Talk:Bastyr University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kenmore neighborhood[edit]

17 Aug 2005: I changed "Juanita" to "Inglewood/Finn Hill" as the name of the Kenmore neighbourhood referenced in this article. Juanita is the neighbourhood in Kirkland at the southern foot of Finn Hill. Inglewood/Finn Hill is the name used by the U.S. Census Bureau for the sizable unincorporated area of Finn Hill. Although Bastyr University lies barely within the city limits of Kenmore, it is still locally considered a part of this neighbourhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.57.219 (talkcontribs) 03:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Certain areas were annexed by Kirkland in the last 10 years so not all online sources have caught up with this. In a very unusual arrangement, Saint Edward State Park encloses Bastyr. My best map reading indicated that a corner of the state park is within the Kirkland city limits, but Bastyr itself is not. Not sure whether Kirkland and Kenmore are now adjacent or if there is unincorporated King County between them. If the latter, it's probably the park, because it would have no tax revenue for either city. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Information Box[edit]

Hello. I am an agent for Bastyr and would like to make the following minor edits.

President: Harlan Patterson (Source: President and Leadership, http://bastyr.edu/about/president) Provost: Dave Rule (Source: Leadership Team, https://bastyr.edu/about/leadership) Remove 'Academic Staff' information Remove 'Administrative Staff' information Students: 1,205 (Fall 2017) Use the English spelling of 'Colors' (instead of 'Colours') — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Neutrality & Possible Changes[edit]

Hello. I am acting as an Agent of Bastyr. We would like to begin a respectful dialogue concerning the language used in certain portions of the page. After speaking with a representative of Wikipedia, who agree that this posting does not fully advance Wikipedia's Five Pillars, we are now reaching out to the editors to discuss how we can make constructive changes to the page, while still presenting a neutral view of the school. We will address each point one by one and hope to engage editors in discussion to gain a consensus and edit the page accordingly. First, we would like to address the introduction. Not only do the propositions cited rely on blogs as credible sources, but the language is inflammatory and does not appear neutral. There is a 'Criticisms' section specifically created for this type of contribution (though credible sources are still needed, and Quackwatch is not a credible source). We propose the following change to the introduction: "Bastyr University is a natural health arts and sciences with campuses in Kenmore, Washington, and San Diego, California. Academic degree and certificate programs include naturopathic medicine, acupuncture and East Asian medicine, nutrition, herbal sciences, ayurvedic sciences, health psychology, midwifery, integrated human biology, exercise science, holistic landscape design, and public health. Each of Bastyr’s programs endeavor to improve health through prevention and self-healing processes, relying on healthy living principles, and on a therapeutic order of interventions that emphasize the basic determinants of health first. Bastyr University is the largest university for the natural health arts and sciences field in the U.S., combining a multidisciplinary curriculum with leading-edge research and clinical training to educate future leaders in these fields. The University's academic and research programs have received international recognition for pioneering work in science-based natural medicine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What you've done there is to confuse Wikipedia with a sales brochure. We follow reliable source and abide by WP:FRINGE when it comes to fringe content (on topics like naturopathy, acupuncture, etc.). Bottom line: Wikipedia is going to remain neutral (in the WP:NPOV sense) and will not be falling into the WP:GEVAL fallacy to promote quackery with marketing clichés as you propose. WP:PSCI policy requires us to call out nonsenses for what they are. Alexbrn (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Alexbrn. I understand what Wikipedia is and how it is to be used. Particularly, that under WP:Fringe, "... lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." What I have stated is that the sources used to support the second and third paragraphs of the introduction are not reliable sources. If editors care to provide unbiased, neutral sources, I would love to continue this discussion. Additionally, the Wikipedia Five Pillars require that editors treat each other with respect and civility. We would appreciate your adherence to this when responding. There is no need for hostility. This is a professional discussion and our attempt to reach a amenable conclusion for Bastyr and the Wikipedia community. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 21:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Quackwatch has repeatedly been found by the community to be a reliable source on the topic of health fraud/quackery etc. There is no requirement at all for sources to be "neutral". BTW, you need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page to avoid breaching the Terms of Use here. Also who is "we"? Alexbrn (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Alexbrn. Thank you for your response. I am again raising the topic of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source and have opened up the discussion. I believe there must be input from more than one editor on the topic. Thank you for advising me of my responsibility to declare my conflict of interest. Wikipedia advised that I need only declare my conflict within the text page, which I have done above in the first entry. "We" = agent(s) for Bastyr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 23:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Various other sources that appear to be reliable are also used, not only QuackWatch. The latter would only be problematic if it contradicted other reliable sources on the topic. After speaking with a representative of Wikipedia, who agree that this posting does not fully advance Wikipedia's Five Pillars, we are now reaching out to the editors to discuss how we can make constructive changes to the page, while still presenting a neutral view of the school. You are indeed at the right place to suggest improvements, but there is no indication that the article conflicts with the five pillars. —PaleoNeonate – 00:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
A look at multiple discussions about Quackwatch on WP will make the accuracy of Alexbrn's comment plain. PaleoNeonate has pointed out that other reliable sources support the content based on Quackwatch. I agree with both of them and ask, what in particular seems to conflict with the five pillars? MrBill3 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I challenge the claim "After speaking with a representative of Wikipedia, who agree that this posting does not fully advance Wikipedia's Five Pillars". Please post the name of this "representative of Wikipedia". Was this a question posted somewhere on Wikipedia? Was it a phone call? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that The OP is going to be disappointed, but wikipedias editing policy will not allow us to use their suggestion in the lead of the article. According to policy, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body text, and the proposal in the opening post to this thread does not do that at all. So no, i'm afraid.
May I suggest that OP works on incremental suggestions of changes to the body text, backed by reliable sources. If the body text is appropriate then changes to the lead could be made. Note that the particularly egregious claim of "with leading-edge research and clinical training" is probably going to be impossible to source, as is "pioneering work in science-based natural medicine."
Because the OP is an admitted meatpuppet, and probably a paid editor, a proper declaration should also be made on their user page. Note that the "declaration" on this page is totally inadequate. Also note that multiple use of a single account is against our Terms of Use that all editors here, including the OP, have agreed to when creating their accounts. -Roxy the dog. barcus 17:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In addition, writing "Additionally, the Wikipedia Five Pillars require that editors treat each other with respect and civility. We would appreciate your adherence to this when responding. There is no need for hostility. This is a professional discussion and our attempt to reach a amenable conclusion for Bastyr and the Wikipedia community." when nobody has shown any hint of disrespect or incivility leads me to consider the possibility that we are dealing with The Terrible Sea Lion.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all controversial nor inflammatory to identify the fact that many, if not the overwhelming majority, of alternative medicine modalities have been characterized by WP:MAINSTREAM sources as pseudoscience. We have plenty of high-quality WP:FRIND-appropriate sources to that effect both in this article and in other articles. The OP would be wise to ask those at his institution to do the hard work of getting their therapies and treatments vetted in high-quality journals with mechanisms described and verified in peer-reviewed articles in flagship academic sources (Nature, Science, NEJM, etc.). Then we'll be happy to change the content to reflect the consensus view. Until then, the best we have are the indications of those professional scientists, medical doctors, and educators who have bothered to comment on the situation. I see almost zero sources that indicate that Bastyr is teaching scientifically verified techniques. Feel free to show me sources that say otherwise! jps (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of the responses. What we wanted most was an open dialogue. I will be sure to update my user page accordingly so that we can move past that discussion. I like the idea of incremental suggestions to the body of the text, supported by reliable sources. I will provide shortly. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you to all Editors who have engaged in this discussion. As previously suggested, we would like to suggest incremental changes to the Bastyr page (and associated reliable sources where needed). As the introduction paragraphs are the source of the greatest debate, we will start with the easier suggestions for updates:

1. Information Panel - President: Harlan Patterson (Source: President and Leadership, http://bastyr.edu/about/president) Provost: Dave Rule (Source: Leadership Team, https://bastyr.edu/about/leadership) Remove 'Academic Staff' information Remove 'Administrative Staff' information Students: 1,205 (Fall 2017) Use the English spelling of 'Colors' (instead of 'Colours') 2. History – Update the number of founders from three to four and include Sheila Quinn. 3. Doctoral Programs – Update the list to read: • Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine • Naturopathic Medicine 4. Master’s Programs – Update the list to read: • Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine • Ayurvedic Sciences (Program began in fall 2013) • Counseling Psychology • Maternal Child Health Systems • Midwifery • Nutrition • Nutrition and Clinical Health Psychology • Nutrition for Wellness • Public Health 5. Combined bachelor’s/masters programs – Update list to read: • Acupuncture or Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine • Midwifery 6. Certificate programs – Delete “Chinese Herbal Medicine” Dblanton03 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I wondering why we list programme content at all. Without secondary coverage isn't this undue and WP:NOT encyclopedic. Suggest this is all removed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree that the list of programs should be removed. If readers want to know what specifically the school has to offer, then they can go to the school's website. I could not find examples of listing program content for other universities w/ WP articles. Delta13C (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn and Delta13C, can you please address each numbered item in turn? The group has suggested an itemized list of changes, so can we go through the list? Thus far, I hear no objection to updating the Information Panel and History. You both have issues with listing the degrees offered, but other schools' Wikipedia pages do indeed list such information ([1], [2], [3], [4], and many others). Look forward to your reply. Thanks!Dblanton03 (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Yes, those other ones look problematic too for listing course content. I don't see any issue with updating the data items in the infobox, though all must be sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no requirement to address proposed changes per the listing of the editor suggesting the changes. In regard to listing program content I concur with Alexbrn. If no reliable source finds it notable enough to publish, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Providing examples can be valuable, but note the essay WP:Other stuff exists. The primary guidance comes from policy, content must be verifiable by a reliable source. In any article where content is controversial the first rule of thumb is independent reliable third party sources. In regard to the updating the president and provost, I suppose the school's website is an adequate ref for that info, although since things have changed very recently an official announcement or better a third party source would be better.
No sources were provided for any changes other than the president and provost. Without sources I don't see support for any other changes.MrBill3 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Further to Alex and Bill's comments, I feel that Dblanton is taking advantage of our good faith WP:AGF (Read that DB) by requesting edits from us before making a COI declaration as promised. I'm always suspicious of editors with a clear and obvious WP:COI who wont make a proper declaration as it feels like a lend is being taken. -Roxy the dog. barcus 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that there is no requirement to address proposed changes per the listing of the editor suggesting changes. After a great suggestion above, I provided an itemized list of changes. It is definitely helping to work through the proposed changes. Sources are as follows - President source [1]; Provost [2]; Sheila Quinn [3]; Programs [4]. Roxy, I made a proper declaration in my profile yesterday. I stated who I was and that I had a COI.Dblanton03 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I checked before I posted, and no declaration had been made, just an inadequate sentence, viz - "Conflict Disclosure: My name is A.T. and I am an agent of Bastyr." Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. -Roxy the dog. barcus 08:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree a policy compliant COI disclosure should be posted. MrBill3 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. Detailed instructions are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the instructions, Guy Macon! I have updated my Userpage accordingly. Are we in consensus regarding the information panel and history changes given the sources I have cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 16:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm still not seeing a proper declaration. Quote: "You must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship" [my bold]. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect (I usually agree with you on most things) I must disagree. Template:UserboxCOI clearly states "Placing this tag on a user's Userpage will satisfy the requirement of the WP:COI subsection 'Declaring an interest'." It is not fair to fault Dblanton03 for following the instruction on the page I referred him to. If those instruction are wrong, we need to fix the instructions.
A related question is whether Dblanton03 should have followed the "General COI" or "Paid editors" instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. A person could be "an agent of Bastyr" on his own time without being instructed to do so by his boss or being paid specifically for editing Wikipedia. If he is, say, a salaried staff member or professor who decided to edit Wikipedia without being told to do so, the General COI declaration is fine. If, on the other hand, he is a consultant or part of a PR firm hired to edit the Bastyr Wikipedia page (we have all seen the ads offering that service) then the paid editors disclosure would be required. We need to tread lightly here to avoid violating Dblanton03's privacy. He doesn't have to reveal any personal information if he isn't actually being paid to edit Wikipedia, and if he is being paid to edit Wikipedia, all he has to reveal is who is paying him and what they are paying him to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The userbox instructions are wrong/incomplete. I am now more confused by Dblanton03's status that I was when they declared he was "an agent" of Bastyr. The relevant guidance is WP:COI/WP:PAID. If paid (which I assuming is the case for an "agent"), the things this user must disclose are as I indicated. Note this article has a history of conflicted contributors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, whoever is paying them isn't getting their moneys worth at the moment, I mean its Thursday already and not a reliable source in sight. To think I changed my sig to something with anus in it, just for them. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Since I am not a paid editor, I do not believe that COI is necessary. Under the guidelines, I have complied with the applicable COI disclosure rules. Based on our prior conversation, and my provision of references, I will make the minor changes to the information panel proposed and likewise approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanton03 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're not being paid, then what did you mean when you wrote above that you were acting as an agent of Bastyr, Dblanton03? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You can be an agent without being paid. I personally have been in several situations where someone said that I can speak for them in a negotiation without me being paid to do so. If he says he isn't being paid, pleas WP:AGF and believe him unless you have actual evidence to the contrary. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to assume good faith, Guy Macon, but I wanted clarification because (somewhat confusingly for new editors), the paid editing policy can apply to people who might not consider themselves to be paid employees, such as interns. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that the COI policy applies to all editors with a conflict of interest not only to paid editors. Someone acting as an agent of another would definitely fall under that policy. MrBill3 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the extension of good faith. From the instructions on the page I was referred to, there were two options: a standard COI disclosure and a paid editor COI disclosure. I followed all instructions under the former. I would like to add an additional Bastyr alum under the 'Notable alumni' section of the page. I would like to remove the picture of Ms. Hermes (as this is not standard practice followed by other Universities on Wikipedia who list their notable alumni; it also seems like a promotion for her blog and brand as it currently stands). Suggested added text is as follows:
"Michael T. Murray, ND, a 1995 graduate of the doctorate of naturopathic medicine program, is one of the world's leading authorities on natural medicine. He has published over 30 books featuring natural approaches to health. For the past thirty-five years, Dr. Murray has been compiling a massive database of original scientific studies from the medical literature. He has personally collected over 65,000 articles from the scientific literature, which provide strong evidence on the effectiveness of diet, vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural measures in the maintenance of health and the treatment of disease."[1] [2] [3]Dblanton03
(talk) 14:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

References

No reliable sources there, and this is WP:PROFRINGE puffery. I note however, Murray gets a mention on QuackWatch for claiming AIDs could be treated with St John's wort (which in fact turned out to be hazardous). Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Alexbrn, how is Bloomberg not a reliable source? If QuackWatch is a reliable source, than surely Bloomberg is. Also, this section is for notable alumni, whether you agree with their theories or not. The statement lists his date of graduation, how many books he has published, the work he does, and the articles he has collected. Please point me to the inaccuracies.Dblanton03 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You mean the page that says "Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". Any source supporting a claim about "the effectiveness of diet, vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural measures" would need to be WP:MEDRS. Have you thought about using the QuackWatch source? Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn, the full statement on Bloomberg reads "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content." Therefore, this can still be cited as a credible source, as S&P Global Market Intelligence manages the content. Further, for Britt Hermes, citations to web articles are used. Thus, citation to Total Health magazine should be no issue. Finally, QuackWatch, despite your claims, is a blog site where a network of users can contribute unvetted articles. I would prefer to use the sources I have mentioned above, as they are indeed credible. As a concession, we can update the entry to read: "Michael T. Murray, ND, a 1995 graduate of the doctorate of naturopathic medicine program, is one of the world's leading authorities on natural medicine. He has published over 30 books featuring natural approaches to health. For the past thirty-five years, Dr. Murray has been compiling a massive database of original scientific studies from the medical literature." Additional reference: [1] Dblanton03 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Reads like a brochure, quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. The "Bloomberg" content has no evidence of editorial oversight but for a plain statement like that Murray was at Bastyr, is probably okay. QuackWatch is a good source for altmed content, and the fact the it mentions Murray gives some weight, so could be useful to add detail. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on that argument, QuackWatch could be said to have "no evidence of editorial oversight." I do not think this is a strong argument for rejection of the Bloomberg source, especially since I have provided four additional sources with corroborating information. Propose the following edit which does not support altmed, but instead, describes the alumni's collection of articles/studies: "Michael T. Murray, ND, a 1995 graduate of the doctorate of naturopathic medicine program, has published over 30 books featuring natural approaches to health. For the past thirty-five years, Dr. Murray has compiled a database of over 65,000 original scientific studies from the medical literature which discuss the effectiveness of diet, vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other natural measures in the maintenance of health and the treatment of disease." Also, Alexbrn, may I ask, are you the sole decision-maker on this, or do we wait for additional editor commentary? Dblanton03 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)─────────────────────────

Hi again DB, it is appropriate that you should ask, and no, Alex isn't the sole arbiter of what goes into our article. We go with the local consensus, guided by Policy and Guidelines. I have been content to follow your and Alex discussion here, as Alex is generally far more collegiate than I, when it comes to discussing with a COI editer such as yourself. I must state that I agree with his responses around the current discussion, and note the addition to the article he has made. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The proposed edit sounds like a promotional blurb and has little relevance to the article. If Murray is notable a mention that he at Bastyr with a link to his article is probably about what would be appropriate for the article. The title ND is not appropriate to apply per MOS. Unless the publications by Murray have contributed to published content about Bastyr they have no relevance in this article. If the "massive" database (see how it's promotional?) is significant and notable it will be covered substantially in solid sources and again what is the relevance to Bastyr? I echo Roxy in saying I find Alexbrn's responses a good reflection of policy and the general consensus. MrBill3 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Confused by the proposed edit as it in no way matches the format in the current Notable Alumni section. For example, there is no need to mention the Quackwatch citation in the body of the text if it is cited as a reference. Further, the additional colorful language adds nothing to the article, and is inflammatory. The sources that I have provided are neutral and simply provide information on Dr. Murray's status as an alumni and accomplishments (see other alumni already listed in the section. Suggest this section should instead follow the format of all other higher education pages and simply list the alumni's name (with a hyperlink to their page or website) and the year they graduated. Additionally, it is not common or accepted practice on Wikipedia pages to detail criticism regarding the listed alumni within this section. I point you to Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, UVA, and other medical school's Wikipedia pages as reference. Please advise if this proposed change is acceptable.Dblanton03 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The other medical schools are generally not WP:FRINGE, so different considerations apply. For WP:FRINGE topics, the prevailing context must always be the mainstream, rational one. So far as I can see most Bastyr alumni are dealt with in reliable secondary sources purely because of their dubious practices. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Alexbrn for citing the WP:FRINGE guideline. I think this goes a long way towards explaining how this subject should be covered in WP.MrBill3 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe you are taking a quite broad interpretation of WP:FRINGE. As stated on the page, "...a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources." The section concerning 'Notable Alumni' is designed (as it is on other higher education pages) to highlight those alumni who have accomplished specific achievements. My previous proposal to simply list the names of the alumni, with a link to their WP page, and the year of graduation, more than sufficiently satisfies the parameters of WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, each alumni listed is supported by credible, independent, reliable sources (as per WP:FRINGE guidelines).Dblanton03 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Since pretty much everything out of Bastyr is fringe, it's not surprising some of its alumni have achieved notability through fringe practices (lethal curcumin injections, plant enzyme diets etc.). Such people, if anything, are who we should be listing. I'm not seeing a problem with the section as it stands. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of the term and its connotation. However, this is first and foremost the page for an institute of higher education. Let's break it down this way. Bastyr University is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). NWCCU is an institutional accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Bastyr University should be permitted to follow the same format as all other institutions of higher learning on this site. This page simply outlines (as with other institutions of higher learning) facts about its course offerings, location, etc. The section on notable alumni, which was previously approved by editors, has now changed its formatting completely, using non-neutral terms and quoting to Quackwatch in the body of the text. It is my understanding that the purpose of a list of notable alumni is to provide useful information about a school and its alumni. The information currently included is not useful. It is inflammatory and biased. If readers wish to obtain more information, they can visit the individuals' WP page. The purpose of this section, as already stated, is to provide information about the school and its alumni. A list of names (with links to the relevant WP pages) and graduation years is a more than equitable solution to this issue. Alexbrn, I am sure you are not biased on this topic and are thus tasked with promoting a neutral point of view (above all else) of the categories of information listed. As an aside, I have noticed that the link to citation #66 is broken and the link attached to Peter J. D'Adamo misroutes users to a page on "blood type diet", not that alumni's WP page. If he has no page, the link should be deleted. If he has a page, the link should be corrected. Thank you.Dblanton03 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry DB, you don't make the rules here as to how we edit the encyclopeadia, we are governed by Policy and Guidelines which we have been trying to explain to you. Bastyr I'm afraid is not a normal institute of higher education, but one dedicated to Fringe ideas and the teaching of unscientific nonsense. Wikipedia requires us to reflect that. To compare it to such august establishments of higher education as you have is rather optimistic, and frankly is asking too much. You ask that we should provide useful information about the school and its alumni, and that is certainly what we are doing. I would like to thank you in this regard, as since your involvement here, the alumni section has been considerably improved, giving better information to readers about the type and quality of the edumacation you provide. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the Policy and Guidelines thoroughly, and have cited them to you above (which you do not address). From your comment, I can see that you refuse to approach this conversation from a neutral point of view (reference "edumacation") or with any aim at working together to ensure the page meets WP Guidelines, while at the same time, presenting neutral and unbiased information about the University. The alumni section, as it currently stands, is completely out of character for sections about notable people and definitely contains more information than is necessary for this type of page. While WP may consider naturopathy to be a 'fringe' topic, formatting guidelines nevertheless apply. I will circle back around to this section, but for now, wish to press forward. Under 'California campus', can we please update the sentence to read "The California campus offers a doctor of naturopathic medicine degree program, and also a master of science in nutrition for wellness degree." and "The first class of students graduated in spring 2016."Dblanton03 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Call for close[edit]

I move that we close this discussion as being nonproductive. I refer Dblanton03 to WP:1AM for practical advise on how to move forward with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources to work-in[edit]

Points:
  • Low admissions standards
  • Inadequate coursework to be a competent medical provider
Points:
  • Bastyr is threatening to sue blogger Britt Hermes for allegedly defaming the school.
  • On speaking about Bastyr and other ND schools, Edzard Ernst says, "These schools of quackery operate like cults. People are being brainwashed with books, by peers, through media and so forth."
  • Bastyr is not accredited by the same body that accredits US medical schools.
  • Lots of bio details on the blogger and her experiences at the school. (Likely not relevant for Bastyr's article.)
Points:
  • Bastyr president Powell steps down due to health concerns. (Should update infobox.)

I scanned for more sources but could not find any that are not cited in the article.

There was this puff peice which is "paid for by sponsors or the nonprofits featured here. They are not products of Voice of San Diego’s editorial staff," so ineligble for inclusion. It's funny, kind of reads a lot like the writings of the user who appears to be "The Terrible Sea Lion." Delta13C (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • "Bastyr University, a school of alternative medicine, which, like naturopathy itself, is the subject of constant criticism for promoting medical beliefs with no scientific basis (and in Bastyr’s case, for dubious academic practices as well)."
  • Discusses Peter J. D’Adamo, who is the inventor of the blood type diet. He was in Bastyr's first graduating class. I suppose he can be added to the list of notable alumni. The article discusses how his ideas are scientifically bunk. Delta13C (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, since he was just added, I don't think that Peter J. D'Adamo is notable enough, as he doesn't have an article of his own, the standard throughout the project for notable alumni. Unless of course the consensus is that we include him, just as a POINTY point? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I went back and forth here. Since he is likely notable within the Bastyr community, as indicated by the founding president saying he is great and all (Criticism section). The blood-type diet that D'Adamo invented has its own article, and it seems like the guy used to have his own article. I could go either way. Delta13C (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
There's been a redirect on Peter J. D'Adamo to Blood type diet since 2009, so think we should keep him in the notable alumni list. Delta13C (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
He's notable enough to be listed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bastyr University. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 08:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving problem[edit]

Something is not configured correctly because User:lowercase sigmabot III archived discussions here recently to Talk:Bastyr University/Archive 1 but there is no archive box here. Maybe the box needs to be placed, or maybe other discussions are somewhere else. I am sorry but I am unable to check or fix this right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Threads must of course include timestamps (usually part of signatures) to be archived. The bot settings appear allright at first glance, I just added the talk header which includes archive links. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)