Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.--CrohnieGal^Talk 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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 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? [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18772 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Commentary moved from article page

I removed the following (added by 209.244.187.103) from the article; it appears to be talk:

I have read about some research that was done about 30 years ago. They used low voltage direct current to heal end stage wounds that would not heal. It was very effective. Dr. Clark is doing the same thing with her generators and zappers. The medical community stopped the research by not funding it. If I remember correctly the low voltage direct currect is the way the human body regenerates bone. As for the different tissues of the body having a frequency signature, that is the way the MRI makes a picture. It picks up the frequency signature of the different tissues and makes a picture. So far it makes the best pictures. It makes pictures of diseased tissues, because the frequency signature has changed. Dr. Margaret Patterson a British Surgeon is doing electrical auricular acupuncture to cure drug addiction. She uses low voltage direct current on acupuncture points of the ear with excellent results, usually after 1 treatment.But she usually does several more. I don't think she is a quack. I don't know much about worms so I won't comment.

--Orlady (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently, the word I was going to use, "orthogonal", is considered jargon. Oh, well.) I see no relationship between "frequency signature" and the way MRI actually works. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article updated to show that Ms Clark died

I did a quick search and could find nothing to verify this. What is shown is a website memorilizing her death and people signing up and saying things. This site is not a reliable source unless I missed something. I am leaving and do not have time to correctly search this out so I am passing it on and bringing it to others attentions. Thanks and sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Worse, when I searched for the same thing, all I found were rumors from late March 2004 on Amazon. Hopefully we'll have a reliable source shortly. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Clark said on her own website that New Century Press, her publisher, was a reliable source for information about her. The new domain is inmemoryofdrhuldaclark.com. Here is a copy of the official registry information for that domain:

Registrant:
  New Century Press
  1055 Bay Blvd
  Suite C
  Chula Vista, California 91911
  United States

  Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
  Domain Name: INMEMORYOFDRHULDACLARK.COM
     Created on: 04-Sep-09
     Expires on: 04-Sep-10
     Last Updated on: 04-Sep-09

  Administrative Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

  Technical Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

It is a reliable source. --TS 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We've verified the source is New Century Press. That's no WP:RS though. There should be some obituaries available soon that we can replace it with. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that a publisher is not a reliable source on the demise of one of its clients is simply flat-out false. --TS 16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness no one is saying that. I think we can all agree that real obituary is preferrable. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I did a search again now that I've returned. I've found verifications in multiple blogs and one site that we already use in this article Quackwatch. I marked the other site with a ? for WP:RS as I do think we should be able to use a better source than this kind. I don't think the Quackwatch site is good either but I do think that she has passed away. Maybe her publisher announces something about her death in a cleaner way than what we've found? I think that the source used should continue to be marked for reliablity until we can find a better obituary notice, thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Century Press website itself is now saying:

In Memory of Dr. Hulda Clark

October 18, 1928 - September 3, 2009

We are all saddened at the news of losing Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark. She was loved, cherished and respected by so many.

There will be a memorial dinner for Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark, Saturday, September 26th, 2009 in Chula Vista, CA.

Memorial donations can be made to Amnesty International, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hulda Clark's own website says:

There are other websites and companies using my name, selling my books, or selling products that claim to be approved by me, but with two exceptions, I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website or company. The two exceptions are this page, www.huldaclark.net and www.newcenturypress.com, because New Century Press publishes my books.

So you heard it from Hulda Clark: New Century Press is authoritative. --TS 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No longer a BLP article

"We owe respect to the living. To the dead we owe only truth." - Voltaire

Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

O - she died? Shot info (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that she is no longer living, we should be able to use these documents:

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/huffman.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pappas.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorno.html

Brangifer (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very wary of changing our bar for sourcing based on a person's recent death. If these were good sources, then they should have been strong enough whether Clark was alive or deceased. If these sources were unacceptable while she was alive, I'm not entirely clear on why they are suddenly acceptable now that she is deceased. Could you elaborate? MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without checking the details: If the sources were only unacceptable because of WP:BLP violations, and they no longer violate WP:BLP because the only person about which contraversial information is provided is dead, then there's no policy or guideline which suggests exclusion is now appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. However in saying that - I think both Arthur and Mastcell are saying the same thing - that being - if they are RS and satisfy WEIGHT then they should be ok. -- Shot info 00:26, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, and that's a big "IF", the arguments used by her supporters were that the hosting was the major problem. Barrett has been in legal conflict with her, and he hosts the documents. Now all those concerns should be laid to rest and normal RS rules should apply, with no BLP concerns. Note that I am not certain that the original arguments used were legitimate, but were simply wikilawyering attempts to whitewash her. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the discussions above, the attempts to keep out this information were directed at keeping out anything connected with Barrett and Quackwatch. The main instigator of this witchhunt was involved in deleting all mentions of Barrett and Quackwatch (he had done it before, going on deletion rampages), and is now on a topic ban from these topics. We need to get back to working by the normal RS rules and include sources that apply. If they are factual, as the deposition is, they can be included as facts, if they are opinions, then they can be included as opinions and attributed properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't gone through the article and talk history enough to find all the context, but do we have some reliable secondary sources to provide context for information from these documents? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of tactfullness and respect I find it somewhat inappropriate to start with major changes of an article very soon after a person passed away. Do you want the same to happen the day dr S. Barrett dies? MaxPont (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one has done any such thing. Here are the sum total of changes between Clark's death and the present day. You will note that they consist mostly of changing the present tense to the past tense. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording?

Anyone else think that, "Clark stated that she actually cured diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, unlike conventional treatments only aiming to relieve symptoms" is confusing or misleading? I can see how she might be weaseling with the fact that there is no cure for AIDS. However, does she actually claim that all conventional treatments for all types of cancer only relieve symptoms and never actually cure cancer? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, will reword a bit (the word "often" got lost in the copyedit). Avb 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of all the changes made after August 16. Avb 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The certificate of death states the cause of death was anemia and hypercalcemia with multiple myeloma being a significant contributing condition. I'm sure this can be worded better in the article. Because she claimed to be an expert at identifying and treating cancer, it is extremely notable that multiple myeloma was the significant contributing condition. This information is from her certificate of death, which should be included as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009) was born in Canada and, during some 50 years within an occupation of scientific research into human physiology, became a controversial naturopath, authoress, and practitioner of alternative medicine who claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including all cancers. Claims (including an authoritative proposition by a qualified professional oncology surgeon) suggesting that cancer was the underlying cause of Clark's death are not the truth. Documentary evidence of the preceding months of: (A) anemia (immediate cause); and (B) hypercalcemia (underlying cause) are documented, as the specific "cause of death", upon section 107 of her death certificate. She died following medical treatment for the hypercalcemia and, in relation to that verified "underlying cause" of death, section 112 of her death certificate further factually details: "... Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause ... multiple myeloma ..." (a blood cancer & bone cancer). Clark was last seen alive by a physician, on 12 August 2009, more than 2 weeks before her death in California. Also, according to section 109 of the San Diego death certificate, a biopsy (that could have provided evidence for a medical diagnosis of any existence of multiple myeloma) was never done and cancer was never proved, as causative of the hypercalcemia, by any other medical laboratory test. -- WATerian (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 GMT

The fact that the "biopsy" box is not checked means only that a biopsy was not performed after death. It does not mean no biopsy was ever performed.====='

]'

- Nunh-huh 20

09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources for your additions? A personal statement by a physician doesn't count, unless published by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the cause of death in this specific case, allow me a few general comments. Hypercalcemia and anemia are common sequelae of myeloma. Fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia don't just happen; they are caused by some underlying condition. In the presence of lytic bone lesions and renal failure, myeloma is fairly high on the list. Blood tests can be diagnostic in and of themselves (see serum protein electrophoresis), although I think most oncologists would perform a bone marrow biopsy regardless to complete the workup. The material on Clark's website is incorrect when it claims that the "treatment" for myeloma would be "watch and wait". For someone with symptomatic myeloma, the treatment of choice is generally (in an elderly patient who is not a candidate for stem cell transplantation) oral melphalan, prednisone, and probably at least a trial of thalidomide. In any case, I don't see a need for further discussion here. Both the death certificate and Clark's website indicate that myeloma was a proximate contributor to her death; other reliable sources could be discussed, but we don't really need to entertain unsourced and uninformed argumentation any further. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 112 of Clark's official death certificate is reliable evidence that the "underlying cause" was not a result of multiple myeloma because section 112 states: "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" -- WATerian (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2009 GMT

I'm not so sure what it means. It seems a bit self-contradictory. The editors and bloggers who are medical experts don't seem to have trouble with it, but it's not clear why. Could someone give a detailed explanation of what section 112 of the certificate of death is used for and what "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" means? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The dubious tag was the best I could find to identify the disputed content and direct editors here, but I think some simple clarification is all that's necessary to resolve this situation. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want my view as someone with relevant medical training, then the answer is obvious. She likely had myeloma, although her doctors apparently did not follow the standard diagnostic approach to confirm that suspicion. Two major and extremely common complications of myeloma are anemia and hypercalcemia, either or both of which can be fatal if unaddressed. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable as to specifics of causation - not only are many doctors unclear on the difference between causes and mechanisms of death, but they are often completed by physicians without firsthand knowledge of a patient's clinical course over time. Based on the death certificate and the material from Clark's website, the overwhelmingly logical conclusion is that she had myeloma, which led to fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia. That's my opinion, based on the available (admittedly incomplete) sources and my personal knowledge and training. It is also largely WP:SYN, and keep in mind that I am pseudonymous, so for all my claims of medical expertise, I may very well be a 24-year-old college dropout. I am very tired of the close parsing here - it seems driven by a desire on one editor's part to bend over backward to evade the obvious conclusion that Clark died of a form of cancer - her own website says as much, which makes the denialism here particularly odd. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks

Copied from the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the below links are no longer available, neither is doing a search for Hulda Clark at signonsandiego.com, have left the links here in case they come up again 28/11/2009! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgee2 (talk • contribs) 2009-11-28T15:40:57

Fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

cause of death related to cancer unconfirmed

Was unable to find verifiable information that her death was related to a type of cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.2.165 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were unable to find it, but it's been found before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's even been found before on "her" web site, but reference 25 states: "Dr. Hulda Clark, 80, passed away in September of multiple myeloma...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Split/redundant criticism

There is currently criticism in both the Claims and the Criticism sections. It looks like all the pieces are valid and warranted, but they are kind of a double-hit as currently set up. Should all criticism be moved to the criticism section, or should the criticism be incorporated into the claims section, or is this the best arrangement? Ocaasi (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

Link 2 works, link 4 doesn't, but they're both referencing the same article. Link 4 should be merged into Link 2.

I don't have time to do it now, but will later if no one objects. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Avb 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Serious pruning

This article appears to need serious pruning of its sources. Any of "Dr" Clark's personal sites should ripped out of the article as having no WP:V value. AndroidCat (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ph.D. major/minor?

The terms 'major' and 'minor' are not applicable terms to describe Ph.D. training in the US. Ph.D. training is usually described in terms of the trainee's department and the content of his/her thesis. When an undergraduate declares a 'major', it determines the specific and pre-determined requirements he/she must complete to obtain a degree through that department, from that institution. The same mechanism does not exist in any institution (that I am aware) for Ph.D. programs in the US. Ph.D. students must complete some rudimentary classroom requirements determined by their department, but completion of the research component of the program requires ratification by a thesis committee, which has quite a bit of say as to whether the student has earned the degree, according to their interpretation of what "earned" means. Since Ph.D. students do not declare majors and minors, and only some of the requirements are pre-determined, the terms 'major' and 'minor' don't really apply. HC should be said to have obtained a Ph.D. in whatever her home department was at the University of Minnesota, and she should be said to have studied whatever her thesis was about. I don't know why the U of M would say that she had a major or minor, but I'm willing to bet this is incorrect info.174.23.251.18 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, I just pulled the register (http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/108493/1/RegisterOfPhD_1966.pdf, page 67) and found out I was wrong - it really does say she had a major and a minor. I still find it very strange, and I still think it's wrong. Anyway, that UMN conservancy link is probably a more informative source than the generic "Library, University of Minnesota" that is there now, if someone who knows how to do put it in correctly (ie not me).174.23.251.18 (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't confirm the specific data, but I can confirm that, when I got my Ph.D., I had a major in mathematics and could have had a minor in physics had I taken and passed 2 of the 5 qualifying exams in physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My PhD is in Biochemistry, so I wonder if maths and physics do it differently, since I've also never heard of anystudent taking more than one qualifying exam, even after switching departments mid-program. The only way I could have gotten something similar is by doing a joint program with another department, which is not terribly common at my PhD institution, and would still require only one qualifying exam. I'm probably wrong here, since I have firsthand knowledge for only three institutions, 50 years after HRC graduated, but I've known people from many others (full disclosure, all from a biological science background) and none have ever mentioned a 'major'. That's all anecdotal though, and I think it's a minor (no pun intended) point - that section of the article is technically correct as written insofar as the U of M register really does say she had a major and a minor.174.23.251.18 (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but it might be more correct to say that, at Caltech, you have to pass 4 of the 5 parts of the Physics qualifying exam to get a major in Physics, and 2 of the 5 parts to get a minor in Physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While I would say that PhD programs with 'major' and 'minor' program options are rare, they are not unheard of. The University of Minnesota, where HRC picked up her PhD, still offers a number of graduate-level minor programs, both those associated with specific PhD majors and a smaller-number of free-standing graduate minors. Mostly they seem to involve completing a specified amount of graduate-level coursework in the relevant area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to a Number of Sections

I am contracted as a freelance writer with the Dr. Clark Information Center. More details can be found on my talk page.

Since I have a conflict of interest, per Wikipedia policy I would like to submit edits here for other Wikipedia editors to review instead of applying them myself.

I have quite a few edits. What is the best way to submit these? My ideal method would be to upload a word document with tracked changes. The edits, additions, and organizational changes would be cumbersome to submit as singular line items.

Please let me know how I should proceed. Thank you!

Skywrites (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate that you've been up-front about disclosing your conflict of interest. Before I write anything else, thank you. It's good to keep the air clear.

Do you have any previous experience in editing Wikipedia, or with the collaborative editing environment here? Particularly in editing Wikipedia articles related to medicine, or especially with respect to topics that involve "fringe" theories and therapies?

How would you describe your familiarity with the letter and application the relevant policies and guidelines, including those on neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) (especially the bits about undue weight of coverage), reliable sources (WP:RS), and sourcing for medical claims (WP:MEDRS)? To be clear, "neutral point of view" doesn't mean giving equal time and credence to both 'sides' of an argument when the preponderance of scientific and medical evidence do not support such equivocation. Further, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a promotional vehicle or platform for publishing treatment protocols.

I'm going to be honest—looking at the website for the Dr. Clark Information Center greatly concerns me. The site contents are written from a very narrow, very specific point of view that is far from the mainstream of science and medicine. It presents as miraculous fact an assortment of claims and assertions which – to all but a tiny number of followers – are objectively false. It strikes me that you, as a paid writer, are going to be in an awkward position. It would be great to be proven wrong, but I strongly suspect that any description and evaluation of Clark's claims that is compatible with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and NPOV...well, it just isn't going to be compatible with the Clark Information Center's preferences.

So, all that said, if you still want to see changes to this article then there are a few ways we could proceed. You could post a summary of the changes you believe should be made here on this talk page and invite discussion. You could post a copy of your draft on a subpage in your userspace and invite critiques. You could post some portion of your suggested changes (please, not the whole thing all at once) on this talk page for us to examine or discuss. You could list some of the things that are specifically incorrect in this article, and describe specifically and precisely how you think they ought to be corrected.

Mind you, I can't make any promises. The organization that has hired you looks pretty dubious. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors aren't being paid to contribute, and bluntly, there's little incentive for us to spend a lot of time on an article about a minor crank who sold books about a bogus cure for cancer. You are going to get a lot of pushback if you try to add medical claims that aren't robustly sourced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I understand your concerns. I’ve been hired as a third party and this is my first project working for this organization. I am a freelance writer and my goal is to maintain an objective article and neutrality as much as possible.

This is my first time using Wikipedia. I have read the links you posted and I have also read several other pages. I understand what the end content should be like and what sources are acceptable. However I’m still getting used to the editing tools and how they work, so I apologize if I don’t format a comment or response correctly. For example, I just read the talk help page to learn that a colon is used to indent this paragraph. I’m sure there are many little tips like this that I will learn along the way.

Per your suggestion, I will go piece by piece so as not to overwhelm anyone with too much content at one time. I will begin by posting the first paragraph.

I think you will be pleased with the changes and it will make for a stronger article. I don’t anticipate that any of the changes will be that controversial because most of them are based on fact. For example, the current article’s summary of her legal troubles is incorrect. A quick read of the affidavit will see that the facts are different than what is currently written. Not better or worse, just different.

I look forward to working with you on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywrites (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to First Paragraph

Here are my proposed changes to the first paragraph. I wasn't sure how to best visually represent the changes so I decided to try and make it look as much like Microsoft Word's tracked changes as possible. I am also including a broken out list of why each change was made below the paragraph.

Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009)[1] was a science researcher, naturopath, author, and practitioner of alternative medicine. Clark claimed almost all human disease was related to one of two causes: parasitic infection or pollution. She and also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by using a holistic program that included several elements (see Treatments and Methods below) and by destroying these parasites using an electrical device called the Zapper.[12] by "zapping" them with electrical devices which she marketed.[2] Clark wrote several books describing her methods. She had a private practice office as a nutritional consultant in Indiana before moving to San Diego, California. Eventually she relocated to. and operated clinics in the United States. Following a string of legal difficulties and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, she relocated to Tijuana, Mexico where she ran the Century Nutrition clinic. Her books have been translated into 17 languages.[NS]

Here is the list of why each change was made:

• I added "science researcher" since she had a history of working in government-funded research and her education as a PhD was as a biologist.
• I added "almost all" to the second line. She may generalize and say all diseases at times, but she also lists some conditions where she does not mention parasites, but rather bacteria or something else. “Almost all” or “practically all” would be more accurate.
• I added pollution as a second cause - she always included two causes in all of her books.
• Zapping was not the only method she used, so I added detail for that line.
• I removed the fact that she marketed the devices because the reference (2) does not say that.
• She didn't operate any clinics in the United States, so I updated that line.
• For the second to last line, previous wording implied her move was directly linked to FTC action, which is untrue. First, the FTC action was much later than her move and so could not have caused it. Secondly, it should be noted that FTC action was not against her and was to a separate organization called Dr. Hulda Clark Research Association of which she was not a part. She did not move in relation to a string of difficulties, and no actions were taken before her move date.
• I added the last line because the notoriety of her books is most likely why anyone would look her up in the first place. Mentioning her books more in the first paragraph seems pertinent.
• When I add new sources I'm going to write "NS." The source for that last line is:
  • “Dr. Clark Translations.” New Century Press. Accessed March 3, 2015.

Skywrites (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To take only the first item, I don't think it's appropriate to call Clark a "science researcher" (sic; I think you mean "scientist") in the lead sentence. First of all, a PubMed search for "hulda clark[au]" does not show any publications, which makes it hard to argue that she was a researcher in any meaningful sense. More to the point, she is not notable as a researcher or scientist; her notability stems from her promotion and sale of highly dubious devices and the ensuing public and legal scrutiny. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As the WP:LEDE should summarize and introduce the main article, it would be best to start on some other section. As you're new to all this, you might want to start by identifying potential new sources, or content changes that you feel would not be disputed. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. After thinking this over and reading the comment from Ronz, I realized that it would be difficult to do this in sections. It is too lengthy to post on this talk page, so I took the advice of TenofAllTrades and posted a draft of the article on a subpage in my userspace. I posted it both clean and with markup. The article can be found HERE. Thank you again for your help and expert editing eyes as this article gets updated and improved! Skywrites (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing to check in about this article. What are the next steps that I need to take, if any? I posted my changes on a subpage in my userspace (at this link). Please let me know if there is anything further I should do as I know that I am not allowed to edit the article directly. Thank you so much! Skywrites (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Address the concerns and advice above. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this note for me or for one of the editors? Are you asking another editor to advise on what happens next? Or are you asking me to address the concern of the lede summarizing the main article? After the concern about the lede, I went ahead and posted the entire article so that it would be faster to review all of the changes as a whole, including the lede. I was following the advice of TenofAllTrades in the earlier thread where it was said "You could post a copy of your draft on a subpage in your userspace and invite critiques." Here is the full draft of the article for comments and critiques. Are you able to comment directly on that page inline? Skywrites (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring the comments and advice above. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which comments and which advice? Please be more specific.Skywrites (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! It has been two months since I posted the revised article on my talk page, and I have seen no comments or feedback. I am hesitant to post each change here individually. There are too many changes and it will take up too much of everyone’s time. I am posting the Background section below for your approval. Alternately, if this article is low-priority for all of the editors here, could you give me clearance to go ahead and make all of these changes directly in the article myself?

Thank you and I look forward to hearing back!

BACKGROUND

Clark began her studies in biology at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, where she was awarded Bachelor of Arts with high honors in Biology in 1949 and a Master of Arts degrees. (with no field of study or major stated) in 1950. After two years of study at McGill University, she attended the University of Minnesota studying biophysics and cell physiology. She received her doctorate degree in 1958 from the University of Minnesota. Her website'sown biographical sketch states her degree was in physiology,[7] but the Graduate School's Register of Ph.D. Degrees conferred by the University of Minnesota, July 1956-June 1966, states 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."[8]

In an interview she stated “I am a very broad spectrum biologist including botany, zoology, physiology and biophysics and the math and chemistry to go with it.” [NS-29]

After completing her degree, Clark moved to Indiana where she conducted government-funded research at Indiana University. In 1974 Clark began private consulting and her own research. In 1979, Clark left government-funded research and began private consulting and her own research. She held a naturopathy degree from the defunct Clayton College of Natural Health[7] (which operated from 1980 to 2010) a school lacking accreditation from any accreditation agency recognized by the United States Department of Education.[9] The state of Indiana does not have a naturopathic licensing law requiring accreditation.[NS-3]

Almost twenty years later, in 1993 Clark moved to San Diego. This was the same year that two of her books were released--The Cure for All Cancers and The Cure for HIV/AIDS. The move to California came two months before charges were issued against her in Indiana. [20] In California she published several more books.

From 2002 until her death she operated the Century Nutrition health clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where her focus was primarily on late-stage cancer patients. Clark and her son Geoff separately owned businesses her patients and others used, including a restaurant, her self-publishing company, and a "self-health" store that sold her inventions. Her son continues to operate the self-health store. She published several books, including The Cure of All Cancers, The Cure for HIV/AIDS and The Cure For All Diseases. According to civil court records, her books generated over $7 million in sales by 2002, although Clark disputed this figure.[2]

COMMENTS:

• I verified her degree title with Registrar Services at the University of Saskatchewan. However, they do not have an online repository of degrees that I can link to. Also, I am unsure if biology should be capital or lowercase.
• I added a few lines to the second paragraph to make the sequence of events clear. There was no source for the date of 1979. The only source I could find to verify this was her biography here: http://www.drclark.net/about-dr-hulda-clark which states that it was 1974 (not 1979) that she left.
• I added the years of operation to Clayton College since I do not have an exact year that she graduated. The school is closed and previous transcripts are unavailable.
• I removed quotes around "self-health"
• The store is no longer operated by her son, so I struck that line
• I removed the line with book titles since they now appear in the previous paragraph and it would be duplication of information.

KEY TO MY MARKUP

• Changes are marked in red
• Sections moved to another part of the article are marked in green
• New passages that may be controversial due to the undue weight rule are marked in purple
• New sources are marked with "NS" and listed at the bottom of my talk page in the New Source section

Skywrites (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Another month has gone by with no response to my edits. Do I have permission to make these edits directly in the article myself since it seems that this is a low-priority article for everyone? Skywrites (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You have no permission. I suggest you make some radically different proposals but most importantly that you radically change how you are making proposals: Make small proposals where you clearly identify the sources that support them, with detailed justification for anything that is a major change over what is currently in the article. Just creating a huge proposal is getting you nowhere. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. This is the most well-formatted and presentable Request Edits I've seen all night. The proposed edits are small and they are clearly indicated. You should see some of the junk I've been wading through all night! Some of them are just plain jibberish. The problem is with stuff like "I verified her degree title with Registrar Services at the University of Saskatchewan." We rely primarily on published secondary sources, like press, books, and scholarly works. We generally don't use stuff like official court records or verifying with the organization directly. So you need to cite press articles, books or journals and include those citations in your proposed changes.

Here's a madeup example "In the first paragraph of the Early life section, the current page says she was born in 1920. The statement is unsourced. This press article from The New York Times verifies that she was actually born in 1973. I propose replacing that sentence with "So and so was born in 1973" I recommend using this tool to get the citations properly formatted so the material is easier to review. CorporateM (Talk) 07:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like me to submit line by line edits. I will submit the first one now. Thanks! Skywrites (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Update to the second line:

Original line:

Clark claimed all human disease was related to parasitic infection, and also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by destroying these parasites by "zapping" them with electrical devices which she marketed.[3]

Proposed new line:

Clark claimed almost all human disease was related to one of two causes: parasitic infection or pollution. She and also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by using a holistic program that included several elements and by destroying these parasites using an electrical device called the Zapper. [3] [13] by “zapping” them with electrical devices which she marketed.

I added pollution as a second cause--as I was researching her I learned that she always included two causes in all of her books. On page 2 of Cure for All Diseases (already referenced as 13 on the current article) she names the title of a section “Only Two Health Problems” and then goes on to say “No matter how long and confusing is the list of symptoms a person has, from chronic fatigue to infertility to mental problems, I am sure to find only two things wrong: they have in them pollutants and/or parasites.”

I added “by using a holistic program and included several elements.” In all of her books she explains a treatment program that does not just include zapping. She also used diet, food, supplements, dental work, liver cleanses, and a device called the Syncrometer. If you need a reference for this change, the book 13 is a good example. That said, I believe that zapping should be the only one singled out and listed in the opening paragraph, (the rest can just be relegated to “several elements” at this early point in the article) because zapping was what she was most known for.

She did not market the Zapper, it was sold through her son. I looked through all the newspaper articles and didn’t see any references to her marketing it. Of all the accusations against her, this doesn’t seem to be one of them. I read the source currently listed but it doesn’t say that she marketed them. In fact, in her book Cure for All Cancers (reference 11 in the current article), she gave the plans for people to build their own devices themselves, and she encouraged them to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywrites (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 August 2015‎

You're making all sorts of claims, but they're not supported by the one (primary) source you provide.

If her treatments require her products, I don't think it SYN to claim she markets them. What do others think? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

All claims for the small changes I am proposing are supported in my notes above. I even gave a direct quote from her book. On the contrary, the current article gives no source to support that she marketed the Zapper.Skywrites (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone else will agree with you. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What do others think of these proposed edits? CorporateM and TenOfAllTrades, should they be applied (all, some, or none)? Skywrites (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to invite other editors to weigh in on this thread so that we can resolve this and move to the next point? I tried searching through the Wikipedia help pages but am at a loss as to how to do this.Skywrites (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

First sentence, I disagree with "almost", but agree with "or pollution", if that is actually supported in her published material. I agree in principle with getting rid of the word "zapping" in quotes because it's ambiguous (maybe "applying a small electical current to the supposedly affected area"?). Your re-write, "destroying these parasites using an electrical device", implies that the electrical device was, in fact, capable of destroying parasites. Even if she did not sell zappers, I think it's fair to say she marketed them by prescribing their use, and it's also worth noting that you'd have to purchase the book to get the zapper design. I wholly disagree with all other changes (e.g. "holistic program", "elements", etc.) as hagiographic. This was not a 'program' with 'elements', it was pseudoscience. MRotten (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Do Not Link?

Propose that the official websites of KNOWN quacks like this are set up via Do Not Link. Given that most people use Google and Google places Wikipedia (out) links high on its rank, by including their official pages were actually helping to improve their SE ranking! This is a very bad thing since so many people just bypass (Wikipedia) in this case and go right to the "source".

It's not the final solution for this but it would be a start. The same applies to Natural News, Mike Adams, Jeffery Smith and all the other natural cancer cure quacks out there. Marcdraco (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

AIUI all external links on Wikipedia are marked as nofollow. Alexbrn (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the link no longer meets ELOFFICIAL criteria, I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Apols

Apols if edits I made in good faith do not apply to all the complicated searches you all have made. Please change anything awry. Manytexts (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Status elevation due?

Hi, should the article rank higher than "Start" class? It appears to be carefully constructed and thorough enough to be a C or more. Thanks Manytexts (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hulda Regehr Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929145046/http://www.drweilselfhealing.com/print_friendly.asp?iDocumentID=183&iBDC=2196 to http://www.drweilselfhealing.com/print_friendly.asp?iDocumentID=183&iBDC=2196

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hulda Regehr Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004230448/http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/108493/1/RegisterOfPhD_1966.pdf to http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/108493/1/RegisterOfPhD_1966.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227070401/http://www.drclark.net/en/hulda_clark/drclark_disclaimer.php to http://www.drclark.net/en/hulda_clark/drclark_disclaimer.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206052827/http://www.drclark.net/en/disclaimer.php to http://www.drclark.net/en/disclaimer.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hulda Regehr Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602215124/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/wp-content/blogs.dir/445/files/2012/04/i-f02fb1a655460ccf788c35e79d792127-HuldaClarkDeathCertificate.pdf to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/wp-content/blogs.dir/445/files/2012/04/i-f02fb1a655460ccf788c35e79d792127-HuldaClarkDeathCertificate.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hipal, below is the content you'd like to delete. Note that the article is (to enforce BRD) back to its status quo state, as you should not have restored your rejected (REVERTed) BOLD deletion:

This college is viewed with deep suspicion by the medical community.

Please explain your objections. Your first edit summary was "seems to be OR". Your last one was "please take to talk page - we can probably get by with just rewording since BLP doesn't apply." So what rewording would resolve your concerns? -- Valjean (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, this situation affects the other places you have deleted these words and references. Note that even when the article is about a person, the part of the wording is not about the person, so QW can be used. -- Valjean (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valjean. Thanks for starting the discussion. Since BLP doesn't apply to this article, it should be the easiest to resolve.

First, I'm not clear that it's verified.

Second, I'm not clear that what is in the references about Clayton apply to the status of Clayton when Clark was a student with them.

If we have references that clearly show that Clayton had some relevant status when Clark was with them, then we can figure out wording. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Clayton has never been accredited and was not when she attended. She had a dishonest mindset, so her seeking out an unaccredited program makes sense. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that even when the article is about a person, the part of the wording is not about the person, so QW can be used. Not in a BLP, so the other articles will need a different solution. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP is about specific wordings about living people, not about whole articles. In that sense it both does and doesn't apply to all of Wikipedia.

It can thus apply to one sentence and not to the next sentence. -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, she is not a recently deceased person, so BLP no longer applies, at least not as strictly. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I agree this is not a BLP. That's why I think it should be easiest to resolve the problem here first. We'll have to dig up the discussions about BLPs for the rest, but my understanding is that it applies to BLP articles in their entirety.

References

The statement under contention is vague and badly sourced. "Viewed with suspicion" means almost nothing. The second source, which is available only on archive.org, doesn't mention Clayton at all, although it appears to be a multiple-page article and only the first page is archived. If the Quackwatch source is to be used, it's best just to use proper attribution and say Quackwatch's analysis concludes that the school is not legitimate. Quackwatch isn't "the medical profession", it's just one guy. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch summarizes the general consensus on the use of Quackwatch. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm not saying Quackwatch is unreliable (and neither does RSP), but rather I'm saying that we shouldn't attribute Stephen Barrett's writings as coming from "the medical profession". We should attribute his statements to him. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. So proper attribution and phrasing should solve the problem, right? -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so. The phrase "viewed with suspicion" is not acceptable because it's original research, an editor's personal interpretation of what a source says. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) While not giving it undue weight, yes. The use of footnotes or quotations within references might help in that. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)