Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

1

Dan, you are very confused, please follow the link and read the original article. (A) The ADL article is about Israel Shahak and others who engage in anti-Semitic quote mining. Why do you keep denying this? Go back and read the entire article. (B) Why are you using the strawman argument of saying "he has been accused of misinterpreting Jewish law, when he does not interpet Jewish law, he reports other's interpretations". That's childish. How would feel if I rewrote Wikipedia articles on race relations and Nergos with the most vile, bigoted, infantile and stupid speech from a handful of black rappers and self-hating blacks? That's possible, but this kind of racist quote-mining to make an entire ethnic look bad is a violation of intellectual integrity. RK 23:03, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Done & Presenting the New Leaner Alternative Medicine

Perhaps RK in combination with TK have managed to bamboozle themselves, yet again? Click here [1] for my version of alternative medicine with minimal text. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 11:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, both RK in combination with TK have managed to bamboozle themselves. For the first time, I actually read the section on contemporary use of alternative medicine section and spotted a NCCAM survey that I was not aware of. It is 20 pages of public domain data that is precisely what I need to write an alternative medicine section on a number of conventional medicine articles, various diets, etc., etc. etc. I now have the facts to that supports my global definition of CAM. Thanks once again, TK! I would never have spotted this valuable survey without your help. The WikiDoc people will come to show wikilove to me thanks to TK! -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 20:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have been editing for several days on this motherload of data, thanks to the collective work of both RK & TK and I am still not done, yet! I still have to work on CAM diets, mega-vitamin therapy, vitamin supplements and natural products. Scores of lost articles have been found, perhaps close to 100 in all, thanks to TK. Thanks for protecting this page, guys! I would never have found this motherload of data without your help. Thanks once again, TK. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The group version is better. But this page is overshadowed and degraded by the wonderment of which headbutter's head is harder in the end. It's not the collaborative project that it should be. Anyone who enters the fray does so at great risk. Pollinator 12:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

It's a great shame, but hopefully a forthcoming AC ruling will make this place nicer for everyone.theresa knott 09:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I feel the group version is much better. I'm tempted to do a revert (as per MNH's policy: "Large deletions of text automatically calls for a revert, IMHO." (see above)) so that people can work on the page from before, but I won't. Instead, I "Vote" for the version from before MNH's recent edits. Though, on second thoughts, maybe it would be better to wipe the page and start again from scrath, as a collaborative group project. - Xgkkp 17:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it is all the same to you, if it is going to be a group effort then I might as well wait until the article is unprotected. Currently, I am working on a major addition to my website that will consist of a presentation of alternative medicine as history during 19th century Europe and America. You know stuff that is based on historical fact, rather than hot air. You guys should feel free to continue editing this article in a never ending spiral of circular editing. Personally, I have better things to do than work on this nonsense. I mean really! Changing the levels of indention so that support paragraphs wont actually appear to be support? I find that a rather screwy waste of time. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way John but never the less I intend to press on. I'm starting a vote, when the vote gets to 80% one way or the other I'll copy the temp page over into the real article. theresa knott 07:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And, one way or the other there will be an admin having her admin actions being reviewed. It is not Wikipedian to keep articles protected. And,not only will I request that this page be unprotected I will have something new to complain about. RK trashed both althernative medicine and TCM exactly like he did the last time. RK has been in Talk:TCM, but not here to discuss his edit. Therefore, this page will be unprotected. That is the only thing that counts in the land of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh I fully expected to be listed on review of admin actions. That's why I'm being so careful here. Careful but not intimidated. As for requesting the page to be unprotected you are free to request whatever you like; however to state "this page will be unprotected" seems a little premature. You have to find an admin willing to do it first. As for RK, like I said before I cannot force him to edit, just as i cannot force you. theresa knott 09:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Voting

gotta go to work... when does voting close? Erich 21:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh there is plenty of time. The most popular option so far is neither version! So I'll wait for someone to respond to my request to do a rewrite, before setting a closing date. I don't see it as being set in stone. Just which version we should be working on. theresa knott 22:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

things are quiet on the labour floor... well I was feeling sympathetic towards MNH (he's like that drunk that keeps getting beaten up - its not really his fault he's that abrasive) and was going to try and make the current temp article a bit smoother and more reasonable, but having seen his latest edit which appears to be just back to how he wants it [2] I could no longer be bothered. All versions I've seen are unbalanced but there is fantastic material here to make an article to be really proud of. If anyone wants to seek a 'medical view' I'll be on my talk page but meanwhile i'm taking this debacle off my watch list. good luck to all and may calm NPOV heads prevail. Erich 23:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes for MNH's version with minimal text

• [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]]

Votes for the previous version

• Pollinator

Votes for neither version

• The lean version is too lean - too many references to not enough text. But the previous version is thoroughly unbalanced between criticism and support. We shouldn't need to split it like that into pro and anti - we should be able to just present the facts as they exist, without the article being a recapitulation of the "I'm right" "No, I'm right" battles that are inevitable on the talk pages. -- ALargeElk | Talk 09:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • • I obviously did not edit the references. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 23:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • John what do you think about going back to the older version mentioned below and working from there? Clearly any new information added since then would need to go back in, but the layout, the tone etc could remain the same. Do you like the idea? theresa knott 10:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you rewrite the article and put it on the temporary page please? So we can see what you have in mind. Cheers theresa knott 09:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I will do if I get a chance - I realise that "A plague on both your houses" is not the most helpful response.-- ALargeElk | Talk 09:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks - it doesn't have to be perfect, just make a rough start and people can edit it. I only started the vote above to see if the general opinion was - should we continue working on the old version or should we start again with MNH's cut down one. theresa knott 10:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Xgkkp I believe that there is too much controversy over the original, and yet MNH's version doesn't seem that good either. I vote for a re-start of the article. - Xgkkp 14:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You can guess what I'm about to say can't you? Would you please restart the article from scratch and put it on the temp page. Cheers theresa knott 14:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...I might agree with Xgkkp, but I can see it's risky, so I guess I'd better not. ;o) Pollinator 21:35, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking over the article as it was in the past. It wasn't always so pro and anti. MykReeve did a major rewrite some months ago to try and present a more balanced view. Several people edited that vesion until it looked like thisbut unfortunately it deteriorated into the current form afterwards. People might want to consider starting again from this version. theresa knott 08:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, and an excellent starting point.-- ALargeElk | Talk 08:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another solution

Another solution would be to use this version of Complementary and alternative medicine. Some of it derives from NCCAM's public domain faq on CAM, which also might be a good starting point for a new version. It still needs work, but it have not suffered from the edit wars that Alternative medicine has, so it might provide a fresh start without starting completely from scratch.

I believe the March version of Alternative medicine mentioned above is superior to my link. So scratch that. Rasmus (talk) 08:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also believe it would be better to have the article placed at Complementary and alternative medicine. After all, all versions of the article seems to be discussing complementary medicine as much as alternatice medicine.

Rasmus (talk) 08:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We could redirect AM there and also redirect CM there. theresa knott 10:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I vote against the name change. In Wikipedia the article is called alternative medicine. Besides, complementary and alternative medicine is still out of date as it does not include integrative medicine.

So how about Supplementary complementary and alternative medicine? (sorry sorry)Geni

The issue to be resolved is text that wont be constantly revised as in edit war promoting. The least said about alternative medicine in the article the better, IMHO. Let us not forget about the existence of category:alternative medicine! Terms and concepts in alternative medicine also covers a lot of ground. The alternative medicine article currently is not as important as some might think. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 21:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there john. If we cut down the text to your version people will try to expand the article by adding stuff. An article called alternative medicine should discuss alternative medicine. People doing a web search for alternative medicine will find this article first. They may not go on to other pages in the same category. So this page should give a pretty comprehensive overview ofthe topic.

Can you live with the starting again from the old version mentioned above? theresa knott 08:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simplified Vote - should we go back to Older version of Alternative Medicine and start again? (Vote Ends Friday 9am UTC unless a consensus is not reached)

Since this version is liked by at least a few people let's do a quick poll to see if it's a good idea to start again from there. I've initally put a couple of days down for voting as I want to move quickly. If we don't get 80% consensus I'll extend the voting period and go with a simple majority unless someone can come up with a better idea. (I've taken the liberty of adding votes for people based on the discussion above - I've only done it where I'm sure, but if I've got it wrong feel free to chastize me theresa knott 08:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Agree

• Theresa Knott
• ALargeElk
• Rasmus

Disagree

• geni Many errors in that version. The way is worded is just begging to start an edit war.
  • I'd put that more down to edit warriors than the text. I don't like any of the versions that much. - David Gerard 13:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) I wrote a lot of that version, including the definition. I still see a lot of things that need to be changed. For one, it is weak on the definitions of CAM and integrative medicine. How will this version reduce the constant editing? It is only a matter of time before a certain ISP will re-introduce that stupid JREP prize. The problem with this version is that there is no way to respond to these stupid criticisms.
  • But the point people are making is that a "support section" and a "critism" section make for a bad article.theresa knott 19:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm ... I'd actually disagree with that - it works on so many other articles. But I think one of the problems with this article is that the most ardent editors aren't writing for the POV they don't believe in properly - David Gerard 19:56, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with you there theresa knott 00:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I link to the criticism section in terms and concepts in alternative medicine. How do you reference the criticisms without a section header? -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 19:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comment

• Huh. Perhaps revert to a version from the end of last November. - David Gerard 13:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Link please David theresa knott 14:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I promise not to shoot my mouth off like that on a contentious talk page. The versions from then are pretty awful too. I have no vote on this matter. There's been a lot of good and potentially good material added to this article this year; whichever version we restarted from, it'd go through much the same process. Hence it being more about the editors than the starting text - David Gerard 15:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, which is why I'm not voting. I had no quarrel with the most recent versions, apart from the discussion I was having (which disappeared to the archive despite not having finished - near the end progress was being made), and I'll probably be editing that paragraph in whatever version end up as the main page. - Xgkkp 16:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry about archiving an ongoing discussion :-( theresa knott 19:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A better idea

I would suggest that we start out by voting on the required content of theAlternative medicine article.

I will start out with:

1. Definitions of alternative, complementary, CAM, and integrative medicine.
2. Contemporary use of alternative medicine.

-- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 20:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can go along with this we'd also need:

1. history (History of alternative medicine already exists!)
2. legal issue
3. branches (Branches of alternative medicine already exists!)
4. Geographical or culteral differences

(They above are not meant to be section headers, just topics that should be addressed somewhere in the article) Every section should be written neutrally. All the facts and important opinions should be stated, (both for and against) and the reader should be left to decide. theresa knott

(The reader is not left to decide in iridology. So, why here? -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 02:09, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC))

You just can't help yourself can you? I'm not going to respond to flamebait theresa knott 07:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. How can you claim that the reader should be left to decide on alternative medicine while on iridology the reader is spoon feed what they are supposed to believe? I would like an an answer to that question. Now you want the alternative medicine article to look like precisely like an older version that was changed long ago for some kind of a hidden agenda. How about just unprotecting alternative medicine so that a collective of editors can edit it? This game of yours is starting to wear pretty thin. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You wanna talk about iridology? Use the iridology talk page. And no I will not unprotect AM so that more edit wars can start. Editors can edit the temp page. I will copy the temp page over to the real article once there is a reasonably ammount of support. theresa knott 07:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like every damned sentence will need to be referenced. (And I don't mean with newspaper anecdotes.) - David Gerard 21:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No that would make the article impossible to read. theresa knott 01:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Results of the polls

• keep old version 1
• use MNH's slimline version 1
• revert to older version 3
• do not revert to older version 2

So no consensus to do anything :-(

There has been a lot of cristism frim a lot of people saying the aricle is biased. Perhaps a complete rewrite is the only solution? Or does anyone else have any other ideas? theresa knott 08:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A survey released in May 2004 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, found that in 2002, 43 percent of Americans pray for their own health, 24% pray for others health, and 10% participate in a prayer group for their own health. Let us all pray for theresa knott, so that we may all once again edit alternative medicine in a peace that passeth all understanding. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:20, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LOL I'm happy for people to pray for me, though since I am an atheist myself I am doomed to go to hell. in the meantime MNH you can still edit the temp page. theresa knott 09:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Call for a New Vote on a brand new minimal version

I have just completed a major re-write of Alternative medicine/temp (i.e, [3]) to follow a new cleaner and leaner version of alternative medicine. And, I would like to get a new vote on it. Otherwise, kindly unprotect alternative medicine Theresa knott, as nobody else is offerring any other suggestions. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 18:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes For new minimal version

Click here [4] to view new minimal version.

1. [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 18:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes Against the new minimal version

1. It's too minimal. I don't understand what the objection is to having a "pro" and "con" section. You can't sensibly write an article on this subject that doesn't even mention the placebo effect. Obviously, though, you can't mention the placebo effect (a major issue raised by those hostile to CAM) yet omit major issues raised by proponents of CAM. Therefore, as a practical matter, the article has to report both sides of the dispute, even if that does produce something of a "yes it is" - "no it isn't" tone. JamesMLane 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes For Another Version

Pre RK version. If he want to put those changes in he can discuss them like everyone else. MNH's version relies too much on one report that covers one small part of the globe.Geni

Yeah, my version relies on the facts rather than just the hot air of the malcontents! -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 00:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and includes very little useful informationGeni

Collection of links

Hi, James.

1. There's no particular reason for a dmoz link to be included in this or most other articles. It doesn't (necessarily) add much more value to an article than linking to a Google search on the article's title and calling it "Search Google for ... ".
2. A significant number of the dmoz links in current articles are despammed ebook2u links. They weren't added to Wikipedia in good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copies

_of_Wikipedia_content_%28low_degree_of_compli ance%29#eBook_2u_.28http:.2F.2Fwww.ebook2u.co m.29 diff].

1. That link survived for almost 5 months as ebook2u spam and no-one seemed to misunderstand its link text: "Alternative Medicine Information". Why is "Alternative Medicine Directory" so much more confusing?
2. Not everyone knows what dmoz is but most people seem to know what a directory is, given that the most popular site on the web is a directory.
3. All web pages are "collections of links". If you believe that such words as "directory" or "dmoz" overestimate the cluefulness of Wikipedia readers, it strikes me that "collection of links" errs in the opposite direction.
4. There are at least 30 other Wikipedia pages that assume the user either knows or doesn't care that "dmoz", "directory" and "Open Directory Project" refer to "collections of links". Do you plan to fix those pages as well?
5. Should we also change all those IMDb links variously annotated as "IMDB page for ... ", "IMDb entry for... ", "IMDb filmography" to "collection of film links"? After all, not everyone knows what IMDb is.

chocolateboy 19:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

My response:

1. I agree with you about not putting a dmoz link on everything in sight. With this particular article, however, the dmoz link is valuable because "alternative medicine" covers so many different treatments. A Google search for that phrase won't produce a set of references nicely organized by subtopic, which is provided by the dmoz page.
2. The origin of the link doesn't matter. There's a lot of valuable stuff in Wikipedia that wasn't added in good faith, but to promote someone's agenda.
3. I didn't add the parenthetical because of the change from "information" to "directory." My reason was rather the belief that it's a service to the readers to give them an idea of what they'll find at an external link. They'll normally assume they'll find some additional substantive content they can read; they should be notified if it's just links, or isn't in English, etc.
4. In this context, a "directory" could well be a list of alternative medicine practitioners by state.
5. You're right that most web sites do include links. The difference is that they also have some text, which a reader pursuing a link from this article might want to read. The point about noting this site as a collection of links is that it has essentially no other information.
6. No, I have no such plan. I added two parentheses and three words to this article because I was working on this article. The issue is whether the change is an improvement here, not whether there are numerous other improvements someone could make to numerous other articles. Wikipedia will never be completed.
7. An IMDb link doesn't need explanation under the philosophy I detailed above. Clicking on a link to IMDb does get you more information about the subject, which is what the reader would generally expect from an external link. An IMDb entry isn't just a collection of links. (It's also better known than dmoz, especially to someone who's at an article about a film.)

I'll defer reverting in case you want to continue the discussion. After all the turmoil over this page, we certainly don't want to get in an edit war over something like this! JamesMLane 20:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply, and thanks for giving me enough time to work out that you're right :-)

I've added a new version which I hope is acceptable.

In the spirit of this article's illustrious martial history, I've listed a bunch of forthright objections to your points above, even though I agree with you and hope we've reached a consensus :-) They're really objections to the "collection of links" wording rather than to your underlying point.

1. Fair enough.
2. They weren't added to promote an agenda, which I agree is no (intrinsically) bad thing; they were added to drive traffic to a commercial site. There's a difference between POV and spam.
3. I agree with your reasoning, which is precisely why I think the description should be technically correct. "Collection of links" (or "just links") could refer to Robot Wisdom, a discussion thread, or a porn link farm. In addition, it doesn't do justice to the carefully (manually) classified, hierarchically organized Web directory concept at all. It's as likely to discourage a surfer who might benefit from the link as it is to protect one whose time (or bandwidth) would otherwise be squandered.
4. Given that that's precisely what the third link on the page points to I doubt there'd be much confusion. The word "directory" wasn't chosen randomly.
5. That makes it sound like it's links all the way down, link-farm stylee. Of course, that's not the case. Click on any of the top-level links and you'll find the text you crave.
6. We could all implement experimental micro-policies (which is what I consider that annotation to be - a kind of subtitle for the surfing-impaired, a disability we don't usually, as far as I know, impute to our gentle readers), but without consensus I don't see how one could expect them to avoid being reverted back to the prevailing norm. I suppose I asked because I imagine that if you undertook such a task, you might meet some resistance in other quarters, perhaps from people able to express the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy better than me. Then again, you might be garlanded with laurels and greeted with rapturous rounds of applause :-) Just to be clear: I don't have any problem with the idea of a link being annotated in cases where the target is, as you say, written in a foreign language, or a PDF, or where the title alone doesn't reveal much, or where the site is virulently POV or not worksafe or whatever. I just don't think this link falls into the special treatment category any more than the other dmoz links.
7. Fair enough. But Yahoo is better known than any other site in the solar system and displays these words prominently on its front page: "Web Site Directory - Sites organized by subject". It doesn't say: "Web Site Directory (collection of links) - Sites organized by subject". If it did, I think it would arouse no small degree of inadvertent mirth. In the context of the web, people know what a directory is.

chocolateboy 02:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I can live with your version. As for your other comments, I've had much experience in volunteer organizations before ever discovering Wikipedia. The most important rule for a volunteer to remember is: "Never expect gratitude." If I somehow find myself being "garlanded with laurels and greeted with rapturous rounds of applause," fine, but I ain't holdin' my breath.  :) JamesMLane 03:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

:-) Thanks again.

chocolateboy 04:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)