third-party source here (as they are not a neutral secondary source). They are much to adversarial with Clark. But given the two new sources, all of this moot, unless you are looking to apply this discussion to some other area which we haven't discussed yet. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) clearly not a third-party source here (as they are not a neutral secondary source) and They are much to adversarial with Clark. --> that's nothing more than your view; you're entitled to have it but it goes against my view of WP:BLP, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And it definitely does not sum up the outcome of the partial consensus discussion we had here.
unless you are looking to apply this discussion to some other area which we haven't discussed yet. --> Certainly not; even if the discussion had been finished, only its arguments (but not its conclusion) might carry over to similar situations. A Wikipedia consensus is much too ephemeral for that. This is not the first time I've explained this to you. I have several reasons for responding to your conclusions: (1) your insight into WP:BLP is still shaky and you can use the info (2) your insight into WP:consensus is still shaky and you can use the info that the outcome of a discussion cannot be applied elsewhere (3) more - I forget, 03:34 AM here. Goodnight to all.Avb 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat from above. Third-party by definition means being only incidentally involved. Clearly, Quackwatch is much more than incidentally involved with Clark. Therefore, they are not a third-party source. This is my understanding. I may be wrong, but please don't continually call my understanding "shaky". I consider it an insult. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"Insults" are definately in the eye of the beholder. Shot info 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As I have already explained in detail: even if Levine2112's argument would hold water (and it doesn't), Quackwatch was not "involved" with HCR/Bolen until after it had published its first (100% demolishing) article on the subject by simply pulling together a watertight report from authoritative sources. And Barrett kept adding new negative material. He didn't even disregard the positive things said about the subject. After all, that was Bolen's "media" campaign and the resulting libel suit is still live AFAIK, with Bolen apparently in hiding.
Levine2112 should not feel insulted. He asked why I kept going on about this (well, he didn't ask - he suggested I might be "looking to apply this discussion to some other area which we haven't discussed yet") --> I wasn't, as he could have known from my behavior and explanations in the past. So I gave my reasons. Should I have lied? Should I have kept quiet? For the record, I still hope that Levine2112 will see that, for at least the last six months, the understanding and application of WP:BLP by me and several other editors have been as impeccable as it gets in the wider community instead of not getting it after the endlessly patient explanations we have given him. These editors can and will truly "play it by the book" regardless of the side of the conflict they are on.
FWIW, I regard the subject of the article as the archetype of a quack - the worst type, the type that has a good heart and believes to be helping its victims. I have said before that I do not agree with quite a few things on Quackwatch - well, here's one where I am squarely behind what it says. How can it be otherwise - the Clark page and subpages are well-researched and convincing. Quackwatch at its best, a fine example where my page-by-page assessment comes up virtually all green.
I have learned a lot by observing Jossi's editing in the past. I hope Levine2112 will do the same. Avb 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Say what you want but Jossi and I were correct in pursuing this as there was a BLP violation which together we have all remedied. Why you want to leave this positive collaboration on a sour note is beyond me. For the record, I have not been defending Clark or bashing Quackwatch here. I am merely upholding Wikipedia policy to the best of my ability. A few people here know how I feel about Clark and her methods, but those feelings are irrelevant. Regardless of our POV of her and her methods, we must give her article the same BLP respect as any other BLP. That is all I have done here. If you would like to accuse me of something else, please bring your diffs to a more appropriate venue. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the necessary third-party references per BLP. So unless there is anything else anyone wishes to discuss, I think we can consider these issues closed with a consensus. Yes? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The end result was that better sources were added to the article - let's leave it at that and end on a positive note. MastCell Talk 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And the article does not have to be protected. Avb 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Refactored talk page content

Link to deletion is here. I do not agree that this is inappropriate. I do not understand why Arthur Rubin first concurred and restored, then redeleted without explanation. Avb 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who never look below the surface: I asked for comments related to observed behavior very much related to this article, preferring to only hear from current editors instead of going all-out and escalating to a user RfC. Avb 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it relates to the editing environment on this article, but it also applies to his editing in general. I think it clearly fits WP:DE, which suggests the next step being an RFC/U. --Ronz 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the time is ripe for an RfC/U as Levine2112 honestly does not see the problems some of us have been commenting on for a long time now. We could use input from the wider community. But what happened here is not an incentive for me to take the initiative. Avb 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book by Ralph Moss

Assuming this description of Moss's book is correct (which should be assessed by an editor actually reading the relevant part of the book) -- shouldn't this be in the article? "Ralph Moss reviews The Cure for All Cancers in his book Herbs Against Cancer: History and Controversy and he is positively scathing." Avb 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is Ralph Moss? If he is a reliable source with expertise in the subject, then there shouldn't be an issue in including this. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No idea, I'll try to find more. Apparently he wrote a number of books, such as Albert Szent-Györgyi's biography. According to the WP article Moss was a protege of his in the years he performed his cancer research. Moss and/or his books are also mentioned in antineoplaston, XanGo, dichloroacetic acid, Dean Burk, Wolfberry. Just some preliminary info, now looking for info outside of WP. Avb 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Websites: http://www.ralphmoss.com redirects to http://www.cancerdecisions.com The Moss Reports
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83585953.html Bioterrorism and the NCCAM: The selling of 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine' - reprint of Skeptical Inquirer with many familiar names
Apparently pretty accepted as a CAM proponent but very little in mainstream sources such as major newspapers, and pubmed. PMID 15695477 PMID 15165505.
He is definitely showing expertise and notability and thus seemingly passing the rigors of WP:RS. How would you propose inclusion of this material? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel suit

Shouldn't the 2000 libel suit and its sequelae be mentioned and linked in the article? Avb 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Barret v. Clark which became Barrett v. Rosenthal? If so, it should most certainly be included here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Avb 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then it definitely should be included here insomuch as the libel suit was notable for spurning Barrett v. Rosenthal, now a landmark Internet legal case. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trivial difference used as criticism

"Her own biographical sketch states that her degree was in physiology,[1] but the Graduate School's Register of Ph.D. Degrees conferred by the University of Minnesota July 1956-June 1966 states that 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." This is not fair. the topic of her study was animal physiology. Tat the degree was awarded officially as a degree in zoology does not make it any the less a PhD is physiology--the names of academic departments are very broad indeed. My own degree was received from department of Molecular Biology, but the same work would and could have been done in a wide array of departments, and I could equally well call it a degree in molecular biology, microbiology, biochemistry, or cell physiology. I intend to abridge this sentence to the bare facts without the implied rebuke. There is quite enough negative criticism to apply to her dangerous and irrational biomedical ideas and practice. Emphasising something like this actually dilutes the effect by making it seem as if we wee looking for any excuse to be picking on her. DGG (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with your proposal. The passage as it currently reads gives the sense of aligning primary sources to advance an implied point. MastCell Talk 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Got my support. Removing it will actually improve WP's credibility. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No probs from me that the pointless "link comment" is removed. On an aside I would prefer that the correct details of her actual degree is what is used in WP's bio. Her bio just seems to be simple one-word summary of her doctorate. Shot info (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good call, DGG. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)