Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health

"Accreditation"

I did some independent research to get a viewpoint not reliant upon Quackwatch and Bad Science. Basically, their "accreditation" is worthless:

The American National Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board is an accreditation mill [1].

This "accreditation is not recognized by the Dept of Education [2].

Clayton uses "non-traditional accreditation" not recognized by the state of Alabama [3].

The American Association of Drugless Practitioners is an accreditation mill [4] [5]

--Ronz 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if the accreditation is not accepted someplaces and might even be illegal that the beginning of the article should be reverted back until this get clears up. It sounds inconsistent to have the first paragraph say it is then to go a little further and say it isn't. --Crohnie 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are countless types of accrediation. Should we list everyone that a college is NOT accredited with? Of course not! As an encyclopedia, we tell what it is ...not what people suing their graduates and waging smear campaigns against them want people to know. No, it's not an accredited dental school either. It's exactly what it claims to be. Nothing more. The rest is POV. 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

The notable issue here is that the accreditation is worthless. --Ronz 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Crum375's edit to my consolidation works well. The facts are listed and Clayton's perspective is made clear. --Ronz 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone with more than two brain cells that can communicate can then see the clear spin the institution is placing on the real facts, when the facts (as clearly documented by official sources) so clearly document the dubious nature of their accreditation. The spin is betweeen the lines. They are telling the truth, but definitely avoiding telling the whole truth. In the very next section on their website they pawn off all responsibility on the hapless student:

What are the laws in my state? How do I practice? Do I need a license?

Students are responsible for determining the legal issues involved in conducting a natural health practice in his or her state. The laws differ in each state or locality and our policy is to not offer detailed legal information. We recommend you contact your state or local government for legal interpretations, conduct Internet research or visit your public library as it is important for you to know what your legal boundaries as a consultant are.[6]

So basically they are flying under the radar by not directly lying. Their type of "honesty" isn't worth much, so caveat emptor: "Let the buyer beware". -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to change word "unaccredited" to "non-traditional" because they clearly are accredited by some institution, even if not the usual college accreditation agencies. There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. Calling it "unaccredited" just seems like an attempt to smear the college,which really isn't appropriate for NPOV standards. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is no reason to think that the word "accreditation" can only apply to accreditation happening through the usual keepers of the status quo. " Yes there is. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We already have articles such as Educational accreditation which define in detail what accreditation means. By removing this link and changing the wording, we'd be encouraging a different definition of accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz - the difference in standards between recognized accreditors and the organizations which accredit CCNH is vast and well-documented. "Accredited" has a widely understood definition, which the existence of accreditation mills should not obscure. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply say "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" instead of falsely and non-neutrally suggesting that they have no accerditation whatsoever? I can agree that their accreditors are not recognized, but it is illogical to suggest that accreditation can only happen through "recognized" institutions. That's like saying it is impossible to have my car fixed by a mechanic that hasn't been approved by AAA. The idea that these institutions that accredit non-traditional programs cannot provide accreditation is your opinion, not an established fact. The articles you cite discuss the way accreditation is established in traditional educational arenas, not in the case of distance learning. You say that you are trying to adhere to encyclopedic standards, but both of you seem be defending a negatively biased version of the article. If you truely wanted to make a neutral, fact-based article, why does it read like a scandal report? Nicola Cola (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"...why does it read like a scandal report?" Because NPOV requires us to report scandals when they exist. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A tabloid-style scadal report is NPOV in your mind? Of course you should include them, but you are supposed to speak of those scandals in neutral language, and you defend letting the controversial nature of the college totally dominate the article. This article is definitely not written in a NPOV. It might as well be retitled "Why You Shouldn't Enroll at Clayton College of Natural Health," which is obviously not neutral. Of course the controversy should be included, but it should be dealt with properly. The article as you have defendeded it throughout this disscussion board and through your quick reverts shows your determination to slant the artical negatively, when in fact it should just give the facts as they can be properly cited. Your defense of a very questionable, non-neutral word is an example of how rigorously you are defending this negatively slanted article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Cola (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your previous point, "not accredited by recognized institutions of accreditation" is the best example of WP:WEASEL I've seen in some time. Anyone can create a non-recognized institution of accreditation and accredit themselves. I'm not saying Clayton did that, but that phrase wouldn't eliminate that possiblity as the source of their "accreditation". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am no fan of these sort of phrases either, but my attempt to change the word "unaccredited," which is factually incorrect, was rejected. I was merely offering this phrase as a happy medium. So let's be direct and get rid of the word "unaccredited" all together. It is obviously non-neutral, contentious, and illogical. Nicola Cola (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. "Unaccredited" is factually correct and entirely neutral. A clarification about which bodies are recognized accrediting agencies in the U.S. is reasonable. Efforts to disguise or downplay CCNH's lack of such accreditation are not. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict Agreed. We are using "non-accredited" and "unaccredited" exactly as they should be used. I don't see anything illogical or biased about it. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, brother. How could any word that has caused so much contention possibly be "neutral." No truly neutral word needs any discussion of this sort. I am not the only one to have pointed out both its lack of neutrality and its illogic in relation to the rest of the article. I suppose you think the article as a whole is also "neutral." In my opinion, the entire article is an example of how people with a negative bias take control of an article. (That is not a person attack; it is an observation, so lay off the user page. I am never going to just sit back and let that stand. I have a right to stand up against the biases that give Wikipedia a bad reputation, and I will continue to do so.)Nicola Cola (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unaccredited

I think that {{unaccredited}} should be worked into the lead because it was specifically created for just such cases. --Ronz 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. MastCell 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem from me. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant figure out how to fit template into lead without major rewrite, but it seems fit nicely at the start of the second paragraph. --Ronz 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wording

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)

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)

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)

recent additions

Recently the following has been added to the article. [7] [8] [9]

Clayton College of Natural Health is licensed as a Private School by the Alabama State Board of Education through the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education. On April 22, 2008, the Clayton College fulfilled the USDLA/Quality Standards Certification Program requirements and became the first school awarded certification by the United States Distance Learning Association. The International Iridology Practitioners Association accepts coursework from Clayton College of Natural Health's Iridology Certificate program towards its Certification program.

Mastcell's edit comment makes perfect sense to me. "the role of these agencies is unclear; at least one is explicitly NOT an accrediting agency; and they provide undue weight by diluting verifiable accrediation info."

Regarding the credential initials that were added by the above edits, when assertions are made regarding the academic credentials then the institution that granted the credential should also be mentioned.

Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frequently, articles on unaccredited schools are deluged with tangential information about various bodies of unclear significance which have somehow lent their imprimatur to the school. Directory listings, licensing information, and the like are thrown into the article indiscriminately. In some cases, this is done to dilute the simple fact that the schools are not accredited by any recognized accrediting body. I'm not saying that is what is going on here - I can't guess intent - but the end result is the same.

The Alabama State Board of Education explicitly states that it does not handle accreditation. This is not clear from the proposed text. As to the other agency, if Clayton is the very first school "certified", then the body does not have a track record which would allow anyone to evaluate its credibility.

The bottom line is that a reader should be able to quickly and accurately grasp the actual accreditation status of this school by reading the article. If we fail to provide that information clearly, then the article is not encyclopedic or neutral. As far as I am aware, this school is unaccredited by any recognized accreditation body (though it is "accredited" by several accreditation mills). Am I incorrect there? MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation is not the only barometer by which a school can or should be measured. CCNH acknowledges its accreditation status with the DOE. Accreditation status (or lack thereof) does not negate other factual information about the school, or the value to the potential reader. The USDLA, among other things, has collaborated on the US Dept. of Ed's National Education Technology Plan. As I stated below, I am not attempting to revisit the accreditation issues, just to present other factual and useful information, and correct inaccuracies in this article. --Wildrock (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the role of a State Board of Education be unclear? CCNH is licensed by the Alabama State Board of Education. In light of undue weight of negative arguments against CCNH in this article, this is a balancing factor. Likewise the USDLA Certification. USDLA is a reputable organization that has collaborated with the US Department of Ed. A certification or award from them carries weight in the distance learning community. These additions were put in a separate section to differentiate them from the accreditation issues. Licenses and certifications have legitimate value. None of the agencies I referred to are accreditation agencies. I am not attempting to revisit the accreditation battle that has ensued here at this time. CCNH states that its accreditations "are not recognized by the United States Department of Education" on its website. As to challenges to my other edits, I will walk them through one at a time so as to not have them swept away wholesale without discussion. --Wildrock (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the wording was confusing. The USDLA is pretty much useless in this context since it is just like a private award giving body that has nothing to do with the US Department of Education. Nevertheless, it is being used with pride in theWestern Governors University and California Southern University articles so it must have some sort of notability. Besides, Harvard Graduate School of Education was the recipient of a USDLA Platinum Award in 2005 and the representative seems very pleased with it as evident in the photo. I would be happy to include the USDLA connection in this article but as of the moment I can't think of a way to do it. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance here, but I do not understand why the USDLA quality standard certification is not usable information, especially in light of what Shannon shares here. Would that in and of itself not be the context in which to introduce it? For example, CCNH holds no traditional accreditation from a USDE recognized agency at this time; however, the college was awarded the USDLA, etc. in February 2008. Then refer to some of the other schools affiliated iwth USDLA as mentioned above. That seems like the context in which to introduce the USDLA info. USDLA is an emerging organization, and it was not a light-hearted review process. I do not understand why some of the article editors consider it irrelevant information. The article is supposed to be about the college, and its lack of accreditation is merely one facet of CCNH -- the most debated facet. There are other unaccredited schools out there issuing ND degrees who don't even have a Wikipedia entry. There is a lot of other factual information about the college that could be featured in this article, and yet there seems to be a reluctance to do this. I looked at the Bastyr entry on Wikipedia, and it allows the editor to include degrees offered and a bit of history, all cited by links back to the school's web site. They only third-party sources for that entry have to do with accreditation. I would like to add similar info to the CCNH article. Sorry, I tangented. Tara CCNH (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation is a major element in describing a school, particularly a distance-learning one, and particularly one which grants healthcare-related degrees. Obviously we include other factual information about the school, but the policy on undue weight mandates that we present important information as important information.

I'm not saying that the USDLA is not reputable; I'm saying that it is not known as a certifier or guarantor of education quality, and it does not have a history of certifying such institutions (apparently this is the first, right?) Licensing is basic information, similar to appearing in a directory of schools, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. If there is anything from the US Dept of Education on Clayton, then let's include it, but mixing in various details about licensing and so forth obscures the fact that accreditation is different and highly relevant. Coverage of the school in independent, secondary sources nearly invariably notes that it is "unaccredited", but does not note its licensing status or USDLA certification - because these details are markedly less relevant. MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Licensing from Alabama State Board of Ed is not a viewpoint, it is a basic fact--as important as facts surrounding accreditation. USDLA's certification is a fact, not a viewpoint. It is a fact about how the distance learning is accomplished--not a fact about the content of the learning. I am just balancing the negative facts about accreditation with the positive facts about licensing and certification.

Yes, CCNH is USDLA's first Quality Standards recipient. Even a cursory look at the USDLA, its Awards program, and press surrounding it will show it to be a valuable and reputable source on the distance learning community. Its Media Selection Guide is referenced from the distance education article. CCNH's certification by USDLA is a fact attesting to adherence of the Standards that they have established. Those in the distance learning community recognize the certificate for what it is, just as USDLA Awards are highly coveted (as much so, as say, the Emmys or the Grammys are). It in no way is a replacement for, or in lieu of, an accreditation.

I do not agree with your assessment that licensing by a State Board is subservient in importance to accreditation by a third party source. Without licensing, accreditation would not be possible by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Board of Education. Also, you say these details about licensing and certification are "markedly less relevant." Judging by the preponderance of material in this article about accreditation, a few sentences about licensing and certification serve to balance the undue weight given the accreditation issue and other negative viewpoints represented. Lack of accreditation by a US Department of Education approved accrediting agency should not be a litmus test for inclusion of other relevant facts about the subject of an article. Otherwise, we could stop at the Wiki List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. --Wildrock (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The licensing detail is significantly less important than the accreditation issue. I believe that it may be possible to mention it as long as we were very careful that it wasn't given undue weight compared with the accreditation issue. The USDLA statements don't make sense. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but if CCNH is the first school approved by USDLA then how can those statements about USDLA in the above comment be supported? I doubt that this can reasonably be mentioned in the article but maybe I'm misunderstanding some important details? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How can licensing be any less important than accreditation? It is a basic fact. Many unaccredited schools are unlicensed. This is one area where CCNH is able to distinguish itself from disreputable outfits. The Wiki article on Educational accreditation states that: "it is important that the concept of accreditation not be confused with the authority to operate. The authority to operate an educational entity in the U.S. is granted by each of the states individually." The authority for CCNH to operate is granted by the State of Alabama in its license to CCNH.

This whole article is skewed by undue weight from the accreditation argument. I seek to balance that undue weight with other factual information while CCNH seeks accreditation.

The USDLA has been the premier distance learning association since 1987, and its Awards define the field. You may choose to ignore the importance of the USDLA, even though Wiki uses them as a reference in their article on distance education. What would be more useful would be an article about the USDLA so as to inform the public about its importance to the field of distance learning, its Awards, and its Certifications through the Quality Standards program. It is a matter of fact that the USDLA is moving into certifying distance learning schools through its Quality Standards program. And it is an honor for CCNH to have been chosen to receive the first certificate. This is a fact that bears illumination within this Wiki article. --Wildrock (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that licensing is the default state for a school. It's completely unremarkable that a school is licensed - the assumption is that it is. We don't make a big deal out of a school being licensed, because it's the minimum assumed requirement for legal operation. It's remarkable if a school is unlicensed. Similarly, our article on Princeton University doesn't mention its accreditation status - the default assumption is that a school is accredited, and it becomes notable if it's not accredited. We don't make a big deal about how such-and-such restaurant met the health-code requirements, though we might note it if the restaurant is cited for failing to obey them. This seems pretty basic. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, you still don't engage in the discussion over undue weight. Which is why balancing factors about the school should be included. You seemed to have a preconceived notion that this article is about what CCNH is not, instead of what it is. The article is heavily burdened with discussion about what the school is not, and peripheral issues not relevant to what the school is. I think that should be changed, so as to accurately reflect CCNH. For instance, you mention Princeton. Should we include in the Princeton article every doctor that has gone to the school and then been the subject of a malpractice suit? The topics represented in the CCNH wiki article are selected so as to discredit the school at every turn. That should be balanced with other information. --Wildrock (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that in this case, one of the most notable aspects of Clayton is that it is unaccredited. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Undue weight means that we should focus on what is notable and relevant about a subject. We judge that by looking to independent, reliable sources. In the case of CCNH, its coverage tends to focus on its unaccredited status and, perhaps, a controversial graduate or two. The coverage of Princeton University focuses elsewhere. If a subject has attracted largely "negative" coverage in independent reliable sources, then WP:NPOV absolutely does not mean that we need to scour the Earth for "positive" tidbits with which to balance them. NPOV means that we proportionately represent independent, reliable coverage of a subject, which in this case focuses largely on the school's accreditation status. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wildrock, I like your idea of writing an article on USDLA. Let me know when you get started and perhaps I'll try to help out. I did do a Google on USDLA and looked for mention of USDLA in reliable sources. After looking through a few dozen Google hits I had only found one mention of USDLA in a reliable source. So, it might be a difficult article to write if we can't find more information. Perhaps you have a better reliable source? The one I found wasn't about USDLA but instead was about a school that was given some USDLA award. You keep voicing praises for the value of USDLA awards here on the talk page but what is needed is some secondary sources that back up those assertions. BTW, MastCell makes some excellent points. Although I still believe that we could probably come up with an acceptable way to mention the much less significant fact that CCNH has an Alabama license. I suggest that you make a proposal for the wording. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic, there is plenty of sourced information about USDLA. You just need to get off of the front page of Google or go to USDOE. Like this or that, or even how about this. Or acquiring BAF as a benefactor. How about the USDLA Journal, a refereed scholarly Journal, or their other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildrock (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable source above that would seem to indicate that USDLA is an accreditor or is trying to be an accreditor or certifier of academic integrity . For example, here's their mission statement [10]. Regarding your sources, I don't see a reliable source that supports your assertions that USDLA is premier in anything nor anything about defining the field of distance learning which I find difficult to believe. If these are intended to be a nucleus set of articles to source a new USDLA article then please first review the wp:V policy. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to accreditation

I am new to the Wikipedia editing world. I am the Communications Manager for CCNH, and I would like to make some changes to this article that other editors have gotten wrong, or have not updated. For example, we no longer publicize that we are accredited by the ANMA or AADP. In fact, we have not renewed our memberships with either organization for 2009, nor do we intend to continue to be affiliated with these organizations. Currently we are not addressing the issue of the college's accreditation as we are in the application process for accreditation with a United States Department of Education approved accrediting agency. We are not allowed to provide more specific information because these agencies have rules that prevent us from doing so until the accreditation process is completed; however, I think that in the sake of fairness and accuracy that the college's entry deserves to be updated. I am going to make some notes in other talk areas. Please talk to me people. I understand that there are some who believe that an entity should not edit its own Wikipedia entry, but I disagree with that. If it is for the sake of correcting factually inaccurate or out of date info that can mislead or confuse the reader, I don't see the issue. Tara CCNH (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Tara_CCNH

Welcome. Be sure to review WP:COI. While you can edit this article, you need to be very careful. It would be best for you to mostly just discuss proposed edits here.

I understand your concerns, but this is an encyclopedia based upon verifiable information, and is not a soapbox. If you have independent, reliable sources for the information you want added, then there should be no problem convincing others to add it for you. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz is correct. I too am quite interested in enriching and updating the article if I can find reliable sources other than those already used here. At the moment it looks like an anti campaign, and that is the state it's going to be in unless reliable sources to balance the article can be found. Pardon my skepticism but I do not get the point of secrecy regarding accreditation. Why would any accreditor impose secrecy on the applicant? What would be the point of that? In fact, new DETC applicants are listed on their website and, as of the moment, CCNH is not yet there, or are you applying for RA? If you know of any reliable third-party published sources (books, magazines, etc.) that can be used please provide the details so that we can all have a look. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, the college has been made to understand that we may mention that we are in the process of applying for accreditation, but nothing more. It is up to the accreditor to choose when to list a school on its Web site. As of right now, CCNH is working on its self-evaluation and other internal audits that must be presented in the application process. I do not think that the accrediting agency asks for silence on our part to be secretive as much as it does to protect us. It would be a much greater disappointment, not to mention public relations crisis, to prematurely list a school when it is nowhere near completing the application process and then have that school not pass. It is a one to two year process from initial drafts of the self-evaluation report, that is presented with the literal application, to hopeful accreditation. CCNH is still working on its self-evaluation, and after we make formal application we still would not be listed on the accrediting body's site until we pass a "readiness assessment" review. It is for these reasons that our application for accreditation cannot be added to the main article at this time. User talk:Tara CCNH—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.248.162 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 April 2009 Tara CCNH (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I understand the importance of a neutral view point and verifiable information, and I do not seek to use this a soapbox. There is simply information in the actual article that is out of date and incorrect. For example, there is incorrect information about the college's history and name change. There is incorrect information about connected institutions which was wrong in the 1995 Bear's Guide. In the most recent edition of Bear's Guide, the related institutions data is correct. I would like to update that information. Also, the college's post-secondary license was recently renewed for two years and this is a huge deal for the college because the state guidelines changed. Now a private school must be either accredited in Alabama or in the process of applying for accreditation. All of this is information that can be backed up with verifiable sources or Internet links. I am sure I am not in the right area. I am currently studying the edit tutorials and documentation, but I wanted to get into the discussion before attempting to make any changes. Tara CCNH (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Tara_CCNH

Hi Tara_CCNH, Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes you can edit the article but must be extra careful about not using inside information and maintaining a neutral tone. I would like to add that for non-controversial information the CCNH website can be used as a reference. For example, a statement that CCNH is no longer associated ANMA or AADP could use the CCNH website as a reliable reference. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Well, the college has gone quietly public with its application for accreditation. Please see: http://www.ccnh.edu/about/whyccnh.aspx. The last bullet point in the first list states our plan. I am wondering if this is enough of a mention to add to the article in the accreditation subsection that CCNH is in the application process? Thoughts? Thanks. Tara CCNH (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdated info moved for discussion

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)

Prior claims of accreditation

Clayton College claims accreditation by the American National Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

The goal is to make the article as wonderful as we can while following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think that it would improve the article to give the reader an idea of the type programs available, perhaps a small paragraph. For non-controversial information like this or the year established etc., it is within policy to use self-published material. See wp:SPS and wp:SELFPUB. Note that the CCNH article is considered a wp:BLP for these purposes. Stating that the ND degree is no longer offered can't really be done, for example, unless there was an explicit statement stating that somewhere. The user could reasonably come to that conclusion if the current programs were listed and ND was not among them. We could perhaps go a step further and reference an http://www.archive.org webpage of CCNH and state that ND used to be listed but no longer is listed. However, that is coming close to original research, wp:NOR, which is not allowed. Although if done properly and carefully it wouldn't violate wp:NOR, IMHO. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Since the controversiality of CCNH often has to do with the actions of past graduates who are accused of quackery and unethical practices and fringe beliefs, the history is an important part of this article. That must not be lost. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

You mean like sanctioning torture? Oops sorry, couldn't resist. :-) Have fun, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Introduction & Connected Institutions

Hello editors. It's me again. I appreciate all the dialog and the fairness you have shown. I would like to get your input on these two sections and proposed edits. In the introduction comments of the article, the final sentence, "Prior to 1997 it was known as the American Holistic College of Nutrition," is inaccurate and has no citation to back up this claim. With regards to the Connected Institutions segment, it is riddled with inaccuracies and out of date citations. The current citation number 5 for the article that calls Chadwick a diploma mill is a bad link. The only place I can now find mention of that article is here: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/5017276 in a Russian redux of the CCNH Wikipedia page. Additionally, the information from Bear's guide is wrong. It was wrong when it was it published, yet no one from that publication has ever contacted the college to fact check or learn more about us, etc. Also, the edition of Bear's Guide cited in reference 10 is out of date. The most recent edition, 16, was published in 2006 and includes more recent and somewhat corrected info, yet still is riddled with inaccuracies. I would like to see the Connected Institutions and Intro. segments updated to reflect the quasi-corrected information. I am currently authoring a document to send to the Bear's Guide people with correct info that will hopefully be reflected in the next edition of the book. Then there is the issue of American Institute of Computer Sciences, which we have not owned since 2005. The school became DETC accredited in 2002 (I think, but I would need to confirm this date), and then bought by American Sentinel University: http://www.americansentinel.edu/index.php. If the CCNH article MUST mention the existence of the ACIS, what is the harm in noting that it eventually earned legitimate accreditation? Again, I am looking for balance, not a sugar coating, in the CCNH article. Thanks for the discussion. Tara CCNH (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do know that ASIC did become accredited. What I propose is that I delete that sentence and delete the redirect of American Institute of Computer Science to this article. I changed the old name to American College of Holistic Nutrition (from American Holistic College of Nutrition) and added a reference. The reference doesn't validate the year though. I haven't looked at the Chadwick point yet. Tara CCNH what is wrong in Bears' Guide that needs to be fixed in the Wikipedia article? Thank you for the suggestions. TallMagic (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, thanks for the redirect. Here are some links and background regarding AICS' history. AICS was accredited by the DETC in 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010201152100/http://accis.edu/. See the little logo on the left hand corner -- that was when they were first accredited. The FAQs on the 2001 site also acknowledge the accreditation: http://web.archive.org/web/20010204021400/accis.edu/catalogue/faq.html. There was also a name change for the college from American Institute of Computer Sciences (AICS) to American College of Computer and Information Sciences (ACCIS) in 2000/2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010201152100/http://accis.edu/. The Web site was revamped in 2002 and a page describing the accreditation was added: http://web.archive.org/web/20021002081500/www.accis.edu/aboutaccis/accreditation.asp. In February 2006, ACCIS merged with American Sentinel and American Graduate School of Management and became American Sentinel University: http://web.archive.org/web/20060422154010/www.americansentinel.edu/ASU-PR021306.php. That's AICS story in a nutshell, if that is useful at all.Tara CCNH (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the inaccuracies in the Bear's guide, they begin with the entry for Chadwick University. Although the school was open at the time the 16th edition of the guide was published, it is now closed and transcripts, records, etc. are managed by a group in New Mexico. But in that blurb on Chadwick, Bear refers to Clayton College of Natural Health as Clayton College of Natural Healing (p. 209). On the same page of edition 16 is the Clayton College entry. At the time of the book's publication CCNH was no longer associated with the WAUC (World Association of Universities and Colleges), and had not been for several years. The blurb also indicates that the college was formerly The Clayton School of Natural Healing (which is true and correct) and then became America Holistic College of Nutrition, which is incorrect. The original name we went by upon opening in 1980 was The Clayton School of Natural Healing. The school offered doctor of naturopathy, doctor of science, and doctor of holistic health degrees. In the mid to late 80s, a secondary school was launched, American Holistic College of Nutrition, and it offered a BS, MS, and PhD in holistic nutrition. The two schools actually merged under the one name Clayton College of Natural Health in 1997. Other inaccuracies in the article are now a result of our changes. For example, the article points out CCNH being accredited by the AADP and ANMA, when we have not had relationships with either entity for almost a year now. I am not sure if any of this is helpful to you as an editor, but I thought it might be useful for background material. Tara CCNH (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one had objected I deleted the sentence about AICS. Tara has an excellent point. If it is going to be mentioned then it should also be mentioned that it became accredited. It was added back in saying that AICS was unaccredited. That is no longer true and should not be that way in the article. Therefore, I will delete it again because my opinion is that it is not important information. If anyone wishes to revert my deletion then please add in the info saying that it was accredited. Please do not leave in the misleading infomation that it is unaccredited. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR. If it is now accredited (by a recognised authority) please add a WP:RS to that effect, after the unaccredited claim. Verbal chat

CCNH is not accredited. The reference to accreditation was made regarding AICS. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or if you're talking about AICS, it seems incorrect to me to leave in the Bears' guide statement that AICS is unaccredited followed by a statement that it actually is accredited. When John Bear made the statement that it was unaccredited that was true but it is no longer true. Therefore I just assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you thought I was saying that CCNH was accredited? TallMagic (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually a problem with mentioning AICS is that it could be reasonably argued that saying it is currently accredited would be original research. Going through three sources to follow the name changes and then finally the DETC website showing that American Sentinel University is accredited seems like maybe original research. AICS is only mildly related to CCNH so I say again that I think that it is best to just delete that sentence regarding AICS. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in possession of Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 16th edition. His entries for CCNH contain errors. I pointed this out elsewhere in this talk section. Unfortunately, the 16th edition is not available on Google, so I cannot point you to it online. However, this article is still factually incorrect based on information drawn from that guide and from a UK Guardian article that got it wrong also. All of this could be easily resolved with an inquiry to the college or by comparing what is in his book with what is on our site. It's just maddening. I'm afraid I agree with Shannon Rose that the article clearly is skewed to put us in the worst possible light. I am here seeking neutrality. Bear's Guide gets our names and name change history wrong, as does this article that you use as a reference in the CCNH entry: http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/story/0,,1379280,00.html. You cite that article as source for our name change, and it doesn't even mention when the name changed. Yet you use it support a date related name change. How is that a definitive source for saying when we changed our name if the article itself doesn't have that info in it? Once again, as mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, the college began in 1980 as The Clayton School of Natural Healing. In 1985 the American Holistic College of Nutrition was founded. The two combined to form Clayton College of Natural Health in 1997. Those are the facts. Bear's Guide got it wrong and I e-mailed both John Bear and the editors of the book. John Bear responded making it clear that he was no longer affiliated with the books, sold the rights (to his daughter...sounds to me like he is still affiliated, but whatever), and that we were basically on our own in terms of appealing to the book's editors. As I said, I e-mailed them and never got any response. It is hard to NOT feel like a target when you cannot get unbiased sources reporting our information. As an employee of the college I cannot edit the article myself, but I am here to help guide it towards neutral.CCNH Tara (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of McKeith's Personal Controversy and CNME

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 [11] and [12]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

McKeith is a very notable alum. Much of her notability has to do with the absurd diagnostic practices she's used on tv, and the investigations into her education from Clayton College. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Absurd diagnostic practices" is my summary. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've corrected the Tuscaloosa News link. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight on the Term "Unaccredited"

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)

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)

Here are some tags that might be useful based upon your comments to date: {{POV-section}}, {{POV-statement}}, {{failed verification}}. WP:TM/D has a list of relevant tags with descriptions. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I oppose this move for reasons stated here. — Shannon Rose 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of sources we have for the information, and the availability of more sources on the topic, it's not undue weight at all. In fact, it's probably a violation of WP:UNDUE to trim the information when it is so well sourced. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied for discussion - Accreditation status

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. 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)

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)

Given that the school offers coursework in naturopathy, shouldn't mention of CNME be kept? From what I understand, none of the coursework or any degree obtained from CCNH could be used towards a recognized degree in naturopathy. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Copied for discussion - McKeith's credentials

McKeith's credentials from Clayton have been the focus of comment in The Guardian's "Bad Science" column, specifically the institution's refusal to make McKeith's doctoral dissertation available for outside review.

Discusses credentials from Clayton. We can add further references if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the sentence and added a reference for the fact that the school refused to send out copies of the dissertation. TallMagic (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Shannon Rose removed this information. SR will be unable to comment here for 24 hours, or until any earlier appeal to have a block lifted succeeds. I propose that this material should stay removed for 48 hours, during which time people may argue its merits here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a sentence regarding McKeith is relevant to the article. Shannon had a reasonable argument that there was not support for the part of the sentence regarding the refusal of CCNH to provide a copy of the dissertation. I added a reference that I think supports that part of the sentence. I believe that this is highly relevant to this particular article because a dissertation is supposed to push back the frontiers of academic knowledge. One necessary ingredient in making this happen is by the school "publishing" the dissertations. Publishing in this context means minimally putting it in the school library and making copies available upon request. If a school doesn't publish its dissertations then there is not a reasonable argument that the dissertations could possibly be pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. It reflects very poorly on academic credentials of schools that don't publish their dissertations. This sentence needs to be added back into the article but I'm willing to wait the suggested 48 hours before doing that. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Shannon Rose removed this information. SR will be unable to comment here for 24 hours, or until any earlier appeal to have a block lifted succeeds. I propose that this material should stay removed for 48 hours, during which time people may argue its merits here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

News Report or Opinion Piece?

I believe that a sentence regarding McKeith is relevant to the article. Shannon had a reasonable argument that there was not support for the part of the sentence regarding the refusal of CCNH to provide a copy of the dissertation. I added a reference that I think supports that part of the sentence. I believe that this is highly relevant to this particular article because a dissertation is supposed to push back the frontiers of academic knowledge. One necessary ingredient in making this happen is by the school "publishing" the dissertations. Publishing in this context means minimally putting it in the school library and making copies available upon request. If a school doesn't publish its dissertations then there is not a reasonable argument that the dissertations could possibly be pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. It reflects very poorly on academic credentials of schools that don't publish their dissertations. This sentence needs to be added back into the article but I'm willing to wait the suggested 48 hours before doing that. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A dissertation is the graduate student's contribution to the pool of knowledge. And if ever there is any truth to this unsubstantiated opinion piece (more like a gossip column), then there exists no law that compels a college to publish their students' dissertations. McKeith has written about a dozen books in health and wellness, many of them have been bestsellers, those are more than enough contribution to the pool of knowledge than any single dissertation. Anyone who reads Ms Gillian McKeith – Banned From Calling Herself A Doctor! will realize that it is truly an opinion piece and not news or statement of fact. Consider the following paragraph for example:

"In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself 'doctor': to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith." – Ben Goldacre, The Guardian February 12, 2007

Is that news reporting? It is most definitely an opinion piece. The author even contests the official declaration of the Advertising Standards Authority that McKeith voluntarily (was not compelled to) drop the "Dr" title: "She may have sidestepped the publication of a damning ASA draft adjudication at the last minute by accepting – 'voluntarily' – not to call herself 'doctor' in her advertising any more." This can be mentioned as: "According to The Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre, etc., etc...." but not as a statement of fact, and most certainly not here but in McKeith's own article (this is about Clayton, not McKeith). This opinion piece is also the lone source of Clayton's alleged refusal to publish McKeith's dissertation. I'm sure that we can find more opinion pieces supporting such nonsense as "the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax" than this one. If you can find a real news article about this, then fine, I will personally add it to Gillian McKeith. — Shannon Rose 20:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The additional reference that TallMagic is referring to is:

• Ms Gillian McKeith – Banned From Calling Herself A Doctor! – squabble update below, by Ben Goldacre, The Guardian February 12, 2007

--Ronz (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Shannon, that is a wp:Reliable sourced article with information in it that is pertinent to this article. Your analogy to the moon landing being a hoax is not applicable to this discussion and I believe irrelevant since you have not provided any source contradicting the article that you just tried to criticize. You have just stated your own personal opinion and rashly asserted that anyone reading it would have to agree with you. While I appreciate you sharing your personal opinion with me, it cannot trump a wp:verifiable source. Your position that I must find multiple sources for things before they can be placed in the article is simply your own unjustifiable demand. I don't believe that it is a Wikipedia policy/guideline or if you think it is then please point me to the relevant policy or guideline. This seems to me to be an unreasonable demand that I'm not inclined to follow. TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not "try to criticize the article," TallMagic. I merely stated that the obvious, that it is an opinion piece. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion says that, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." I do not make any unreasonable demands, and it is not my fault if you don't grasp the fullness of WP:RS. Heavily-opinionated articles, such as Goldacre's falls under WP Questionable Sources Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." But this one is the most applicable Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text." — Shannon Rose 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You name ONE accredited school that refuses to distribute dissertations. You can't do it simply because there is not one. This is a common practice amongst unaccredited institutions but is unheard of in the legitimate academic community. That is an absolutely ridiculous academic position to take. It is important to the article. Your argument about McKeith's books are totally irrelevant to CCNH. A book is different from a dissertation. One does not normally earn a doctorate degree by writing best seller books. You seem to have some kind of a problem with John Bear and with Ben Goldacre. I suggest that you try to not allow your personal opinions of certain experts, journalists, and reliable sources to have such a large impact on your Wikipedia editting. The one sentence about McKeith is an important sentence that is notable, relevant, fully sourced, and interesting for the article. Arguing that it doesn't belong in this article might make some sense if we were talking about a couple of large paragraphs or something. We're only discussing one sentence and perhaps two if a consensus were reached on providing some additional information on McKeith. For example, McKeith's representative said something about this credential just causing problems for her. Or perhaps adding a paragraph on the information regarding McKeith's diagnostic techniques being beyond ridiculous. I enjoyed the statement about her diagnosing an inflamed intestine after pressing on an obese woman's abdomen being similar to feeling for something through a mattress. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is just your imagination that I cannot name one accredited school that refused to publish a dissertation. "Almond began his career in controversy: the University of Chicago refused to publish his dissertation about the influence of the wealthy in New York City politics, in part because it contained an unflattering psychological profile of University founder John D. Rockefeller." – The University of Chicago Magazine: April 2003. As I have shown you above, opinion pieces cannot be used to establish fact. I would be happy to prove to you in a debate that Goldacre's article is an opinion piece and not news reporting. — Shannon Rose 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a real news article about this . . . there's this opinion piece at the (London) Independent, and this news item at the (Irish) Sunday Business Post. -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are opinion pieces, the only difference is that the second one relies heavily on Goldacre's opinion piece and does not add anything original. By all means, let's use them in McKeith's own article for what they're worth (opinion pieces, not statements of fact), but not here. Also, none of them even mentions Clayton College of Natural Health. — Shannon Rose 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, it appears that your position is simply to call the article "an opinion piece" if you don't want it used in the article. This is unreasonable. They are not opinion pieces. Please reference The Guardian article on Wikipedia. It demonstrates that The Guardian is a reliable source. I don't know how you can say that none of the articles mention CCNH? CCNH is in fact mentioned by name in The Guardian article. The Guardian article is not an opinion piece. The sentence is a good sentence and belongs in the article. TallMagic (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic, you are so desperate you are willing to feign idiocy just to insist that Goldacre's article is a news report and not an opinion piece. It is most certainly an opinion piece and I did not "simply called it as such" but meticulously demonstrated why it is in fact an opinion piece. You are the only one who is "merely saying" it isn't. Does a news report contain words such as, "In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself 'doctor': to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith." – Ben Goldacre, The Guardian February 12, 2007. Now, was it The Guardian reporting the news or was it Goldacre simply stating his personal opinion? — Shannon Rose 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, the delayed response is because I find it best to try to resist responding immediately to someone that is being rude and insulting, as you are in the above comment. Use of the word "I" or the phrase "to me" does not mean that the whole article is an opinion or that it is an editorial. The information from The Guardian article that is being used in the CCNH article is a simple statement of fact that CCNH won't release a copy of the McKeith dissertation. If an article contains an opinion of the journalist, like in your example, it doesn't magically mean that nothing else in the article can be trusted or that the article is an editorial. BTW, the opinion given by Ben Goldacre I'll guess would probably be agreed to by at least 99% of the people with an accredited PhD in biology. TallMagic (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Now let me make a personal suggestion to you Shannon, being insulting to your fellow Wikipedians weakens your argument. You shouldn't do it anywhere. Especially on Wikipedia, you shouldn't even bother commenting if you feel that your response has to be insulting. TallMagic (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the information as it is well-referenced and an extremely notable event in CCNH's history and ongoing accreditation controversy. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is that the sentence is a good sentence and belongs in the article as it is notable and properly sourced. One person disagrees with this and uses their opinion that the article supporting the facts can't be trusted. They have provided no contradictory evidence but instead make some irrelevant argument about needing multiple sources and the moon walk could be a hoax. This is against Wikipedia policy. The sentence should stay in the article. Please stop deleting the sentence. TallMagic (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached because the four of you have always been for slandering the subject anyway. I am the only editor here who is fighting for a balanced representation of the subject based on WP policies and guidelines, policies and gudelines that you believe you can twist in order to make the institution look bad. Your sources are opinion pieces, which cannot be used to establish fact based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text." The four of you can only be taken as one, each is another's meat puppet conniving to manipulate the article to destroy the name of the institution. What you are doing is a crime, and the time may come that the institution may consider employing legal means to uncover the identity of the people who are most obviously trying to destroy their reputation. Why you are so obsessed with this is beyond me, but it would be apparent to any one with a neutral point of view that: 1.) You only favor the inclusion of sections and statements that are derogatory to the subject (e.g. mentioning the once unaccredited and non-existent Chadwick University as a "connected institution" but not mentioning the extant and accredited American Sentinel University that even cites Lloyd Clayton as the founder of the school in their official website); 2.) You put undue weight on the institution's unaccredited status, which is unique to this subject because other unaccredited institutions only gets one sentence for it (e.g. The institution lacks educational accreditation. The use of unaccredited degree titles is legally restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions" – University of Santa Monica article); 3.) You are libeling McKeith using an opinion piece as reference, and you are doing it in the wrong article. McKeith has her own article, this is an article about CCNH. It is so obvious that you only included McKeith's name here as a notable alumnus in order to further disparage the institution where McKeith got her CAM degree. How then can you call anything that you bunch of meat puppets (and three possible sockpuppets, if only checkuser went ahead with the investigation) decide as "consensus"? You have always acted as a singular editor in this article from the very beginning. There was never any need for a consensus. If ever a consensus is to be reached it should be between you four (taken as one editor) and myself, who is the only one here presenting a different view. – Shannon Rose 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, you wrote:

• "The four of you can only be taken as one, each is another's meat puppet conniving to manipulate the article to destroy the name of the institution. What you are doing is a crime, and the time may come that the institution may consider employing legal means to uncover the identity of the people who are most obviously trying to destroy their reputation."

That borders on a violation of WP:LEGAL. Be very, very careful! Legal threats will get you nowhere, and should Clayton ever attempt such a foolish thing, it would only create a very real backlash in the real world. I suggest you read about Pyrrhic victory and Streisand effect. Attempting to intimidate editors here is a big no, no. Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Well, for what it is worth I am on here as a CCNH representative to try and work with the editors who disapprove of us for their various reasons. The article is definitely skewed against us, but we are not seeking legal action. I think it is unnecessary to refer to the possibility of us pursuing legal action as "foolish," simply because it sounds arrogant and, regardless of the comment's intentions, it comes across as a veiled threat against us if we did decided to pursue legal action. CCNH Tara (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer's position and warning to Shannon. The few legal threats I've seen made on Wikipedia have all made the person making such threats look silly and foolish, at least in my view. My opinion is that Shannon's assertion that there is any evidence that anyone here is not primarily interested in a good Wikipedia article that adhere's to Wikipedia policies and guidelines is a baseless accusation bordering on frustrated delusion. Look at the facts. Shannon wants to delete fully sourced information essentially based on nothing more than his/her opinion that the information doesn't belong in the article. No one has tried to add unsourced information to the article. No one has deleted sourced information that is complementary towards CCNH. My view of Shannon's threats of legal doom is that it's plainly ridiculous and not worth any response. Which means this comment is giving the baseless bogus threat far more credence than it's worth. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon, I really do like you and I enjoy appreciate your passion for the article. I very much appreciate you sharing your view with us. However, I do have a concern that you may have let your passion get the better of you here and allowed it to impact your ability to assume good faith on the part of your fellow Wikipedians. The Guardian article is a news article not an opinion or editorial article. If you can't believe me or anyone that may disagree with you here then I suggest that you take your plea to the reliable source notice board, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Responses to your numbered points. 1.) not true 2.) I think specific states that specifically mention CCNH and restrict or make illegal the use of a CCNH degree is very notable for the article. 3.) I don't think this really needs any further response. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The current statement in the article ("McKeith's credentials from Clayton have been the focus of comment in The Guardian's "Bad Science" column, specifically the institution's unaccredited status and the institution's refusal to make McKeith's doctoral dissertation available for outside review") is not a statement of opinion, but simply a fairly mild objective description of criticism that McKeith has received. Since her credential from Clayton was used as a basis for criticism of her, that criticism was at least as a much about Clayton as it is about McKeith. Therefore, this information belongs in this article, IMO. The fact that McKeith was induced to stop listing the degree in her advertising also seems like it belongs in this article.

I do have concerns about sourcing. The current inline citation in the article is a link to the generic "Bad Science" webpage at The Guardian website, not a link to specific columns or descriptions of the columns. This article together with this column would be better sources to cite, as the article describes the criticism and the column illustrates it. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that an additional fact supporting the article as factual rather than an opinion piece or an editorial is the fact Ben Goldacre is a medical doctor. That makes him qualified to make the observations that he did since they are the opinions of an expert in the field. Using the opinions of an expert in the field in this case would be acceptable. Although I point out that the current article does not currently use any of Ben Goldacre's opinions. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Naturopathy" degree accreditation

In this edit, Shannon Rose deletes

''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.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.cnme.org/links.html | title=CNME Accredited Programs | publisher = [[Council on Naturopathic Medical Education]] | date = January 2009 | accessdate =2009-01-16}}''

with the comment

CNME is the national accrediting agency for programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D. or N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) degree. CCNH no longer offer those degrees.

The link is to a page titled "Links to Other Organizations and Helpful Web Sites". Not surprisingly, this page doesn't list any college or program as accredited. But it doesn't even link (or anyway it doesn't obviously link) to any list.

The top page of that website tells us:

The U.S. Secretary of Education recognizes CNME as the national accrediting agency for programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D. or N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) degree.

If it were a wiki, I'd start by slapping "{{fact}}" on that assertion. That out of the way, I ask myself what "naturopathy" is. The first impression I get from the WP article on it is that it emphasizes the body's very well known ability to recover from most conditions (amputation being a clear exception) without any particular external assistance, which is all well and good but seems self defeating. (Why carve a career professing the lack of necessity of your profession?) The second impression is from its list of "methods", many of which star in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. If you do a degree course in hogwash, does the quality of that course matter?

But perhaps I digress. This page tells us that the degrees now offered are in "Natural Health", "Holistic Nutrition", and "Holistic Health and Wellness". Of course WP is not a reliable source; but for what it's worth, "Natural health" is merely a redirect to Naturopathy. So what's the national accreditation agency for BSc and MSc (yes, really, of "science"!) degrees in naturopathy or natural health or whatever?

If CCNH did at one time hand out doctorates in these subjects, what was the accreditation agency for doctorates at that time, and what did it then say about CCNH? -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking on similar lines. CCNH has relied upon American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board (ANMAB), which appears to be a kind of diploma mill for diploma mills. It's listed in List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. I doubt we could find enough reliable sources to support an article on ANMAB. I'm having a hard time finding even one reliable source describing them at all. Though it seems the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies has been having trouble with them and their Colorado affiliate. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

-Another angle- CCNH did, up until about a year ago, handout bogus "diplomas" for Doctor in Naturopathy while thumbing their noses at the CNME and AANP, the truly accredited, Dept of Ed approved Naturopathic Medicine entities in N. America. This is the main crux of the issue, not what they're doing now (because they've clearly learned from their mistakes). Because of their history they still need to be held accountable for the years of deceit and fraud as there are hundreds of "graduates" with a Clayton "ND" degrees (doctor of naturopathy) that are worth only the cost of the paper. The Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine call then "Un-D's". --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The history is relevant to the article, i.e., there are still people running around claiming to have Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine from CCNH. If there's a good source for the fact that doctorate degrees are no longer offerred, e.g., the CCNH website would be an acceptable source for this, I believe. Didn't Tara say that they no longer offer doctorate degrees? If so I would consider that fact very significant for indicating that CCNH has cleaned up their act. Of course we can't explicitly make such a statement due to wp:NOR but, it could be mentioned that doctorate degrees are no longer offerred using the CCNH website as a source? TallMagic (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On this I agree with TallMagic. Instead of saying that CCNH is not accredited by the CNME, we should remove that and then create a paragraph informing our readers that the college used to give out Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees that are not accredited by the CNME (and of course source it). Then we should balance it out by saying that as of late 2008, the college have stopped this practice. — Shannon Rose 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Un-D's of CCNH were never allowed to use the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" title because, although not universal, it is a protected title. They got around this by giving those students, who by the way may have never even stepped on "campus", a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree. It was more of a philosophical "degree" or credential or what ever you want to call it... Point is that at one time McKeith, Clark, Young and countless others were calling themselves doctors and believe you can only blame CCNH for this. For that reason alone the Alumni and Institutions sections are not only notable but imho in need of expansion. Why not combine the two and add the controversial history, accreditation issues, bogus degrees, etc. under a new section titled "Controversies" or something similar? --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 05:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely wrong. Clayton offered Doctor of Naturopathy degree as well as a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree, and there was a clear distinction in the way that the latter was only reserved for licensed medical doctors (MD's). (You must be aware that CCNH have many state-registered nurses, physical therapists and MD's as graduates of their doctorates.) The archived version of the website can verify this [13]. There it states very clearly that clayton's Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree was "for medical doctors only." You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

You must also understand that the school never issued any "bogus degrees" as you claim. There is no law stating that ND degrees should be accredited by CNME, in the same way that no law exists stating that DBA degrees should be accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. If CCNH did break the law, then it should have been shut down years ago. There are many multi-million dollar institutions who are more than willing to take Clayton to court if they did violate any law. Unlike diploma mills that are hard to pin down, Clayton has a real office, real board, real staff and real faculty. If even one law has been broken (e.g. issuing "bogus degrees") they would have been sued and, eventually, shut down. This bogus-ness is actually a myth propagated by groups who sees Clayton as a threat to their businesses and/or profession. If you can find, for example, a Harvard medical graduate who was convicted of malpractice, do you think the editors of Harvard Medical School will allow you to include that person's story in the notable alumni section of the article? C'mon, be fair! Clayton has thousands of graduates, how many have ended up like Hulda Regehr Clark? No one! She's an isolated case. Many of Clayton's graduates are, however, bestselling authors in the fields of health and wellness. Let us not use the article as an outlet for personal vendetta. — Shannon Rose 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the article improvements that ThujaSol proposed. I propose that we just recognize that the terms "bogus degree" and "diploma mill" are terms loaded with personal opinion. They can cause alienation amongst us. They're terms that Wikipedians cannot add to the article, except perhaps as part of a quote someplace. If such a term slips out here on this talk page let's try to just forgive, correct, and forget. Peace, TallMagic (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's astounding how unfamiliar some of these editors are with the school and our practices. I cannot see how a special section on controversy is within the NPOV Wiki philosophy. Like Shannon said, if we were doing something illegal we would be shut down by now. CCNH Tara (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

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 [14] 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)

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)

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)

Back to the matter at hand: We build articles upon reliable sources, not on beliefs in what is "fair" or "balanced". If you can't find a reliable source for the information you want to add, don't expect that you'll be allowed to add it. We're talking about four of Wikipedia's five pillars here:

1) WP:NOT - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue to promote personal beliefs or original research

2) WP:NPOV - articles are neutral based upon authoritative sources that are verifiable

4) Wikipedia has a code of conduct: "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks, and sweeping generalizations."

5) Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [15] 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)

"Controversy" section

A more descriptive section title should be used per WP:NPOV. The section really needs some expansion as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're proposing a more descriptive section title then please propose something. I named the section "background". I don't like that very much though. TallMagic (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added a tag to the article indicating that this section may have problems. Based on their note added to User_talk:Shannon_Rose, I'll assume that they added this on Shannon's behalf.[16] When this whole section was last deleted, Shannon's edit comment was, "There is nothing "controversial" about being unaccredited. Many unaccredited institutions have their own WP articles but their accreditation status are not mentioned as "controversial." Rv Witch hunt!)" My opinion is that here on this talk page very strong evidence has been presented based on US Government comments and comments by John Bear that Shannon's assertion in the edit comment is Shannon's own unsupported opinion, at least regarding the assertion that there's nothing controversial about being unaccredited. Regarding the other part about other Wikipedia articles, I consider that argument very weak. We can only deal with one article at a time and the article that we're trying to deal with here is Clayton College of Natural Health. Also, I believe that it may reflect poorly on Shannon's willingness to work with a team of Wikipedians when Shannon has chosen to delete the whole section out of the article without even trying to respond to the discussion on this page. So, setting the context of the discussion took more work than this may really be worth. :-) Anyway, here it is. How about if I change the name of the "Controversy" section to "History" add mention to the foundation date and name change? Also delete the reference to Chadwick according to other discussions here? TallMagic (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was thinking along the lines of "History" as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a history section is much more fair than a controversy section. I have posted it elsewhere in this discussion page that the Bear's Guide has incorrect info published about us. We are in the process of updating web pages on our site that will include more historical info about the school, but for now, again, what can I do to help neutralize the article and make sure the facts are correct? We opened as The Clayton School of Natural Healing in 1980, then opened American Holistic College of Nutrition in 1985. In 1997, the two schools merged to form Clayton College of Natural Health. CCNH Tara (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia likes verifiable information. Is the history that you describe documented anywhere (other than here)? --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

I'm tempted to tag "extensive" as a weasel-word, especially when we're using only CCNH's website as the sole sources. Given all the disputes, I thought a discussion should happen first. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the lead should summarise the article contents, and should not be promotional at all. Verbal chat 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Me three. I concur with me, myself, and I. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Gillian McKeith and other critical coverage

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shannon Rose's edits have been raised at WP:ANI. Verbal chat 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Diploma mill"

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)

• I agree with ElKevbo's deletion of the "See also" section. When there are allegations that a school is a diploma mill, but no reliable sources state that it is one, it is sometimes appropriate to link that article in a "See also" section (for background), but that is apparently not the case here. Other links in the "See also" section, such as distance education, were already in the article and should not be repeated in a See also section. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. The accusation of diploma mill was made against Chadwick and I believe that reference to Chadwick should be removed from the article. Regarding accreditation mill reference in the see also section, I don't know of any accusations against CCNH for this so it too seems irrelevant. I agree that removing this section is an improvment to the article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Copied for discussion - ChadWick

Someone just added this information back in. I have moved the discussion on it from above down to the bottom. This discussion seemed to indicate a consensus to me that the Chadwick information should best be deleted. Please discuss further since some (at least one) editors disagree. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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."

---

I don't know who added the section above to this talk page. (It wasn't me.) It seems to be less about CCNH than about its founder. Perhaps Clayton (the person) or his "university" in Birmingham merits an independent article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that section has been around for a very long time. I feel that it doesn't add much to the article and I would be pleased if consensus was to remove the whole section about connected institutions. TallMagic (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, I am now ready to assume good faith, even if only for you, TallMagic. I just remembered our previous interaction at California Southern University. As you may have already surmised, I have a soft or forgiving spot for institutions who, though they may have a questionable or shady past, are doing everything to reform. Everyone deserves a second chance and, with schools, it would be the students who would benefit the most for such reforms.

Now, going back to your proposal, my take on the matter is 1. Chadwick may have been connected to Lloyd Clayton (though that is yet to be confirmed by a stronger ref than the one currently provided) but not necessarily to CCNH; 2. Chadwick is already defunct, it is no longer in existence. If it is okay to create a separate section for a non-existing unaccredited "connected institution," then why is it not ok to include in that same section American Sentinel University, which is an extant accredited institution of higher learning founded by Lloyd Clayton? It's either we remove Chadwick and put American Sentinel University in its place, or remove the entire section altogether. The section is inconsistent with the format that we follow in the articles of other colleges anyway. As an example, the unaccredited California Southern University and the regionally accredited Northcentral University are owned by the same people. We know that, don't we? But we do not have a "Connected Institutions" section in any one of them. So, why don't we follow that pattern and go ahead with your proposal of removing this entire section. — Shannon Rose 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shannon's argument. Either add in information about Clayton starting up AICS which became accredited, changed its name to ACCIS then American Sentinel University or remove this information. It makes more sense to me to remove the information on Chadwick. P.S. I hope that your "good faith" lasts regarding me and blossoms into "good faith" for our fellow Wikipedians as well. :-) Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone just added this information back in. I have moved the discussion on it from above down to the bottom. This discussion seemed to indicate a consensus to me that the Chadwick information should best be deleted. Please discuss further since some (at least one) editors disagree. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick University exists as a redirect to this article (and has existed as such since 2007). Accordingly, if the Chadwick content is not kept in this article, then a separate article should be written about Chadwick.

Regardless, the fact that Clayton's founder also established two other schools is information that seems worthy of inclusion in this article. Both Chadwick and American Sentinel University ought to be discussed here. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If we go this way then my understanding is that we should probably also put the first instance of Chadwick University in bold. Isn't that correct? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the standard protocol. However, I think it might be better to create a separate article about Chadwick -- but that would not eliminate the need to discuss Chadwick in this article. The fact that CCNH's founder later founded at least two other educational institutions is notable information that is relevant to CCNH.

In any event, I've changed the "Chadwick" section to "Other schools established by Lloyd Clayton" and added American Sentinel to that discussion. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What can I do to make it clear that Chadwick is no longer in business, that we sold the college in 2007 with a handful of students who were guaranteed the opportunity to complete their course work? The school is no longer affiliated with us nor is it open to the best of my knowledge. In fact, a simple Google search for the site yields results that when clicked through show the address as a P.O. box in AZ. I don't know who owns it now. The only purpose I can see that the CCNH page would mention Chadwick is so that it can be pointed out that it was considered a diploma mill. The only relevancy it holds today is that it was one of the schools Lloyd Clayton founded. 72.243.248.162 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The above was from me, Tara Brown, CCNH Communications Manager. I did not realize I was not logged in at the time of posting the comment. CCNH Tara (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this, I tend to agree with the IP editor. The section in question isn't really about CCNH, so it's a bit tangential here. This article is not about Lloyd Clayton or the other institutions he's founded, so the detailed coverage of those is out of place here. All the more so since Chadwick's current status seems unclear. I've removed the paragraph in question. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we still have an issue in that Chadwick University redirects here, but this article contains no info about it. I'm thinking that the redirect may need to be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.