Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health/Archive 1

message: I added the link to the exact description of what Clayton College is. All the pontificating by Barrett and all the places it isn't accredited appears to be  verbose and attacking. We can certainly have a comment about the criticsm, but I just read the websites and I don't see them claiming to be anything other than what they are  ... nothing more.  Thank you.Ilena discuss
:But accreditation to a college is important and I personally don't see it as attacking, just information.  --Crohnie 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki is not telling what something is NOT 

message: This college does not claim to be offering accreditation in dentistry, flower arranging, medical doctoring or anything other than what it offers. We need a tag on this article about the objectivity, please. Barrett's promoters here on Wikipedia are attempting to use Wiki as yet another weapon to attack this college and Dr. Clark. Thank you. Ilena 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably do have a point about, at this point it does look pretty lopsided.  The school teaches a naturopathic approach to health that by itself is not a bad thing - that the body heals itself.  Is there an accrediting agency for naturopathic schools that is recognized by the US government?  Why are they not on that list? -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I will address your role in keeping the verifiable facts of NCAHF NOT being licensed anywhere off of Wikipedia by removing the evidence and showing your inability to understand state licensing laws. I have no COI with Clayton College but Barrett and his public relations team here does, having been in litigation regarding those mentioned in this article. Ilena 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your personal gripes elsewhere.  They are not justification for your disruptive editing.  --Ronz 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Wikipedia ... not Quackwatch-Wiki 

message: Note that per WP:NOR and WP:V, as well the 'synthesis' restriction, we as WP cannot make any of our own conclusions by the juxtaposition of sourced facts. If we have a reliable and neutral source that says something controverial, we can quote it or summarize it, but we cannot construct a synthesis from generic bits of data and come up with our own conclusion. Crum375 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, Crum375 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for contentious claims

message: Lets WP:AGF.  Even if we did include the Barrett sentence, is it appropriate to quote, "avoid the school and its alumni."  That sounds like an attack.  -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an attack waht of it?Geni 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is relevant criticism, made in a sober manner without any ad hominem or straw man attacks. It fulfills the NPOV requirement for inclusion of opposing POV. I have now reformatted that sentence to make its relevance easier to understand. Readers who get that far, and who are interested, can read it for themselves. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a better assessment would be an unjustified attack.  Fyslee, your version is better.  I'll add some. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is of course a POV judgment call, and has no Wikipedia-relevant place in determining whether to include it or not. One side considers it justified, and that's enough. The other links regarding accreditation issues, as well as the actions of the named (in the link) notable graduates, make for a compelling case for it being very justified criticism. To even publicly announce that one is a graduate from that school, is to place oneself in the middle of a bullseye for investigation, since some of its graduates have been guilty of dubious practices, and one therefore could be suspicious of others who have bought their degrees there. The whole issue of degree mills and dubious accreditation is now blowing up in the faces of many public employees, politicians, and other notable and unnotable people, and the records of such schools are being examined by journalists and others, since being a graduate of such a school is a big red flag warning of possible misdeeds. McKeith and Clark are just two right here. Their actions lead others to examine the credentials of anyone with papers from Clayton, and if I were such a person, I'd burn those papers as fast as possible and never mention them. The articles in this category are very relevant to study: Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I still think that we have an obligation to justify why we would include such an attack, rather than just print the attack.  It's the difference between being the one with the gun verses the one reporting on the one with the gun (lame attempt at an example;). -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm...We need to be careful with that, since our opinion is not to be included, only a presentation of opinions from V & RS. If including more of his opinion, which explains why he is critical, does the job better, go for it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What ya think? -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As always, what you do, you do well. It looks good and NPOV. I have wikilinked it. -- Fyslee's (First law) 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of link 

message: I don't think Quackwatch/Barrett should be used in this article.  The reason is that at the bottom it has a link about Hulda Clark, plus others.  There is also other things in the tool bar.  Isn't there another source that can be used instead?  --Crohnie 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they aren't used as the sole sources, I don't think there is a problem using them.  This same discussion has occurred in many Wiki articles, and the results tend to be that Quackwatch is a source that many people don't like, but the information is reliable.  --Ronz 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not following.  Which link, and what does Clark have to do with Quackwatch being used as a source? --Ronz 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that the article mentions Clark.  What's your concern?  --Ronz 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.  The Quackwatch article is about the accreditation of the college, and is used here for that information, not for the information on Clark.  The comments about Clark are fairly inconsequential, especially in light of what Quackwatch is and how they've gone into great detail in other articles of theirs describing why Clarks claims are bizarre from the perspective of science and medicine.  Also, Quackwatch is a respected source here on Wikipedia and elsewhere.  --Ronz 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Quackwatch article used here is used because it is about Clayton. That it mentions Clayton graduates like Clark does not detract from it. This article does the same. There are rarely articles or websites used as sources here that are totally devoid of any information about subjects related or unrelated to the article topic, and this one actually has links to subjects that are related, making it a better source. The "contents" of the Clark article would not be appropriate here, but would be appropriate on the Hulda Clark article, either as a linked source, or as information. Wikipedia and Quackwatch are very similar in this regard. They both use internal linking to related subjects, so this is a strength, not a weakness. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's unwarrented, but perhaps best to leave it out until Ilena backs down from her edit warring. --Ronz 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as his personal conflict is  noted it should be fine. JoshuaZ 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrett/Quackwatch 

message: If we don't WP:AGF then I suppose all of us could be considered for WP:COI.  The point is have we investigated the article fully.  Personally, I appreciate Ilena's ability to see the "other" side just as you present "your" side very well.  I think we all have a roll to play here.  Do you know if there is an accrediting agency for NDs in the US? -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: California uses the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education . --Ronz 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is listed with the U.S. Department of Education.  There doesn't appear to be any listed with Council for Higher Education Accreditation.  --Ronz 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!  Ok, so we know that aren't accredited by the USOE through the CNME and the others aren't recognized by some states.  So far it looks like we aren't saying anything unverifiable.  I think it is also appropriate to mention these in an article to let the reader know that if they are planning on taking classes, they may not be able to practice in some states. Agreed? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer if someone had done all this research and published it in a reliable source we could use.  All this research we're doing, though verifiable, is getting a bit too close to original research for my comfort.  Still, it's pretty sad that Clayton leaves it up to their students to learn that their education there is worthless towards becoming a licensed naturopath. Also, CNME says this about licensing: Fourteen states and four provinces allow the practice of naturopathic medicine: Alaska, Arizona, British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Manitoba, Montana, New Hampshire, Ontario, Oregon, Saskatchewan, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have licensing laws for naturopathic doctors. --Ronz 19:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Naturopath#Regulation_in_North_America has similar information, but it's unsourced. --Ronz 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accreditation of Naturopathic

message: Ok everyone, this article needs work as we all know but warring about it gets it no where.  Accreditation in a college is very important.  If the accreditation is not excepted in some states and consider illegal in some, this should be told in my opinion.  I still don't understand why it is continually claimed that this is an attack by Quackwatch/Barrett or some others that are suppose to be working in his behalf.  Ilena, can you show where the people/persons you claim are publist for Quackwatch to slander and be a publists for the site?  If not isn't this all moot and not important to keep repeating?  Everyone need to take a breath and start working together.  I'm new but from my readings I would suggest before altering the article and reverting back and forth, which seems to be a big no, use this talk page for changes, let everyone speak their mind and then take a concenses.  Isnt' this the proper way to work things out?  
As for positives about this college if I remember correctly someone found information about the college.  So talk over what they offer for classes, how they do labs and so forth.  This is just a suggestion to try to calm the waters here.  As for COI, isn't that a conflict when someone (s) is involve in the person or company being talked about?  If so, they this should be enforce by whoever does this.  For a newbie, I feel like I have walked into a field of minds lately.  I am still learning and trying to use the talk pages right now.  My husband had a heart attack and is in the hospital so I am trying to keep busy here.  As soon as I know he is ok, I will go back to my Sandbox to learn more in the tutorial, so please be patient with me.  I am just trying to calm things down for everyone.  Thanks, --Crohnie 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, another question, is there a spell check on this site?  I sure hope so!  :)  Thanks, --Crohnie 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice, Crohnie, for a newbie, you are learning fast.  Talk is good.  -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it time to take a breath and talk... 

message: I've shortened Barrett's criticism and attributed it to Quackwatch, which is its source. Stating that Quackwatch has criticized Clayton is not libel, POV, or a smear campaign. It's a fact. People can draw their own conclusions, based on what they think of Quackwatch and Barrett, but let's tone down the rhetoric. I did shorten the criticism substantially and summarize it so as not to give it undue weight and to make it flow more easily. MastCell 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me. Thanks, MastCell. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Will anyone object if I remove the neutrality tag? JoshuaZ 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us a little bit to get something other than criticism in the article.  -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked up Clayton College, here's the link  which has a lot of info on it.  I didn't sign up, don't want to get there emails and so forth never mind I haven't gotten far enough in my learning to get brave enough to edit an article! :)  I thought this might help. --Crohnie 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead Crohnie, take a shot at it!  You can do it! The worst that can happen is that it gets deleted.  No big deal. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Good work! 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You did it!  Good job!  I did try to make it flow some, see what you think - that's what collaboration is - we split the labor;)  I think we should move this sentence to the top somewhere. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, looks good to me. I didn't know where to put it to be honest so move it where it is more appropriate please. --Crohnie 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, see what you think. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do see that he notes a PhD from Clayton College? -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, that's why we're all here; to get it right! -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that link. Please read mine too. Thanks again. 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Distractions aside, I'd like to discuss what this article is about, and what pov and balance issues we really have here.  First, does anyone think Clayton is notable for reasons other than it being a diploma mill used by two high-profile people (Clark and McKeith)?  If these are the reasons for it being notable, then the article will and should focus primarily on these "negative" issues.  Still, I think it would be helpful to see what other editors have done with other articles in Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning, especially if there are similar institutions. --Ronz 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read about Clayton then you will see what it offers in classes and so forth.  There are other colleges that do use the internet for the classwork and even tests.  I didn't read the whole link of theirs but do they have student come to them for any classes?  --Crohnie 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that 25 years and 25000 students is notable even if it didn't have notable people that graduated from it.  The description of diploma mill is certainly viable if we can find a reliable source saying that.  Also, I'm wondering about whether it teaches something like a community college where there may be no diploma, but just information of interest or for personal use. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My question for how many students there are; how many students did they start with and how many were added year to year?  If they started with less then 100 and slowly built up to the 25,000 then it could be notable that the school is growing in interest. Also it would mean that the school's teaching is becoming more popular. What do you think?  Sorry, got to go to work. --Crohnie 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet they don't provide any enrollment or graduate information by date.  Just one of the many problems with unaccredited schools is that no one is checking their enrollment figures, or even what they define as an enrolled student. I wonder what the accreditation mills they're using hold them accountable to. --Ronz 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting idea.  Why don't we start an article on the accrediting agencies and lets see what we can find? I wonder if we can even find anything notable? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a total waste of time;)  I found nothing (other than their own website).  Forget that. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem and I agree, I put a speedydelete tag on the empty page I created for it if anyone wants to comment differently. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, balance, and what can be done with this article

message: http://www.ccnh.edu/networking/whoare_grads.asp  
:Nearly 44% of the people who completed a survey stated that they were in practice. Of those, 35% are in full time practice and 65% are in part time practice.
19% practice as herbalists. 
45% practice as nutritional consultants. 
34% practice as naturopathic consultants. 
41% practice as natural health consultants. --Crohnie 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html  I found this site during a search of unaccredited schools.  I haven't read through the whole thing but maybe this can give some balance to the article. --Crohnie 12:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it says that "Degree holders [from Clayton] are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure." We already use that reference in the article, but you are definitely on the right track as far as finding V & RS for this (or any other) article. Such references are the best type for this type of situation. It can't get better than that. Good going! There are likely similar references from other states (that aren't already referenced). -- Fyslee's (First law) 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the percentages who go to the college, see my first link in this title, listed.  Wouldn't this be an good to put in the article?  It says the percentage of how many go and breaks it down.  --Crohnie 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it would be useful to add it, especially since we're short on non-critical info about the school (perhaps with the lead-in "According to Clayton's website...") Definitely don't bother signing up for anything on the websites you find (unless you want to for yourself) - sources that require subscriptions etc. are generally frowned upon (see the reliable sources guideline), so it wouldn't be worthwhile anyway. MastCell 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll give it a shot in a bit, but feel free to be bold and go for it yourself - the worst that will happen is that someone will revert it. People tend to take things here pretty seriously, but in the end, it's just Wikipedia - no harm done, and don't take it personally if it happens - it happens to everyone. MastCell 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it:)  I usually just put it in and then if somebody makes changes it is usually for the better.  Give it another shot! -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in this information above about there graduation rates.  If incorrectly done, not appropriate or needs to be reworked, please don't hesitate.  --Crohnie 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a copy edit and formatted the link as a reference. Go for it! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be of interest to the article? 

message: Now that we have totally detroyed the credibility of this school, maybe it would be a good idea to write a little something good about it, unless it is all bad.  Anybody good at writing for the enemy? Or are all we interested here is naturopathy bashing? -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their web site has a lot of info - should not be hard to lift/cite some material. Crum375 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A short list of the subjects they teach, and then wikilink them. That should be good enough. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a pure and utter extension of the Smear_campaign spread by  Barrett, now repeated, almost verbatim here on Wikipedia. Everything Wiki is NOT ... biased, subjective, and part of a legal campaign he is waging. Ilena discuss
Did I miss something?  Comments keep being made about Dr Barrett trying to smear this article.  Did he post somewhere?  Some of this is just not making any sense to me.  What does any legal problems have to do with the article?  Sorry, maybe I shouldn't mention anything, but this seems to be one side, at least here about smear compaigns.  --Crohnie 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you saying others are promoting him in a professional way?  I'm new but I thought that on talk pages these kinds of things are discussed and then a consenses is taken.  It just doesn't seem right to make these accusation like this.  --Crohnie 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesnt seem right.  It seems to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch is nothing but a smear site. It is the Internet eqivalent of the supermarket tabloid, designed for no other purpose than to create controversy and destroy reputations. They do not fact check or make any attempt to present a balanced point of view. It has been clearly established as unreliable and should not be used here, just as it is not used in other properly written articles.Nicola Cola (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur.  Good idea.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the school teach? 

message: I think that  should be worked into the lead because it was specifically created for just such cases. --Ronz 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. MastCell 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem from me. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I gave up and instead made a slight pov change.  All the information from the template is already in the article.  It's just confusing that we start saying it's not accredited, yet we try to explain what Clayton is claiming when they say they are accredited. --Ronz 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unaccredited

message: I restored this wording change. While I still feel we're unecessarily dancing around a fairly clear-cut accreditation issue, this wording is much easier to read than the previous version. We're not crafting a legal contract here - the goal is to create an accurate and easily comprehensible sentence. The meaning is both clear and fully accurate/sourced: CCNH is not accredited by any accrediting body recognized by the USDOE or CHEA. The fact that some other, unnamed schools attempt various dodges doesn't necessitate complicating the sentence further. MastCell Talk 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having wasted far too much time sparring with Wikipedia contributors who are determined to whitewash diploma mills and similar dubious institutions, I figure it is best to be as explicit as possible so as not to invite challenges about what terms like "accreditation" and "recognition" really mean. Thus, for example, "educational accreditation" is more specific (and meaningful) than "accreditation" (for example, Warnborough University claims "accreditation" from an accreditor of certification, testing, inspection and calibration services, which has nothing to do with educational accreditation but probably fools many people). Similarly, because "recognition" can come in many forms, I think it desirable to make it clear that we are talking about something very specific. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of this ("educational accreditation" is definitely an improvement). But since none of the orgs accrediting CCNH are recognized by the USDOE in any context, the excessive qualification is probably unecessary IMHO. MastCell Talk 05:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Per Shannon Rose's edit summary, "Rev outdated. Claims of accreditation from or affiliation with AADP and ANMA cannot be found anywhwere in CCNH's website. Refer to http://www.ccnh.edu/about/professionaldevelopment.aspx", I've moved this information here for discussion in case some might still be used. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Info like this should be preserved. It seems that the school is going through reforms, I'm willing to give it a chance (though I am personally doubtful about that secretive accreditation bit). For the meantime let's make do with what is current. Thanks, Ronz. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit to being a bit lost in the thicket of accrediting agencies here. It would appear that Clayton is currently not accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, which is the only agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The CNME does not accredit correspondence schools, on the grounds that it's impossible to assess someone's competence as a health professional solely via the Internet. Thus, graduates of Clayton would presumably be ineligible to sit for the NPLEX licensing exam. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). This is probably reasonably relevant information, but would need to be confirmed - as I've said, I'm not an expert on accreditation alphabet soup. MastCell Talk 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true and, in my opinion, CCNH will never get accreditation on its Naturopathy program because of that fact. But CCNH offers other programs that MAY be approved like BS in Natural Health and MS in Holistic Nutrition since there are already precedents (Everglades and ACHS). I don't think that "it's impossible to assess someone's competence as a health professional solely via the Internet" for the simple reason that associates and bachelors programs for radiology and sonography can be earned online, RNs can obtain their BSNs online, and Physical Therapists can get their DPT online (PT aide can also be taken online) both from RA and NA schools. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that DETC is very strict about applicants advertising their accreditation applications. I believe that the primary reason for this policy is to protect the integrity of the accreditation process. If institutions were allowed to advertise their accreditation application then there would be some dishonest institutions that might apply for accreditation just so they could advertise that fact. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not sure how to contribute/respond here. CCNH has made several changes to its curriculum and programs offered. The college no longer offers an ND program, so that should address the concerns about the type of accreditation the college is seeking. The college will continue to recognize its ND graduates, but as of April 1, 2009 the program is no longer offered. That is what is current if this discussion is based on what is factually correct and current.Tara CCNH (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Tara, it is customary to add new comments to the end of discussions on talk pages. It was difficult finding your previous comment so I added a complete sig to make it easier to find. (The end of discussions means adding new comments to the end of the section.) If you're making a suggestion for an article change, it is unclear to me exactly what you're proposing. If that is the case then please be more explicit. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tall Magic. No, I was not proposing a change regarding the ND being offered or not, although compared to other school's entries in Wikipedia it might be a fair request. I was remarking on the speculative discussion regarding the accrediting agencies above. We no longer offer the ND, so speculating on DETC versus CNME and the US Secretary of Education is a moot point. No ND means no need to even consider the CNME. It is also a huge change for us historically, if the article editors allowed for such information to be included as it is for other school entriesTara CCNH (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm a bit new to the article, but I'm a bit confused by your response. Adding some information about the type programs available at a school should be allowed. If some edit was not allowed in the past, perhaps the situation was that text was copied from the school website and an attempt was made to add it to article in bulk. I don't know if that happened in this case but I've seen it happen on other articles. That type of edit should probably be reverted because it likely violates the wp:copyvio and/or wp:NPOV policies. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this type of self published information is an example where the CCNH website could be used as a reliable source. TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TallMagic -- thanks for the feedback. Yes, this was a while back, perhaps as much as two to three years ago. A representative attempted to make changes to the article, in bulk as you say. The changes were immediately rejected. Between that and the things that editors have to say about CCNH in these discussion pages, I have been hesitant to enter the dialog and to lobby for what I feel are fair, neutral changes. I could actually use some guidance here. Another Wikipedia editor, a student of one of the naturopathic medicine schools, has asked for more information about CCNH not offering the ND degree anymore. We did, and now we don't. It was in the catalog and on the Web site, and now it is not. We have not, and as far as I know, do not intend to publish a press release announcing this fact. My question is how would I reference this using our Web site? All I can do is cite the page that clearly lists all the programs we offer, showing that the ND (and other degrees) are no longer there. In your opinion, is the CCNH Web site a reliable source for an issue such as this? Thanks. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Something stating the types of programs offered would certainly be appropriate, and even desirable, as long as we do not list the entire catalog. Sourcing to the CCNH website is fine for this sort of completely non-controversial information, and probably best given that it can change. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I don't see any problem with citing the CCNH website to describe the degrees they currently offer. If there were issues with degrees they previously offered which have lasting significance, then there will be independent secondary sources which can be cited to describe those. MastCell Talk 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The college is slowly releasing information about the changes its undergoing we prepare for accreditation. The retirement of the ND and doctor of natural health degrees is mentioned in a newsletter article found here: http://www.ccnh.edu/community/newsletter/holtimesv16n1/htv16n1.pdf#page=14 We have also retired the PhD degrees i natural health and holistic nutrition; however, we do not have any documentation around this outside of what we have shared directly with students or within the college's private discussion forums, so I have no source for those retirements at this point. I am sure that we will cover it in upcoming publications. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, maybe. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article isn't intended to serve as a "Wall of Shame", and the school can bear only so much responsibility for graduates who have gone on to do unfortunate things. After all, a number of graduates of Yale Law School have ended up involved in various shenanigans, but the Wikipedia page doesn't feel the need to link their misdeeds directly to the school... MastCell Talk 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like sanctioning torture? Oops sorry, couldn't resist. :-) Have fun, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the program information from the CCNH website on the assumption that it is current and accurate. Naturopathy is not currently listed as a degree offered, but it is mentioned on the frontpage and important to the Natural Health program. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Eldereft, for adding the current programs. I think it adds some balance to the article. I wish we had prepared a press release about retiring the ND program, but we chose not to. That program, along with the doctor of natural health, being retired is mentioned briefly in an article in the college's most recent newsletter. Would that be an acceptable source for a citation? Also, although we no longer offer the ND degree, the college still embraces the basic tenets and philosophies of traditional naturopathy and intends to continue to be an advocate of its practice. Tara CCNH (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BullRangifer and all, thanks for acknowledging that a school can only bear so much responsibility for what its graduates do. For many years now CCNH has been upfront and specific about what graduates can and cannot, or should or should not do. Unfortunately, Hulda Clark graduated a long time ago and so much has changed since then. It is frustrating that a few bad apples ruin the whole bunch when so many graduates are doing the right things and doing good. Would it be possible to perhaps add a few names of graduates who are doing well and who openly incorporate their CCNH education? I am thinking in terms of balance. What kind of citations would this require? Would a person's Web site with a mention of their earning a degree from CCNH be enough? Tara CCNH (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean towards agreeing but, I do have some concerns that the person has some level of notability and I don't know if that can be satisfied. It would require a case by case consideration I think. I should caution though that it probably violates the letter of the policy, WP:SELFPUB but a good thing about Wikipedia is that when it agrees with the intent then it can be okay. If it was referenced in a reliable source then there would be absolutely no issue and would definitely be a great addition to article. TallMagic (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a legitimate concern that highlighting only the "bad apples" may create a skewed impression; at the same time, I don't think that counterbalancing the bad apples with upstanding but low-profile individuals is the way to go from an encyclopedic standpoint. One-way linkage might be a reasonable way of dealing with this. In other words, our article on Hulda Clark mentions that she has a degree from CCNH, but our article on CCNH doesn't mention Hulda Clark. MastCell Talk 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the better solution would be to mention a few notable individuals who have done well. One has just been added. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding Kim Barounin. I can supply other upstanding grads if desired. We do have some high profile people, within the field, who have earned degrees with us. For example, JJ Virgin (http://www.jjvirgin.com/docs/pdfs/JJ_VIRGIN_CV.pdf) is one such person. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info moved for discussion

message: Clayton College claims accreditation by the American National Naturopathic Medical Accreditation BoardANMAB Accredited Member Institutions and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners.AADP School Listing These organizations are not recognized accreditation associations of higher learning according to the U.S. Department of Education, and were identified as accreditation mills in a 2007 report by the Seattle Times.
:I agree. Info like this should be preserved. It seems that the school is going through reforms, I'm willing to give it a chance (though I am personally doubtful about that secretive accreditation bit). For the meantime let's make do with what is current. Thanks, Ronz. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit to being a bit lost in the thicket of accrediting agencies here. It would appear that Clayton is currently not accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, which is the only agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The CNME does not accredit correspondence schools, on the grounds that it's impossible to assess someone's competence as a health professional solely via the Internet. Thus, graduates of Clayton would presumably be ineligible to sit for the NPLEX licensing exam. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). This is probably reasonably relevant information, but would need to be confirmed - as I've said, I'm not an expert on accreditation alphabet soup. MastCell Talk 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true and, in my opinion, CCNH will never get accreditation on its Naturopathy program because of that fact. But CCNH offers other programs that MAY be approved like BS in Natural Health and MS in Holistic Nutrition since there are already precedents (Everglades and ACHS). I don't think that "it's impossible to assess someone's competence as a health professional solely via the Internet" for the simple reason that associates and bachelors programs for radiology and sonography can be earned online, RNs can obtain their BSNs online, and Physical Therapists can get their DPT online (PT aide can also be taken online) both from RA and NA schools. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that DETC is very strict about applicants advertising their accreditation applications. I believe that the primary reason for this policy is to protect the integrity of the accreditation process. If institutions were allowed to advertise their accreditation application then there would be some dishonest institutions that might apply for accreditation just so they could advertise that fact. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how to contribute/respond here. CCNH has made several changes to its curriculum and programs offered. The college no longer offers an ND program, so that should address the concerns about the type of accreditation the college is seeking. The college will continue to recognize its ND graduates, but as of April 1, 2009 the program is no longer offered. That is what is current if this discussion is based on what is factually correct and current.Tara CCNH (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Tara, it is customary to add new comments to the end of discussions on talk pages. It was difficult finding your previous comment so I added a complete sig to make it easier to find. (The end of discussions means adding new comments to the end of the section.) If you're making a suggestion for an article change, it is unclear to me exactly what you're proposing. If that is the case then please be more explicit. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tall Magic. No, I was not proposing a change regarding the ND being offered or not, although compared to other school's entries in Wikipedia it might be a fair request. I was remarking on the speculative discussion regarding the accrediting agencies above. We no longer offer the ND, so speculating on DETC versus CNME and the US Secretary of Education is a moot point. No ND means no need to even consider the CNME. It is also a huge change for us historically, if the article editors allowed for such information to be included as it is for other school entriesTara CCNH (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm a bit new to the article, but I'm a bit confused by your response. Adding some information about the type programs available at a school should be allowed. If some edit was not allowed in the past, perhaps the situation was that text was copied from the school website and an attempt was made to add it to article in bulk. I don't know if that happened in this case but I've seen it happen on other articles. That type of edit should probably be reverted because it likely violates the wp:copyvio and/or wp:NPOV policies. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this type of self published information is an example where the CCNH website could be used as a reliable source. TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TallMagic -- thanks for the feedback. Yes, this was a while back, perhaps as much as two to three years ago. A representative attempted to make changes to the article, in bulk as you say. The changes were immediately rejected. Between that and the things that editors have to say about CCNH in these discussion pages, I have been hesitant to enter the dialog and to lobby for what I feel are fair, neutral changes. I could actually use some guidance here. Another Wikipedia editor, a student of one of the naturopathic medicine schools, has asked for more information about CCNH not offering the ND degree anymore. We did, and now we don't. It was in the catalog and on the Web site, and now it is not. We have not, and as far as I know, do not intend to publish a press release announcing this fact. My question is how would I reference this using our Web site? All I can do is cite the page that clearly lists all the programs we offer, showing that the ND (and other degrees) are no longer there. In your opinion, is the CCNH Web site a reliable source for an issue such as this? Thanks. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Something stating the types of programs offered would certainly be appropriate, and even desirable, as long as we do not list the entire catalog. Sourcing to the CCNH website is fine for this sort of completely non-controversial information, and probably best given that it can change. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I don't see any problem with citing the CCNH website to describe the degrees they currently offer. If there were issues with degrees they previously offered which have lasting significance, then there will be independent secondary sources which can be cited to describe those. MastCell Talk 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The college is slowly releasing information about the changes its undergoing we prepare for accreditation. The retirement of the ND and doctor of natural health degrees is mentioned in a newsletter article found here: http://www.ccnh.edu/community/newsletter/holtimesv16n1/htv16n1.pdf#page=14 We have also retired the PhD degrees i natural health and holistic nutrition; however, we do not have any documentation around this outside of what we have shared directly with students or within the college's private discussion forums, so I have no source for those retirements at this point. I am sure that we will cover it in upcoming publications. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, maybe. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article isn't intended to serve as a "Wall of Shame", and the school can bear only so much responsibility for graduates who have gone on to do unfortunate things. After all, a number of graduates of Yale Law School have ended up involved in various shenanigans, but the Wikipedia page doesn't feel the need to link their misdeeds directly to the school... MastCell Talk 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like sanctioning torture? Oops sorry, couldn't resist. :-) Have fun, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the program information from the CCNH website on the assumption that it is current and accurate. Naturopathy is not currently listed as a degree offered, but it is mentioned on the frontpage and important to the Natural Health program. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Eldereft, for adding the current programs. I think it adds some balance to the article. I wish we had prepared a press release about retiring the ND program, but we chose not to. That program, along with the doctor of natural health, being retired is mentioned briefly in an article in the college's most recent newsletter. Would that be an acceptable source for a citation? Also, although we no longer offer the ND degree, the college still embraces the basic tenets and philosophies of traditional naturopathy and intends to continue to be an advocate of its practice. Tara CCNH (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BullRangifer and all, thanks for acknowledging that a school can only bear so much responsibility for what its graduates do. For many years now CCNH has been upfront and specific about what graduates can and cannot, or should or should not do. Unfortunately, Hulda Clark graduated a long time ago and so much has changed since then. It is frustrating that a few bad apples ruin the whole bunch when so many graduates are doing the right things and doing good. Would it be possible to perhaps add a few names of graduates who are doing well and who openly incorporate their CCNH education? I am thinking in terms of balance. What kind of citations would this require? Would a person's Web site with a mention of their earning a degree from CCNH be enough? Tara CCNH (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean towards agreeing but, I do have some concerns that the person has some level of notability and I don't know if that can be satisfied. It would require a case by case consideration I think. I should caution though that it probably violates the letter of the policy, WP:SELFPUB but a good thing about Wikipedia is that when it agrees with the intent then it can be okay. If it was referenced in a reliable source then there would be absolutely no issue and would definitely be a great addition to article. TallMagic (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a legitimate concern that highlighting only the "bad apples" may create a skewed impression; at the same time, I don't think that counterbalancing the bad apples with upstanding but low-profile individuals is the way to go from an encyclopedic standpoint. One-way linkage might be a reasonable way of dealing with this. In other words, our article on Hulda Clark mentions that she has a degree from CCNH, but our article on CCNH doesn't mention Hulda Clark. MastCell Talk 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the better solution would be to mention a few notable individuals who have done well. One has just been added. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding Kim Barounin. I can supply other upstanding grads if desired. We do have some high profile people, within the field, who have earned degrees with us. For example, JJ Virgin (http://www.jjvirgin.com/docs/pdfs/JJ_VIRGIN_CV.pdf) is one such person. Tara CCNH (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prior claims of accreditation

message: Editors keep on reinstating the McKeith controversy and CNME bit insisting that they are relevant information. They are not relevant information. McKeith has her own article, put the controversy there. If people wants to find out more about McKeith then her name is wikilinked to her article and all they need to do is click. Also, CNME only accredits Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees, Clayton no longer offer these programs. So, saying that Clayton is not accredited by CNME is completely irrelevant to the article's subject at this point in time. We should update articles to reflect their latest state.
I do not have any personal connection with this college. But, come on guys, let us not butcher the poor article! The whole presentation is unbalanced, giving undue weight to only the negative aspects of the institution. To be honest the page looks like an anti site for Clayton. Clayton is undergoing drastic reforms: from the hiring of Teresa Nichols, Ph.D. as Chief Academic Officer, to phasing out all the naturopathic doctorates, to changing the enrollment to per course instead of per program, to applying for accreditation. Let us give them a chance.
The article is about Clayton, not about McKeith. Alexander Pring-Wilson was convicted of manslaughter for stabbing 18-year-old Michael Colono (who eventually died) are we going to mention Pring-Wilson's story in the Harvard University article? Harvard has nothing to do with Pring-Wilson's personal life. People who reads the Harvard University article wants to read about Harvard University, if they want to read about a notable alumnus then they know that they should look for and read that person's article.
Why is it that Quackwatch has a link in this article but not in the Bastyr University, the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine articles? Quackwatch is against all schools that offer naturopathy doctorates regardless of whether they are accredited or not, it is even against CNME! Please read  and  
I am a nurse (BSN and MA) who is currently taking my Master of Science in CAM at ACHS, and while I wouldn't consider enrolling at Clayton for personal reasons (well, okay, because it is unaccredited) I truly believe that the article, in its present state, is an overkill and it is just heartless for any of us to just let it be like this. – Shannon Rose 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, the ND degrees handed out by CCNH are deemed bogus and the "practitioners" fraudulent by the true ND's who went to one of the accredited school naturopathic schools in the US and Canada and spent 4,5,and 6 years with clinical experience to obtain their USofEd approved ND. These practitioners are still out there and some of them still put ND behind their name. This went on for years, and even as the CNME, AANMC, NABNE, and AANP tried to get Clayton to stop pumping out these papers they were calling diplomas, they kept doing it at an accelerated pace. Maybe there should be a section on this. In the end, these people who claim to have an ND but don't, and act like doctors when they're not, should be mentioned here. You can really blame CCNH for this mess. --208.75.45.130 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. If you can find reliable, third-party, published sources saying that "CCNH ND's" are "deemed bogus and the 'practitioners' fraudulent by" state-licensed ND's, then I would suggest that you add a statement reflecting that duly-sourced sentiment to the article. But you should be aware that there are state-licensed nurses (RN-BSN's), physical therapists, and MD's (not just ND's) who graduated from Clayton's ND for Health Professionals and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine programs. The most popular ND's—those who wrote books, produced instructional videos that actually sold, and held wellness seminars attended by many—were mostly Clayton graduates, not state-licensed ND's. This is probably the real problem of state-licensed ND's, because Clayton ND's are so knowledgeable in their field (though may not be as knowledgeable performance-wise) that they become serious competition. Out of these thousands of CCNH graduates, how many have actually end up injuring their clients? If I can show you examples of how state-licensed MD's and ND's end up injuring or even killing their clients due to malpractice, will you let me put those incidents in the articles of their respective schools? Clayton have one or two controversial clients and they occupy 1/8 of the article. Also, in the connected institutions section we find only the unaccredited institution and the accredited institution was removed, they should both be there or remove the section altogether. This whole thing is plain and simple bigotry and prejudice, for us to leave the article as it is would be tantamount to tolerating injustice. Now, lest we forget, my contention is about the continuous mention of McKeith's personal controversy, something that belongs to McKeith's own WP article and not here, and CNME not accrediting the subject's programs, which is already irrelevant to Clayton at this time. Whoever doctored this article obviously looked for the worst about the institution and jammed them all in to make the school appear completely rubbish. A person who reads the article and says that it is balanced and NPOV is either lying or stupid, I don't want to be in any of those categories. Why don't we all work together to improve the article? Personal vendetta has no place in, and is actually counterproductive to the betterment of, an encyclopedia. — Shannon Rose 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The article is about CCNH as it is today, as well as CCNH history. If ND degrees are no longer offerred then, I think that the ND degrees can be discussed in the past tense in this article. If quackwatch mentions these other schools then it is perfectly okay to make note of that in articles for those other schools. TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. Why don't we redo the article in a way that will still mention its past, it had a scam element into it that people need to be aware of, but let us also present it in its current state. What is your take on the McKeith controversy section? I personally see it as an overkill, something that is not needed. What if we find all the criminals who graduated from, say TESC, and then put them in the TESC article? Would it be relevant. It is obvious that some editors are trying to own this article and control the content so that it is consistently negative. It is just impossible to assume good faith in articles as bad as this one. If the controlling editors would keep on resisting good faith and purely NPOV attempts to improve the article, I am going to take this a step higher as well as call the attention of editors and admins who are not aware of what's going on here. — Shannon Rose 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently McKeith's information is just one sentence. That seems like a reasonable amount of information to me. The analogy with TESC would be relevant only if someone was using their TESC degree to defraud, say they paid TESC for a degree they hadn't earned and then used that to defraud people or they had some ponzi scheme related to TESC degrees or something. Anyway, please feel free to explore anyway you see fit to improve the article. A good place to start might be the wp:Dispute article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the entire article and there is nothing there stating that McKeith used her Clayton education to defraud others. Actually McKeith is an IvyLeaguer and is witing about nutrition in the capacity of an independent researcher, not as a practitioner of any form of medicine. The article also doesn't mention anything about Clayton's refusal to show McKeith's dissertation (read it for yourself TV dietician to stop using title Dr in adverts. The details and entire premise of the sentence was pulled out of thin air. The reference for the Chadwick connection and its supposedly being a "diploma mill" does not exist (please see http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/2007.... The fact is that McKeith is still quite popular, actually an icon in the wellness field, and highly respected, she simply dropped the Dr. title to avoid confusion as people may misinterpret her use of it as pretending to be an MD. There was no court decision that compelled her to do it, she did it out of her own volition. But to top it all, happenings in McKeith's life, be it negative or positive, should not even be here, because this article is not about McKeith. — Shannon Rose 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi Ronz, of course she is notable, there is no question to that. That is why I have retained her name. But it is not for the CCNH article to discuss anything further about McKeith, that is why she has her own article, if you want to learn more about her then go to her article, this one is about CCNH. Also, the reference you are using TV dietician to stop using title Dr in adverts never said that she was into "absurd diagnostic practices" (actually, I agree with you) nor does it say anything about Clayton refusing to show her dissertation in public. But they are all in this one loaded sentence, making it unsourced. I also noticed that you have reinstated non-existent sources like http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070211/NEWS/702110399/1007/DATELINE09&cachetime=3&template=dateline  http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/2007...]. If you want to reinstate something then please provide a reference that actually exists! — Shannon Rose 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Absurd diagnostic practices" is my summary. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: In the meantime, I've corrected the Tuscaloosa News link. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of McKeith's Personal Controversy and CNME 

message: We do not need an entire section devoted to explaining what accredited and unaccredited mean and entails in this article. It has already been mentioned that the school is unaccredited. This section is misleading the readers into believing that unaccredited institutions are essentially bogus. This is simply not true.
"Despite the widely recognized benefits and accountability of accreditation, some institutions choose, for various reasons, not to participate in an accreditation process. According to the United States Department of Education, it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education." — WPUNAC
There is absolutely no need for this section that exerts undue weight on the school's lack of accreditation. The wikilinked "unaccredited" in the introduction(and probably a short explanation) is enough to lead the curious to further explore the meaning of this term. Other unaccredited institutions of higher learning with their own WP articles don't have such separate section (see University of Santa Monica, California Southern University, and University of Northern California, Lorenzo Patiño School of Law as examples); it is unique to this article. I have, therefore, removed it. — Shannon Rose 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tag specific sections, sentences, references that you have concerns about, rather than removing material completely.  I'm happy to help with the tagging. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Here are some tags that might be useful based upon your comments to date: , , .  WP:TM/D has a list of relevant tags with descriptions. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't idiotize me, Ronz. I am not new to this game and I most certainly don't need your help. If you want to retain unsourced statements and unique "sections" to scratch whatever psychological itch you have, then by all means do it. My conscience just can't tolerate what you are doing to this article. Even an idiot will see that the article is about childish bashing plain and simple. Time will come that your "gang" will lose ownership of this article. Mark my words! — Shannon Rose 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  That sounds like a much better option because Shannon's efforts have so far seemed like whitewashing because she didn't like something, or because she thinks highly of McKeith. BTW, McKeith didn't stop using the title "Dr" on her own initiative. She only did so after much embarrassing pressure. Brangifer (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. I never removed anything just because I did not like it, please learn to read. All the changes I've made are duly explained in the edit summaries and this talk page. The added information about McKeith belongs to McKeith's article, not the CCNH article, it is also largely unsourced (not just poorly-sourced) because the ref doesn't mention anything about Clayton refusing to show McKeith's dissertation or that she was defrauding others by her "Dr" title. That McKeith was pressured to drop the title is your interpretation of it, she was never compelled by law to do it, and she still proudly mentions her CCNH doctorate in her website and publications (even the most recent ones). I do not see any embarassment on her part in relation to her Clayton education. Actually, if you only read the ref, you will see that she said she will drop the "Dr" title but will continue to put the PhD after her name. I am certainly not a fan of McKeith, but the McKeith portion of this article is one example of why it is such a badly-written article. The whole page is like a Clayton-bashing site maintained by John Bear's fans. John Bear who is himself a total failure in terms of establishing a successful DL school as well as one of the pioneers of DL scamming. Whatever you do to this article, the time will come, and it wouldn't be long, that CCNH (like that "other one") will gain accreditation, while Bear's schools will stay dead, with their corpses stand as monuments of his failure. When I have more time I will return to this article and sort it out using the proper forums, hopefully it will attract conscientious editors and admins outside Bear's fan club. I have already done what I can with my limited time. Feel free to butcher it again. Your ability to edit most definitely reflects how educated you all are. Enjoy! — Shannon Rose 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the changes I've made are duly explained in the edit summaries and this talk page. That's not enough: you have to get agreement as well. I can't claim to be conscientious (though I hope I am), but I do happen to be an administrator. And I am certainly "outside Bear's fan club", because although I have long been familiar with Rupert Bear I had never even heard of anyone called John Bear until I read this message of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shannon, I really do applaud your passion and desire to improve the article. I freely admit that I don't have the same passion for this article but please at least have the good faith to grant that I too wish to improve the article. I believe that the other editors here have a similar goal. John Bear is an expert in the field and his published statements are reasonable considerations for including information in the article. I wrote about accreditation someplace else on this talk page. I believe that the article has a reasonable amount of information, i.e., one small paragraph, on this extremely important topic. It is poorly understood by many and very important, so the small paragraph is completely justified, IMHO. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a small paragraph if the article is big, but since the article is equally small, that "small" paragraph (which is actually an entire section) makes up about 1/8 of the article. It has already been mentioned that the school is unnacredited, the word "unaccredited" is wikilinked to WPUNAC. That should be enough. It is not for the CCNH article to explain what accreditation means, there is an entire article for that. Now, if we really must include an explanation, then let us follow the University of Santa Monica example. There it only took one short sentence to sum it all up: "The institution lacks educational accreditation. The use of unaccredited degree titles is legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." Instead of giving undue weight on the unaccredited issue by having an entire section about it, don't you think it is just fair (and would accomplish the same job as efficient) if we apply the same sentence to this article? — Shannon Rose 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One eighth of the article is reasonable, IMHO. A wikilink to educational accreditation is not enough. There is information provided in this small paragraph that is specific to Clayton College of Natural Health. If someone is interested in CCNH enough to look it up on Wikipedia then I believe that the small paragraph is very likely notable, pertinent, and interesting. To try to address your concern about undue weight caused by the way that the unaccredited information placement in the article, I've moved it down in the article and combined it with another small section. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this move for reasons stated here. — Shannon Rose 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight on the Term "Unaccredited" 

message: Clayton College of Natural Health does not have educational accreditation from any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs and Database of Institutions and Programs Accredited by Recognized United States Accrediting Organizations, searched November 25 2007.  Several state education agencies specifically list Clayton as unaccredited, among them Oregon, Texas, Michigan, and Maine.State accreditation database results include the following, verified 16 January 2009:
*The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists Clayton as an "unaccredited degree supplier." "Degree holders are ineligible for Oregon professional practice or licensure."
*The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board lists Clayton under "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" and states: "No accreditation from a CB recognized accreditor."
*The Michigan state government lists Clayton as unaccredited by the CHEA and states that its degrees "will not be accepted by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."
*The Maine Department of Education lists Clayton as "non-accredited". Degrees issued by Clayton may not be acceptable to some employers or institutions, and use of degree titles granted by Clayton may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), an accrediting agency for naturopathic schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, does not list Clayton College or any of its programs as accredited.
:I have no problem with this.  As has been discussed at length, it's entirely notable that an educational institution has failed to achieve recognized accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. People frequently assumed that if the school is allowed to operate then it must be accredited. It is very notable and important to mention when the school is not accredited. It needs further explanation. As an anaology, if a restuarant doesn't have a clean bill of health from the health department then that would be notable because otherwise people will assume that it has passed inspections from the health department. TallMagic (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: What in the world is a "recognized degree in naturopathy," Ronz? Who is recognizing what? Where did you get the idea that someone should "recognize" a naturopathy degree? You can be a naturopath even without a degree, naturopathy is not a regulated profession. CNME accredits Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees specifically, both are not offered by CCNH, why then would you put unaccredited by CNME in the article? What you should understand is: accreditation is optional in ANY degree. For example, you can get a law degree from an institution that is not accredited by, say the American Bar Association, like California Southern University, and still earn a completely legitimate degree in law (in California, where CalSouthern is located, you can even sit the bar exams). One does not need state licensure to practice traditional naturopathy, and even using the post-nominal N.D. is only forbidden in certain states. If not then Clayton would have been shit down years ago for breaking the law, and schools like Trinity College of Natural Health should no longer be around. You are making such a big issue about something that shouldn't even matter, it is all politics. Nevertheless, this discussion will no longer be valid after a year or so, when CCNH have already obtained accreditation. I've heard that the school is spending loads (obsessing) to get this so that misinformed accreditation-junkies like yourself can no longer say anything (like they were unable to say anything when California Miramar University obtained accreditation). — Shannon Rose 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of CCNH is important. I understand that they historically offerred Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees. If this is true then a statement seems reasonable to me saying that these degrees used to be offerred but that CNME never accredited them. Isn't that reasonable? TallMagic (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied for discussion - Accreditation status

message: I'm concerned that editors are trying to change this article to suit their own personal beliefs in direct violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV under the pretense of following WP:NPOV but without any demonstrated understanding of WP:NPOV.  Specifically, we do not edit articles to be balanced or fair.  Instead, we structure articles around the best sources and most prominent information from those sources.  We're not here to whitewash, we're not here to denigrate.  Editors who don't understand this should find less controversial articles and topics to edit.  It is by far the most complicated Wikipedia policy, one that is the center of many WP:Arbcom disputes. So complicated that there's even a FAQ. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz, that is only your personal opinion, so there is really nothing to be "concerned about." Everytime I propose an edit I do two things: 1. appeal to reason and commonsense using human terms; and 2. support it with (even quoting extensively from) the most applicable WP policies. It is only you who keeps on fighting against neutrality because of your POV that CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) is quackery. All your previous edits in this and other articles reveal a very strong COI. I for one believes that both orthodox medicine and psychosomatic medicine are important to facilitate most healing, and so I am in a more balanced footing here. Even if naturopathy doesn't work, the mere belief that it does would help the patient get well. That is if it doesn't work. Have you been to  lately? I hope you do, because there you will faced with conclusive evidence verified by government scientists that some of those stuff do work. With this thinking I am able to edit the Clayton article without prejudice or the desire to lambast it. If I believe that it is completely useless and people are being duped, then such belief will surely color my edits, it would be impossible for me to be neutral then (such as what is happening to you). — Shannon Rose 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that a belief that CAM is worthless is POV while a belief that it it's of a comparable status to conventional medicine is not? And just what is this interest of Ronz's that conflicts with his or her ability to edit? (Do please answer the second with particular care, as careless attempts to guess about the people behind the usernames doesn't always work.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing NCCAM probably isn't the best tack. NCCAM is rather (in)famous for the sheer futility and ineffectiveness of virtually every alternative treatment it has subjected to rigorous scientific study. Or, as the AP put it, "Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do." MastCell Talk 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Chadwick University in Birmingham was started in 1989 by Lloyd Clayton who also started Clayton College of Natural Health. Chadwick was called a diploma mill and its address is in a "four-story building on Birmingham’s Southside was labeled instead as the location of Magnolia Corporate Services," and "a call to a phone number listed for Chadwick went to voicemail for Magnolia Corporate Services."
Clayton College of Natural Health does not have educational accreditation from any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Several state education agencies specifically list Clayton as unaccredited, among them Oregon, Texas, Michigan, and Maine. Degrees issued by Clayton may not be acceptable to some employers or institutions, and use of degree titles granted by Clayton may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.
Since when did being unaccredited became a controversy? Granting that Chadwick was started by Lloyd Clayton, how did Chadwick's problem became CCNH's controversy? Utter nonsense. Let us accept the reality, we cannot criticize CCNH based on what happened to Chadwick, in the same way that we cannot praise CCNH for the success of American Sentinel University. They are all independent institutions, and no matter what negative things happen to Chadwick or Sentinel it cannot be labeled as a CCNH controversy. — Shannon Rose 02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did being unaccredited became a controversy? Since the time when the large majority of places handing out what they call bachelors or masters degrees or doctorates got themselves accredited. While I'd agree to deletion of the first of the two paragraphs you give above, I'd disagree with deletion of the second, which isn't even slightly nonsensical. (Incidentally, my agreement with deletion of the first doesn't license its deletion. Give the matter 48 hours at least.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But, Hoary, being unaccredited isn't a controversy. California Southern University, University of Santa Monica, and University of Northern California, Lorenzo Patiño School of Law just to name a few are all unaccredited. There is nothing controversial about it, accreditation is a purely voluntary process, there is absolutely nothing that compels schools to be accredited. Please see Educational_accreditation#Unaccredited_institutions. It is really utter nonsense. — Shannon Rose 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never heard of any of those institutions. Yes, accreditation is a voluntary process. Lack of accreditation by a recognized accreditation agency does indeed appear to be entirely permissible in the ever-inscrutable US but its own federal government points out that lack of accreditation is shot through with potential controversy: "earning a degree from an unaccredited institution may create problems for students. Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education." -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being unaccredited is most definitely controversial as is shown by Hoary's quote from the U.S. government. It is also demonstrated by the following John Bear quote. "There truly is no simple answer to the accredited vs. unaccredited issue, other than to say that one can rarely go wrong with a properly accredited degree. We hear from a moderate number of people who have made good use of an unaccredited (but totally legitimate) degree, but we hear from many more who have had significant problems with such degrees, in terms of acceptance by employers, admission to other schools, or simply bad publicity."  The only indication that it is not controversial that has been presented is Shannon's unsupported assertion. Heck, reading the articles discussing McKeith's doctorate I believe will demonstrate a controversy and that is but one of the probably thousands of examples that support the position taken by John Bear and the US Government. TallMagic (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Yes, the article is short, but especially as it is expanded the introduction should follow WP:LEDE more closely, summarizing the article rather than presenting information directly from CCNH's own website. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the lead should summarise the article contents, and should not be promotional at all. Verbal chat 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Something like changing "offering an extensive list of classes on natural health" to "offering classes on natural health". TallMagic (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me three. I concur with me, myself, and I. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: My feeling is that the criticism of McKeith is relevant to some degree (no pun intended!). This organisation chose to give her a "doctorate" and the criticism of her standing as a "doctor" is hence relevant to the organization that gave her the "doctorate". Other, more general, criticism of her is not relevant here. The fact that one of its graduates is subject to criticism is not the fault of the college. The fact that the status of the degree is one of the main reasons that their graduate is subject to criticism is at least partially relevant. It shows the esteem that its qualifications are held in. The claim that it does not allow scrutiny of its academic standard is directly relevant and should maybe decoupled from the coverage of McKeith. I was minded to reinstate Verbal's content but I notice that only one of the references used actually mentions the college. Rather than reinstate it as is, I think it need to be reinstated with references that have non-trivial coverage of the college itself so that relevance is clear.
The next question is one of undue coverage. We don't want to give the impression that McKeith is the only graduate or that Bad Science is the only source ever to hold an opinion about the college. To this end, I think the removal of a lot of the other coverage is a bad idea. In some cases it might need to be toned down a bit (which is why I have not restored it myself). We don't want to give the impression that this college is exceptionally egregious in its behavior as many other colleges do much the same thing, this one was just unfortunate enough to get caught in the limelight.
The best way to avoid undue coverage in one area is to balance what we have with other RS coverage from a wider range of sources.
--DanielRigal (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your statement, "I was minded to reinstate Verbal's content but I notice that only one of the references used actually mentions the college." It may be true from a text search point of view but the article specifically mentions that her degree came from American Holistic College of Nutrition which is the previous name of Clayton College of Natural Health. So from a practical point of view your concern was unfounded <misplaced>. The statement is discussed in length above and I believe notable, relevant, and fully sourced as I expressed above. Thanks and regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also had a look through and this section is rather concise as it is, and I don't see how it could be trimmed much without losing relevant information. The coverage of GM is relevant, and the other criticism is clearly relevant as being of the college directly.Verbal chat 15:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  I'm with verbal on this one - Goldacre's critisism of McKeith is entirely valid and relevant to the article. Artw (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that I only did a text search. Provided it is clearly identified as the subject as the coverage then I agree that it is relevant and appropriate as a reference. I'll have another look at the other stuff and see if I still think that any of it is overdone and make specific suggestions here if I do. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shannon Rose's edits have been raised at WP:ANI. Verbal chat 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Gillian McKeith and other critical coverage 

message: A few of us are disagreeing over the inclusion of "diploma mill" links in the See Also section.  I don't see any references in this article that substantiate such a strong accusation.  Can someone please shed some light on this?  Thanks!  --ElKevbo (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source stating that CCNH is a diploma mill - or a statement (or inference) in the article itself?  If not, then remove. Shot info (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Diploma mill"