Talk:Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

The recent edits by 70.35.30.54 do seem to have shifted the viewpoint of this article a bit and as a result I'm not sure that it's NPOV anymore. -- KurtRaschke 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

User:Roguegeek escalated the dispute tag from "POV Check" to "TotallyDisputed". The text of the "TotallyDisputed" tag instructs us to turn to the Talk page for an explanation. Roguegeek, I sympathise with your tag; I hate the group this article is about too. But unless you explain your complaint, nothing good can happen. ACW 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I put it there because there are items in the article that need sources and show definite POV problems. NOT because I hate the people in the group. Not sure where you got that info from, but you're absolutely wrong in your assertion. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time I thought I might have had when I originally posted it and don't have the time now to explain. I'll do it later at another time and until then, I'll remove the "TotallyDisputed" tag. I'm also not going to put the "POV Check" back since no one has decided to explain why it's there (including User:KurtRaschke who originally put it there). If you have a dispute, place a tag and explain it here. Roguegeek 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I apologize for any unwarranted attribution of opinions to Roguegeek, though I stand by my feeling that any POV Check or Dispute tags should be accompanied by some sort of note on the relevant talk page. Of course, the best-laid plans gang aft agley, and I appreciate that one doesn't always have the time to do what one intends. Anyway, all of this discussion is mooted by User:MastCell's rewrite, which at a first glance looks pretty good to me. ACW 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I believe in this foundations cause or not really doesn't matter here. The truth is I don't know enough about the subject to make to make any statements right now. My original concerns came from the POV and unreferenced statements. Ultimately, info needs to be NPOV and be well referenced. In an attempt to be a good Wikipedian, all I care about is making sure these things are in place in any article I have interest in. Roguegeek 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is totally misleading and dangerous. The point with Chron's Disease is wrong as I know from my own familiy. However, I do not think that I have the expertise to take up the debatte on the issues presented here. Someone who can should give it try. --Philiboy 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mooted by MastCell's rewrite, no? ACW 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded

I've tried to expand this article a little further. Comments? MastCell 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I'll like it even more when Roguegeek and Philiboy check in and say they like it. But this looks much more encyclopedic and level-headed now. I only worry that somebody inclined to the HIV-skeptic side might find it slanted in the other way, but I can't judge that; such people should step forward and express an opinion here on the talk page. ACW 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Very informative with no POV or reference problems. Touches on all of the major aspects of the organization. I like the way it turned out a lot! On a personal note, I'm going to study and follow your contributioins MastCell simply because you seem to be a great editor for the Wikipedia community, something I'm striving towards myself. Roguegeek 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree completely. And I repeat my apology to Roguegeek for having digressed into unwarranted (and irrelevant) speculations about eir personal opinions. And I second Roguegeek's praise of MastCell's fine workmanship here. ACW 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries man. No worries. Roguegeek 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mastcell and ACW, you've done a great job! Thanks for the corrections!Philiboy 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a most controversial topic -- very much alike the Holocaust denial issue -- this article is very much on topic, neutral and "encyclopedic". By the by; on a personal note, I'd like to see these people (as well as the Holocaust deniers) slowly roast on an open fire for all eternity. But then again that's just me. --Tirolion 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)