Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Too many POV Quackwatch/NCAHF references

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

text: I say go for the removal.--Crohnie 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need some information... 

message: Wasn't accredited by "American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" until 1996  --Ronz 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education . --Ronz 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clayton College of Natural Health Accredited?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif">Ilena</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">discuss 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have edited the DoEd sentence to improve it. Leave the COI part at home, please.--I'clast 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accreditation is relevant 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: cn licensed, mail order

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: When did Clark get her ND?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I did a Google search about her and crohn's but.. 

message: :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)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I totally agree.  She even says so on her one page site  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BLP concerns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Refactored talk page content

message: Shouldn't the 2000 libel suit and its sequelae be mentioned and linked in the article? Avb 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes. Avb 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Libel suit

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Got my support.  Removing it will actually improve WP's credibility. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Support. Good call, DGG. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: trivial difference used as criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Commentary moved from article page

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cause of death

message: Copied from the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlinks 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  cause of death related to cancer unconfirmed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split/redundant criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Avb 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serious pruning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ph.D. major/minor? 

message: 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)
replies: text: AIUI all external links on Wikipedia are marked as nofollow. Alexbrn (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the link no longer meets ELOFFICIAL criteria, I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Link? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apols 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Status elevation due? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)