Talk:Hoxsey Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Editorial Concerns 2 Merge Discussion 3 GMTA 4 Copyvio 5 Lead paragraph

[edit] Editorial Concerns

This article needs to seperate the difference between discussion of the Hoxsey Therapy/Method and the life of John Hoxsey (which could/should be its own biographical article). ju66l3r 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Hoxsey family history surrounding the method is multigenerational, since it was invented by John, but made famous under Harry, who had the noteworthy battles with the AMA and FDA. I tried to focus only on the parts of his biography that had bearing on the therapy and its associated clinics.--Rosicrucian 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After performing the merge (and thus getting closer to the info/text), I guess just the items to the end of the History section (he got cancer, used modern medicine for a cure, died) were the only parts I thought could be seen as less important to the Hoxsey Therapy..except he did try his method and it failed him which is pertinent. I'm less concerned with splitting off that info into a John Hoxsey article now than I was before. Of course, if anyone were to feel ambitious enough to want to create the Hoxsey biographical article, it'd be a reasonable (i.e. notable) addition to the wikipedia. ju66l3r 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Discussion

I couldn't find this article when I was looking for "Hoxsey method", so I created a new one... then found this one. Should they be combined?Kyouran 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing that now. ju66l3r 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've completed the merge. Please read through the article to be sure that I haven't duplicated or garbled any information in the merge process. ju66l3r 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMTA

Heh. More or less the same thought process I went through when I made the article, Kyouran. Was getting a little lonely editing it by myself. Hopefully we can work together to make a stronger article.--Rosicrucian 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The merge looks good, I think it hits on all the major points well. I'm curious to see how the case with this kid in Virginia works out. Kyouran 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

A lot of this article is taken verbatim from the American Cancer Society article linked at the bottom. Specifically the History and Side Effects sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.23.185.142 (talk • contribs) .

Okay. Thank you for the info. I didn't write the text (only merged 2 articles). I'll take a look at the possible copyvio and rewrite those sections. Anyone else is welcome to also do this as I'm a bit bogged down at work this second. ju66l3r 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworked the side-effects section to avoid copyvio. Going to look at the history section next.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just got home and read through the rewrite. Nice work. Thanks for taking care of it. ju66l3r 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

Umm... it really should be mentioned in the lead that the Hoxsey Therapy is considered entirely ineffective by the scientific and medical communities. I'm open to discussing the phrasing, but it should be in there. This is generally in line with how most unproven therapies are handled. Also, WP:LEAD says we should include "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." And there has. MastCell 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. After looking at the policy page you point out, I agree that notable criticism belongs in the lead section. Someone might like to add other information to the lead section to balance it. At the moment I don't see anything obviously suitable. --Coppertwig 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem... like I said, I'm not set on the current phrasing and I'd be open to other suggestions. I agree that the lead in general could certainly stand to be expanded. MastCell 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)