Talk:Clayton College of Natural Health

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 With regards to the Connected Institutions segment, it is riddled with inaccuracies and out of date citations.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 Also, the edition of Bear's Guide cited in reference 10 is out of date.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)

Corrected President of College. Thought this was Kay Channell at one time, but it seems to have been changed and I could not find the reference for the change in the history section. This info can be verified here: http://www.ccnh.edu/about/facesnames/staff.aspx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCNH Tara (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) CCNH Tara (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (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.

Here is a beter reference showing that yes indeed, the CNME is recognized by the US DoE as the accreditor of ND/NMD programes.[1]. I am not aware of any other agency that has acheived this acreditation status. It is reasonable for this article to note that Clayton College has never been accredited by the CNME 173.206.240.236 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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)

"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.[3] 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)

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.

Claims of award or accreditation from USDLA

This award/accreditation has an unknown meaning. I believe that it is undue weight to even mention it in the article. Looking at the USDLA website it says

• Disclaimer: The United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) does not accredit, endorse, or speak to the quality of any program for any institution. The student has sole responsibility to verify the claims of any institution's accrediting service and / or agency that are NOT recognized by the United States Department of Education. (U.S. DOE). [4]

Therefore, I will remove references to this apparent misleading assertion since the award has no meaning regarding the quality of the institution, according to the USDLA website itself. TallMagic (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was added in a blatantly promotional way. I was inclined to leave it after rewording it to remove puffery and make it clear that it was a made up quality programme created at the request of the college itself. I felt that readers could draw their own inferences from it, but I can also see that maybe such things are beneath us. I think the other bit about being licensed as a private school should stay though.

How do we feel about the United States Distance Learning Association itself? Does it have any notability or should we be sending it to AfD? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of USDLA except within the current context. I poked around the website a little bit. I couldn't really tell too much. It is not obviously bogus, at least not from what I saw. Doing a Google Scholar search [5] it shows up 631 times. Which is really pretty significant, I assume. Looking at a few of the links, I think that USDLA is legitimate. As to Wikipedia notability, the article should probably should stay? TallMagic (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The USDLA quality certification was not a "made up quality programme created at the request of the college itself." We were one of the original schools that said we would be interested in participating in their quality certification program should they create it. It was actually a fairly indepth review of the college's practices, programs, and faculty/staff, including a site review. I don't see why CCNH should be penalized because the USDLA has yet to certify other schools. The group is legitimate and they have sponsorship and partnerships with some major players in the distance education arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCNH Tara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC) CCNH Tara (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, CCNH is not being penalized because other schools haven't been certified. The issue is that it is unclear what the certification is supposed to mean. The program is called the "Quality Standards program". Yet on the USDLA website it says,

<quote>Disclaimer: The United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) does not accredit, endorse, or speak to the quality of any program for any institution. The student has sole responsibility to verify the claims of any institution's accrediting service and / or agency that are NOT recognized by the United States Department of Education. (U.S. DOE).</quote>[6]

That makes it very difficult for me to understand what a "Quality Standards program" certificate could mean. It would seem that the name "Quality Standards program" is a misnomar and misleading. Therefore I've added the disclaimer to the statement added by Shannon Rose in an attempt to better place the certificate into context but I don't really have much confidence as to what that context actually is. TallMagic (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tall Magic, and all - I understand your concerns regarding the USDLA's disclaimer. I have done some web surfing and discovered that they have a new site and that older pages are coming down, as I encountered some broken links and/or pages with images missing on them on the link for reference 14 in the article. Also, on the new site, this page: http://www.usdla.org/index.php?cid=123 explains the difference between the two distinct programs that the USDLA offers. The quality standards certification that we completed is not an accreditation program, and that is what the disclaimer that the article currently links to is referring to. To be fair, you are linking to DLAB, which is not what CCNH applied for or was awarded. Additionally, the only disclaimer I can find on the new site was easily found on the About us menu: http://www.usdla.org/index.php?cid=75 and does not speak to its programs at all. I would like to recommend that the status of the old USDLA web site and pages be monitored. If those links become invalid, I would advocate updating them to the new site links as they become available.

CCNH Tara (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the source you use for your USDLA disclaimer link (http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/accreditation.htm) is no longer valid. The USDLA has introduced a new Web site and the only disclaimer I can find on it is at this URL: http://www.usdla.org/index.php?cid=75. Additionally, I invite all editors to review the following content area of the USDLA Web site in the hopes that you will understand that they offer two programs -- an accreditation program and a quality standards certification program. CCNH completed the QS program. You may learn more here: http://www.usdla.org/accreditation.php. I realize the URL includes the word "accreditation," but that's because the one Web page addresses both program initially and then breaks into two content areas. Please consider editing the USDLA section of the college's entry to accurately reflect this change.CCNH Tara (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education

First, it's not clear to me that the given reference even verifies this. Is it "The Alabama Center for Postsecondary Education" instead?

Second, is this license important enough to mention? Does it require some context? It appears they are required to have this licensing to teach students from Alabama, but I'm not sure what it entails and what it means. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at one time there was some context in this article if I remember correctly. The correct name of the very legitimate organization is the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education, which can easily be confirmed with a simple Internet search. It reports to the state board of education. And yes, this license is important to mention. It means that we are licensed to operate in the state of Alabama. It is significant because it means the state is aware of us and approves of what we are doing. You can verify CCNH's status at this link: http://www.accs.cc/LicensedSchools.aspx?filter=C#grid

CCNH Tara (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my own personal opinion/understanding. Alabama used to be one of the jurisdictions in the USA that was most friendly to non-wonderful academic institutions. In 2008 the state laws were changed to give responsibility for oversight to the Alabama department of education rather than consumer affairs. As a consequence, many of the non-wonderful academic institutions have been chased out of Alabama. See the Preston University article for more details. I assume that CCNH's Alabama license has come up for renewal. CCNH is still in Alabama which in my mind is a big plus for CCNH. So the license is important to mention, IMHO. TallMagic (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. The link provided says doesn't verify "Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education", though that is what dpe.edu stands for. I don't know if they've changed the name, don't use the name in this context, or just don't provide this information sometimes. Someone find a ref to clear the relationship between "Alabama Community College System" (the only organization identified in the reference), "The Alabama Center for Postsecondary Education" which appears to be the organization that runs the dpe.edu (judging by www.dpe.edu redirecting to accs.cc), and Alabama's "Department of Postsecondary Education" (which appears to be the "Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education" that we're trying to verify). --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, if CCNH Tara's link [7] was also added to the article, then would that support the assertion that CCNH is properly licensed? Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I used that link instead. Verifies the info and gives some context. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Certification != accreditation

I don't really see what's the ruckus here... you guys seem to think certification and accreditation has something to do with each other. Clayton College was certified by the USDLA -- that's the keyword: 'certified'. Whether or not USDLA does accreditation is another topic and has nothing to do with Clayton's certification.

That statement about USDLA doing (or for that matter, not doing) accreditation should be in the USDLA article, not here. Looking at the vast expanse of whitespace in the USDLA article it could really use that content. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing forbidding you from using it there as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clayton College Closing?

Just saw this article at the Huffington Post and although I have a definite conflict of interest when it comes to the matter, I thought this development could be examined further and if found credible added to the CCNM article... Huffington Post Article --Travis Thurston+ 08:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its own website says It is with regret and a heavy heart that we inform you that Clayton College of Natural Health will be ceasing operations. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is a Webcite backup of this page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

External Links

There is no discussion present on external links. All external links should be removed until a consensus is reached about what external links should be listed. Recent edit wars make this discussion a top priority. -- Mavery94 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hello Mavery94, I see you're new here. 99.146.0.158 writes (here) that Quackwatch is widely known to be an irreprutable site by someone "claiming" to be an expert... (BLP violation removed --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)) Alas I don't even know what "irreprutable" means (it's not in the admittedly second-rate dictionary I have at hand) but I infer that it means something bad. Anyway, let's have evidence below for the irreprutability of Quackwatch and/or arguments for deletion of this link. ¶ Meanwhile, I'd say it's fine. Quackwatch is written up here. Wikipedia is of course not a reliable source on Quackwatch, but it's a handy way to reach its cited sources. That article has plenty of praise for Quackwatch from medical sources. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you would like to discuss the Quackwatch link (BLP violation removed --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)) Thus, I don't think Quackwatch is a valid reference. -- Mavery94 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What has the qualification (or not) in psychiatry of the founder of an organization got to do with the value of work done by that organization on nutritional and related quackery? (Incidentally, I do realize that the Quackwatch article has over the last few minutes been attracting copy-and-pastes from a five-year-old story at www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html) -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reincorporating the Quackwatch reference. It's a reliable source, providing information not available elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and inappropriate discussion hidden

As for the charges against Barrett, they've been discussed here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I find it quite interesting Ronz has edited what I posted to remove sources. I never even saw the website Hoary mentioned (which interestingly was not removed by Ronz). Again, Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett have been found to lack credibility in the case NACHF v. King Bio. Would you like to remove this source again Ronz? I read the case. I suggest you do the same prior to deleting it. It's quite enlightening. -- Mavery94 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) This is not a venue for discussion about Barrett. Such comments may result in blocks per WP:BLP, WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA, and past arbitration decisions. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to discuss proper application of WP:EL or WP:RS to specific links, please do. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, my discussion involved Quackwatch. Why do you insist on removing anything I write in support of my argument, even court cases? Mavery94 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Mavery94

If you want to address WP:EL or WP:RS, please do. If you continue to use Wikipedia to attack others, you'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to discuss EL. That's why I started this section. However, it's a little difficult to do when other users keep deleting what I write, in particular sources that support my argument, and then threaten to block me even though I offer to provide the sources so that they may read them and see that they are in fact relevant. Court cases are evidence, not personal attacks. Mavery94 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Court cases aren't sources. Transcripts thereof are primary sources, but Wikipedia needs disinterested, reliable secondary sources. Do you have any of these? (If you do, this wouldn't be the place for them, so just give a yes/no answer for now.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Transcripts of cases are not primary sources. The writings of the judge in the case are valid sources and in the legal field are often referred to as cases or opinions. I was citing the case which in the legal field means the judge's opinion. Forgive me, for using legal terminology. I have offered to get Ronz the "opinion" written by the judge which validates everything I have been saying. A judge's opinion is a disinterested, reliable secondary source. The opinion that I was referring to, in legal terminology, is called NCAHF v. King Bio. Would you like the full citation so you can look it up in Westlaw, Lexis, or at a legal library? Mavery94 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you discuss the application of WP:EL instead? That court case has absolutely nothing to do with this article. You have yet to even tell us what part of WP:EL you think applies in this situation. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was there until you deleted it. Mavery94 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the situation is resolved if no one can even indicate which part of WP:EL applies. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps this discussion should be left open for more than 2 hours. Someone else could have an opinion that has yet to be voiced. It is late and a weekend after all. Mavery94 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can continue this discussion at any time. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The case I've referenced repeatedly and you've deleted repeatedly Ronz is listed as a reference on the Wikipedia page for the National Council Against Health Fraud. Mavery94 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The link contains Stephen Barrett's name and goes to an article written by Stephen Barrett. If the validity/credibility of the link is being questioned, is not Stephen Barrett's credibility a part of the discussion? I think it is. To discuss whether he is credible, and to present arguments for and against his credibility, does not violate WP:BLP. This is a discussion page. To discuss things is not libel or defamation. After all, if the link was for the National Enquirer, would we not discuss its credibility and the credibility of the author? 99.40.54.232 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the validity of the link being questioned? It doesn't appear to be. Nor are such discussions, even when they are warranted, an excuse to violate BLP, BATTLE, NPA, etc.

Barrett's a recognized authority, and Quackwatch meets our reliable sources criteria for consumer information. In other words, it's not only an acceptable external link, it's an acceptable reference when used in the context of verifying consumer information. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unknown user. The link is indeed in question. Barrett never claims to be an expert on education, but he is discussing education. The article is filled with generalizations, opinion and unsupported statements. Is it of good quality? No. It lacks journalistic integrity. You claim it is a good reference, but the author, from the first sentence to the last, makes statements and doesn't defend them with proof. Is it the information not available elsewhere, as you state Roz, because no one else has written a similar article lacking evidence to support itself as often as this article? It is not a good quality article - plain and simple. Mavery94 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(And I have to wonder about the identity of "the unknown user," but that's a different topic.)

You're welcome to your opinion Mavery94 and I think that we know where you stand. There is widespread agreement among most editors (that have expressed an opinion) that this is a reliable and useful source. I'm sorry that you disagree but perhaps it's time to accept that and move on. ElKevbo (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's one of the most reliable sources in the article. Definitely should be kept. Verbal chat 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I have full-protected this article due to edit-warring. Please use this page to discuss the changes you want to make to the article and why you consider them to be necessary or appropriate.

Please note that content should comply with Wikipedia policy on verifiability, should not be promotional, and should be neutral in its point of view, and that Wikipedia guidelines on external links discourage external links in the body of articles. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get a sense from Aweichse (talk · contribs) of the reasoning behind his/her edits. To my mind, they make the article sound less encyclopedic and more like a course brochure, and there are also issues (as pointed out by others) with inappropriate external links etc. I'll leave a note on that user's talk page to ask them to comment here. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting lawsuit filed

Here's an article, http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2011/08/clayton_college_of_natural_hea.html , about a lawsuit filed by former students that allege Lloyd Clayton inappropriately took funds out of the school. I'm posting this here so that article editors can be aware of this developement. I think that it may be too early in the lawsuit to try to say much of anything in the article. I think it would be good if we keep an eye on developments in this area though. Zugman (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clayton College of Natural Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ccnh.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719181100/http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-authorization-academic-unauthorized-Invalid.aspx to http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-authorization-academic-unauthorized-Invalid.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316125738/http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/ to http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125102309/http://www.ccnhlawsuit.com/CCNH_Complaint.pdf to http://www.ccnhlawsuit.com/CCNH_Complaint.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130728082120/http://www.samueliinstitute.org/about-us/susan-samueli-phd to https://www.samueliinstitute.org/about-us/susan-samueli-phd

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)