Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark/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.

Too many POV Quackwatch/NCAHF references

Please, let's not make this another front group for Barrett's campaigns against Dr. Clark.I counted I believe 4 references from a POV of high bias from the same NCAHF/Quackwatch sources. Also, the Figueroa case sounds like BarrettSpeak ... not an accurate encyclopedic version of another witch hunt lawsuit that the plaintiffs dropped when asked to provide evidence of their claims. How this many criticisms from the same source are allowed here by the same basic biased source does not go along with the Wiki guidelines I've been told. I thank those who are working to make a fair article,and not just another branch of Quackwatch's years and years of Smear Campaign against Dr. Clark. Who is and who is not a 'quack' is pure opinion. I know people who feel they owe their lives to her and love her ... and I know people like Barrett and Polevoy who demonize her along with others from their Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes. Barrett has those who throw off editor's valid criticisms about his operations, and here he is given carte blanche. Thank you. Ilena 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose this section be immediately moved to an archive as it has no relevance to any discussion, is uncivil, and attacks unnamed editors. --Ronz 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I need some information...

(REMOVED), per WP:NPA and WP:NLT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim Bolen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.90.134 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The answer to the the only question which can be asked without violating Wikipedia policy is WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose removing this section, archiving it if anyone thinks there's a need. It's inappropriate and distracting. --Ronz 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I say go for the removal.--Crohnie 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)