Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Archive of Addressed Criticisms 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
  1. WARNING for troublemakers (you all know who is in Wiki thought police): Competence is badly needed, and this project is serious. John simply has no equal in this project. Therefore his comments count double and triple. If problem-seekers (trouble makers) thought police or edutainment sysops don't give up police or "entertaining" attitudes, they need not apply. While Wiki is still free (at least in appearance) you are kindly advised and invited to get an education before you contribute in a field you don't understand. This spares everybody some precious time. Here is the deal: Either you comply with the competence rule or Wiki will become a project in special English, for drawing with Word and for inserting tampons using anatomical drawings. As you see, I'm back! And wisdom is always in finding an alternative :O) irismeister 21:21, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Contents

Three problems

Three problems: I know of no other WikiProject that demands only members edit the WikiProject page -- most only casually keep track of "members" at all. The purpose of a WikiProject should not be to advance a point-of-view on talk pages either. Finally, Wikipedians who do not have a favorable view of alternative medicine should still be allowed to participate in the WikiProject. Tuf-Kat 14:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

??? I suggest that you actually try reading what I wrote on the main project page. Wikipedians who do not have a favorable view of alternative medicine are allowed to join. In fact 25% of our current participants do not hold a favorable view of alternative medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Futher under section 3.2 Private Participants There is no need to disclose your name in order to participate. Simply add our announcement page to your watchlist and privately pledge to follow the guidelines of this WikiProject.
There is no need to list your name to participate at all!!! But, if you want to mess around with our project pages, then we are asking for the simple courtesy of formally listing your name. Seems reasonable enough to me. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nevertheless, one of the goals of the project is to explicitly promote alternative medicine on the talk pages and participants are allowed to either write neutral articles or hold a "favorable interest in some topic of CAM". Tuf-Kat 15:04, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Our "minimum required standard" is covered in our Quality of Standards project page. So, far in the alternative medicine article the criticism section fails to meet our "minimum required standard". Thus, the problem that I see is the current state of the respective CAM articles rather than with this project which is attempting to stop the current edit wars in CAM. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That comes under the originator of Wikiprojects in User:Manning Bartlett/WikiProject as follows.

Structural principles for a WikiProject page
  • defines the scope of the particular project
...
  • lists participating contributors
  • provides subject specific forums
What are the advantages?
...
  • Allows the development of special interest communities within the Wikipedia. This has already happened of course, but the WikiProject page formalises the process.
...
  • Provides a forum for 'Endorsement', without closing off editorial freedom. Each Wikiproject can evolve a definition of "minimum required standard". As entries achieve this status, they can be documented on the WikiProject page. Dissenters can always remove the status, or upgrade the entry in question.

-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You cannot develop a special interest community without talking about them someplace. And the obvious place is on the project talk page. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Like the rest of Wikipedia, this page is freely editable. You did not say that it is rude to edit this page without being a member, you said that nobody is allowed to edit this page except for members. Please name the WikiProjects that also follow this policy, so I can go tell them the same thing.
If this is meant as a reason to allow a policy of promoting CAM on talk pages, you misread the meaning of the above. The "special interest community" organized by a WikiProject page is meant to discuss ways of improving articles. There is no other purpose of a WikiProject. If you would like to form a special interest community to promote an opinion, do not do so on Wikipedia.
Finally, an editor's opinions on CAM have no bearing on their rights or responsibilities. All editors must make a good faith effort to write from a NPOV, no matter their opinions or membership status in this Wikipedia project. Tuf-Kat 16:22, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
It would be rude for anyone to work on the Wikiprojects for Philosophy or Medical Conditions, for example, if they did not favorably wiew the objectives of these respective projects. The same goes the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. As I have a reasonable expectation that some editors might try to destroy this project, I have stated up front what would happen if anybody tries. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
People are allowed to be rude. If anybody tries to destroy this project, their attempts will be subject to community consensus and the steps listed at Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. In any case, as long as the note remains an expression of opinion on this talk page, I have no problem with it. Tuf-Kat 18:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
The only dispute I currently have with this page is that it says editors may either hold a favorable opinion of CAM or write neutrally. Tuf-Kat 16:35, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Please either attempt to justify this note on the project page or remove it. Tuf-Kat 18:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

POV

A POV point: Under the "Scope" section, I saw

Philosophy of alternative medicine - CAM articles that support an alternative position on health, healing, and/or illness (my bold)

Wikipedia articles should not support any viewpoint; they should inform about every viewpoint. Since I'm not involved in this WikiProject it's not my perogative to edit the WikiProject page, but I'd like to request that a project member make a suitable correction. This is obviously a very controvertial subject, so if this WikiProject can turn out NPOV I'd be very happy. (P.S. "The rules are very simple here." section at the top of each page seems a bit... I dunno, negative and territorial, to me. Wouldn't it be more efficient and clearer just to have it once at the top of the main WikiProject page?) --Αλεξ Σ 03:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

seems a bit... I dunno, negative and territorial A number of people have made that comment while ignoring WikiDoc MD's only policy. Of course, you now have a teenager as one of your participants. Personally, I like to be upfront about what the rules are and are not. It makes enforcement of violations a lot easier and quicker down the road. -- John Gohde 04:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
The definition of these articles has been evolving. These articles are simple lists devoid of all text in most cases. So, if anything is supported it is done so in the individual referenced articles.
But, you have made a valid point.
I have noticed that a great many of the branches of alternative medicine articles need to have the first sentenced of the article changed in order to have the words pseudoscience or controversial removed as these articles are now classified in the infobox. The introductary paragraphs are prohibited from containing controversy. It is more than a minor problem. I would call it more of a disgrace. I would also call it disgusting.
Speaking of disgusting, how come there is a real void in articles about preventive medicine from a conventional medical stand point? The German edition of Wikipedia does a much better job of it. -- John Gohde 03:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Info box

Why is the info box so ugly? Can it be another colour than that? We need to at least put it at the bottom of crowded pages like iridology. Sam [Spade] 00:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Reply already exists at 23 -- John Gohde 00:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV & Standards of Knowlege

I don't consider this npov: "Real science offers the highest quality of Knowledge / Evidence by Western standards." Thoughts? heidimo 03:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Remember, we have to let the science people be happy. Let them have this one. Remember, not even the clinical practice of medicine qualifies as a real science. Only evidence-based medicine and integrative medicine does. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if the word "scientific" were inserted between the word "Western" and the word "standards". heidimo 22:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Western equates to Scientific. That is the whole point. The Western view of nature, is a scientific view of nature. Natural philosophy is Western rather than Eastern in origin for a reason. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that negates all the other ways of knowing, outside of scientific knowledge. heidimo 00:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to enlighten me with some specifics. -- John Gohde 07:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I just added a new standard of knowledge called Enlightenment in order to classify meditation. If you want to make changes, you have to be specific. -- John Gohde 16:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiDoc

Hi John, I'm just checking whether there might be any hard feelings concerning Wikidoc, soon to be named WikiProject "Clinical medicine". Individual participants might be POV on issues surrounding CAM, but there is no policy of our MD's clique to consistently take issue with CAM claims. As long as it remains abundantly clear who's saying what, I think it would be insane to fight RK-like wars on CAM vs. oldtimers.
By the way, who might you have in mind with the above statement: "the science people who only think that they are scientists" :-)?
JFW | T@lk 21:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

As I've stated on John's talk page, I think it would be a shame if the WikiDocs started flaming the CAMmers and vice versa. My strategy so far has been to stay out of ridiculous edit/reversal wars, and I'm not planning to change it...
JFW | T@lk 21:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
As long as the CAM people are allowed to express an alternative wiew per the example in Allergy, I don't see a problem arising. I think editors might be surprised at how broadly I am defining the scope of the CAM project. Exercise and Urine therapy are equally a part of CAM. So, hopefully editors wont object to our CAM talk and project namespaces. By the end of summer, our list of CAM related articles will be quite big.
Speaking of Wellness, I feel that the science point of view should be put in an alternative view section since wellness is clearly a CAM term. Healers is another similar article that I think needs cleaning up from a CAM perspective. No self-respecting physician would want to be called a healer. A healer is a practitioner of alternative medicine from my perspective.
"the science people who only think that they are scientists": I would operationally define it as the editors more interested in goading us CAM editors into flaming them than in working on constructive activties; who allegedly are schooled in the basic sciences. -- John Gohde 22:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
In other words, a troll. Or, perhaps a science troll. -- John Gohde 07:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Modality question

I'm confused about the options under modality. What does a lay practitioner, an unlicensed practitioner get called? An example would be a lay midwife, or a reiki master. It is not "self-care," nor is it "group," but it is not licensed and "professional" says licensed. heidimo 03:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Clicking on the Professionalized link should now answer your question. When you have to go to a doctor of any type, such as a midwife, then it is professionalized. If you have to go to a group, then it is a group modality. Otherwise, it is self-care. -- John Gohde 05:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't answer my question. Someone who took a class in Reiki and then starts practicing is not a doctor, by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a group modality. I doubt many midwives would call themselves or consider themselves "doctors" and they would be in trouble if they did. Perhaps we need licensed/regulated and unlicensed/unregulated categories, though of course the same profession would not get the same category in different countries. heidimo 17:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone who took a class in Reiki and then starts practicing - We should not be giving a lot of coverage to illegal practices of CAM. Offically, CAM should only be practiced by those legally licensed to practice. What the public decides to do from our articles on CAM is entirely up to them. -- John Gohde 18:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
If Reiki isn't regulated, then anyone can practice it, correct? I certainly agree that people who wish to practice medicine would benefit from study and licensure. heidimo 20:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Homeopathy is legal in only 4 four out of 50 states in the US. I assume that means that anybody trying to practice Homeopathy in Virginia would be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. Anybody who either diagnoses or treats illness can be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, unless the state licenses a particular branch of alternative medicine. As far as Reiki goes, a lot of nurses practice it. So, perhaps it is legal provided you are already a RN or a nurse practitioner.? -- John Gohde 07:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, now I think the definition is clearer. The Reiki practitioner is working in the "role" of a doctor, so it's professional. heidimo 18:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Grammar note

A sentence in the passive voice was written by you. Such sentences ought to be rewritten in the active voice.

There's a little irony here... Ashibaka ✎ 15:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Passive: I believe that theStandards of Quality Guidelines for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine have been finalized.
Active: I have finalized the Standards of Quality Guidelines for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine.
Well, Mr. Ed Poor this Wikiproject consists of a group of people. I have not gotten anyfeed back from them on this issue, nor have we voted on it. Until then I believe that theStandards of Quality Guidelines for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine have been finalized.
If that is your only response, then I take it that we have accomplished our objective? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
He was only commenting on your grammar, or so I think. Ashibaka ✎ 15:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Standards Of Quality Guidelines"

These may be a matter of some controversy, in that MNH is treating them as absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules when it's actually a style guide suggestion list written entirely by MNH. So therefore informed only by his point of view, no opposing points of view. I hope, MNH, you can see how this might lead to it not being considered absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules by others, but rather as a long essay on your point of view. To this effect, I've added a relevant {{msg:NPOV}} notice - David Gerard 14:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the erroneous {{msg:NPOV}} notice since that notice clearly only applies to articles.
95% of the comments posted on these project talk pages have resulted in changes made to our project pages. [personal attack deleted] there wont be any changes made on our SQG. I suggest that you read up on WikiProjects and educate yourself. Kindly STOP putting words into my mouth that I have never said, nor have even come close to saying. [personal attack deleted] Compliance audits will begin within a week or two (maybe even sooner) regardless of [personal attack deleted] -- John Gohde 06:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I have restored the {{msg:NPOV}} notice. An NPOV on style guides is far from unknown, c.f. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Where did you get the idea it "only applies to articles"?
I will be removing it. [personal attack deleted] [personal attack deleted] Second, some notices are for talk pages while others are for articles. The {{msg:NPOV}} notice is designed to protect the public. Since Project pages are not seen by the public, (because the Infoboxes are not supposed to link to project pages) there is nothing to protect the public from. Therefore, your placement of the {{msg:NPOV}} notice is erroneous. By the way, [personal attack deleted] -- John Gohde 15:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
1. I am indeed a participant, as shown in the history of Alternative medicine. If your style guide affects that article, then logically it would therefore affect an article I have an interest in improving.
Nope! See, start of this talk page for details. -- John Gohde 18:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
2. You have not addressed that NPOV warnings (whether the msg: warning or a separate text) do already exist on style guides. If on others, then they can exist on this one. Also, there is a clear dispute over whether it is NPOV or not, as can be seen by its history.
Nope! See direct quote below. It is up to you, not me, to point out your complaints of what is written in the article. -- John Gohde 18:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
3. You haven't addressed why this is somehow binding over anyone more than yourself.
There is nothing written in the article that says this or even hints at this. Are you sure that you are not lost? Are you even on the correct project page? -- John Gohde 18:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure these admit of simple and obviously correct answers. Thanks! - David Gerard 16:11, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Also, if you claim "Compliance audits will begin," you are ascribing it far greater status. So an NPOV is entirely fair warning - David Gerard 07:55, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I am ascribing nothing! I stated what will be happening within one or two weeks in Phase II of this project. -- John Gohde 15:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so it means nothing more than "I will be making edits as I see fit"? Thanks for clearing that up! - David Gerard 16:11, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I hereby authorise DG to edit this page. Futhermore he is authorised to edit any other page on Wikipedia with the exception of pages in the "user" namespace. (although User_talk pages are fine) Furthermore i extend this editting right to all and sundry with the exeption of those users banned by the Arbitration Committee. Anyone who says otherwise, or tries to stop DG or anyone else from edditing this page, or any other page (noting the exceptions above) can be ignored. I declare that Mr NH does not have the right to prevent people from ewditting this page. I make this declaration with the authoritory vested in me by yo'all. theresa knott 16:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but ever since Wikiprojects have been listing participants you have lost that authority. I will revert 100% of all edits made by any rude editor trying to so. And, per the above I wont state why in the edit summary. Do you want to also start an edit war on this project? I will revert twice a day till the next century. -- John Gohde 19:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I have posted a question in Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute. Depending upon the public response to this question, I may or may not proceed with exercising all of my options to bring both of you two to judgement for harassment.

Evidence at attempted reconciliation number 2

And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde 16:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Do it! You think disagreement is harassment? You think moving a table from place in a page to another is an attack, you think adding a valid quote back into an article is an attack - Let's see what the AC think. theresa knott 16:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I am talking about a clearly established pattern of behavior, on your part, of jumping from one article to another for the purposes of harassment.
And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde 17:58, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
If I am deemed to be in error, I shall certainly admit I was wrong and apologise. I am sure MNH will do the same if he is deemed to be in error - David Gerard 16:55, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

Ergo, list below DG precisely what you consider unacceptable about the article. -- John Gohde 17:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I find having seperate guidlines over and above the normal wikipedia editting guidlines unaceptable. I do not agree that alternative medical articles need special treatment. Therfore I object the the whole page. So I'm asking that the dispute message stays in. theresa knott 19:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing over and above what is already out there. It is just a compliation of existing guidelines that are organized, named, and numbered. Ergo, your objectiion is without any basis in fact. Cite one instance where I created a brand new guideline in this article. You can no more object to this whole page then you can object to this entire wikiproject. Objections must be directed at specific text written in this article. How many times do I have to point out the basics of NPOV? No wonder these SQGs are needed. -- John Gohde 22:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
"Objections must be directed at specific text written in this article." My objection is actually to your usage of the text. The text itself is fine as a personal style guide, but with your usage of it so far it does need to be marked as not being the official Wikipedia policy it's presented under colour of. Hence my suggested replacement NPOV text below - David Gerard 22:32, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Guidelines - style guides - are all well and good. I'm a big fan of style guides myself. But that does sum up my problem with it too: this is a personal style guide being used as if it were hard Wikipedia policy, which it isn't.
MNH is right in that msg:NPOV is probably not the right thing for the article. How about:
The suggestions in this style guide have been based in Wikipedia style guides and consensus policies as far as is possible. However, they are strictly advisory and do not themselves constitute hard Wikipedia policy.
- with whatever linkage would be appropriate. MNH, if you don't like msg:NPOV, how about the above text? - David Gerard 20:52, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Show me text in the article where I stated: they themselves constitute hard Wikipedia policy. I do not have to put up with your perceptual delusions. Your objection has nobasis in reality. The notice is removed with justification per long established NPOV guidelines. -- John Gohde 22:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
The text is not in the article, it's in your usage of it as a reason to delete text from articles. Hence the need for a banner at the top pointing out that it is not in fact the hard Wikipedia policy you present it in the manner of.
A suitable alternative would be for you to stop doing that, of course. - David Gerard 22:32, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Then you put the NPOV notice on the wrong project page. Put the notice where I specifically made that statement. -- John Gohde 22:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I did exactly that - you deleted it claiming it constituted a personal attack [1]. So it goes on the article itself, centrally.
In any case, I still agree with Theresa Knott's objection: you can't unilaterally impose greater restrictions than are actually hard policy. - David Gerard 22:50, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

The introducy paragraph of this project paged states: Our Standard of Quality Guidelines voluntarily impose more restrictive requirements on CAM than those required for Wikipedian articles in general. There are a number of reasons for these more restrictive guidelines.

Voluntary means voluntary on my planet. Does voluntary mean hard policy on your planet David? -- John Gohde 23:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you then saying you won't make an edit like this [2] again, where you treat it as hard policy binding on others than yourself? That's all I ask - David Gerard 23:25, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have added the following to the end of the introduction of this project page.

Use of these SQGs is both voluntary and optional. But, using these SQGs will allow editors to objectively talk about what is wrong with the latest edit without resorting to personal attacks. You can easily cite a half dozen of these SQG numbers in your edit summaries or in detail on talk pages. And, of course, you can also refer to the full quote from any of the twelve Wikipedian references utilized on this project page.

-- John Gohde 00:39, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I joined your project.

I joined your project. I hope this can become a good NPOV article set of articles. Ashibaka ✎ 04:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is not an article, but the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. How about working on an outline of the Standards of Quality that all articles on alternative medicine, such as urine therapy should be following. Or, would you prefer to work on the Classification System for classifying all forms of alternative medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I can point you in a couple of good directions.
We need some type of checklist to determine if an article will past our standards of quality test. How do we operationally test for compliance with NPOV, etc. etc. etc. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I wouldn't know where to start on writing the standards of quality, but maybe once more people join the project we could get working on it. The medicine standards do look like a good starting place. Ashibaka ✎ 15:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have started work on this important document at: Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality. Perhaps you can locate other Wikipedia policy articles and the like that should be considered when checking for NPOV, etc. ? Also, discussions on our Standards of Quality document should now be carried on its respective talk page at: Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality. This talk page should be reserved for discussions about this wikiproject in general or its scope, goals, tasks, participating in it, and the management thereof. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Changes to Project

I have made some changes to the "Participants" section of this WikiProject, and will be making more changes to other sections. My goals are:

  1. To remove any suggestion that one particular editor has more rights over the current or future direction of the project than any other.
  2. To remove any suggestion that the Project is any more than a set of guidelines.
  3. To open up the project to people who may not be supporters of Complementary and Alternative medicine, but are prepared to address the issue in a neutral way.
  4. To ensure that CAM articles are held to the highest standards of Wikipedia, without imposing additional requirements that other articles do not face.

These are my personal goals. Of course, I welcome discussion and disagreement, and will attempt to work amicably with anyone who disagrees on any of it. -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about dealing with people who are openly and actively hostile towards Complementary and Alternative medicine, and cannot be neutral in their editing of articles within this project. Your changes make no mention of this chronic problem, which has yet to be resolved in any satisfactory way, to my knowledge. heidimo 20:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still active?

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Medicine to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 08:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes -- It is still active. But, I guess that you really want it to be active? No problem'o. John Gohde 08:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

purple font on a red background is hard to read

Hmm, I think I like the infoboxes so far. I find purple font on a red background hard to read--maybe that could be toned down a bit and made more legible. heidimo 01:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great idea! I completely forgot about hyperlinks *always* showing up with purple letters. I have selected another lighter color shade. Our choice of color is supposed to uniquely identify our Wikiproject. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's much easier to read now, and less jarring. I like the idea of having a color scheme distinct to the project. heidimo 15:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The master list of colors for Wikiproject infoboxes is located at Wikipedia:Infobox.
Our new color is actually more unique than my original choice. The new choice is, also, one of the so called safe colors. The safe color list on the Wikipedia:Infobox page was not usable to me, and probably everybody else, because they used the wrong coding system for some unknown reason. So, I finally dug out my own personal list of safe colors that I had used to design my website with and found that our current color choice looked pretty good and was actually still available. There are not too many light color shades still available. I am sure that there is a way to vary light intensity, but I simply do not know what coding commands are required. Nor, have I been able to find very much help on how to code these infoboxes on Wikipedia. So, I had to go with what I found to work for whatever reason. My first coding attempt ended up destroying all of the text in the article. The current version works, but I am not completely sure why. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What infobox am I supposed to be using?

The article series box {{CamBottom}} should be placed on the following types of articles.

  • Stub articles (under the stub notice).
  • For articles about CAM and at least one other topic, or for articles that are claimed by another Wikiproject (ex., Hatha yoga).
  • For articles where you don't want to make a lot of noise.
  • It is, also, perfect for those editors who cannot deal with customizing our infoboxes. The article series box should be viewed as a more complete replacement for those See also link lists which are often seen at the bottom of many articles.

The primary version of our infobox is just for the Branches of Alternative Medicine (which covers the area of fully developed systems of alternative medicine or specific alternative methods of treatment or therapy). A few branches, however, are not just about CAM; like the articles on astrology, cognitive behavior therapy, and hypnosis. For these article exceptions, you should be using our article series box {{CamBottom}}.

For articles on the Philosophy of CAM (which is a very broad area of alternative positions on health, healing, and illness) or for famous people in CAM that are very strongly related to our topic you should be using the secondary version of our infobox. Examples would be Lifestyle diseases for a philosophy of article. And, Samuel Hahnemann as a representative founder of a branch of CAM called homeopathy. For a person like Frances Wright who did many different things in her lifetime use the articles series box {{CamBottom}}. For a philosophy article like wellness that really should be totally about our subject, but is currently laced with a lot of scientific stuff you should be using the article series box {{CamBottom}} until the article receives a major re-write during Phase V of our project.

In short, when in doubt you should be using the article series box {{CamBottom}}. But, if the article is strongly about CAM as it is currently written try to use one of our customized infoboxes. -- John Gohde 16:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

CamBottom

As stated on John's talk page, I oppose the insertion of Mediawiki:CamBottom on every medical page without mentioning the CAM viewpoint in the article body. This is a subtle but deplorable way of pushing a POV, and I hope you'll agree to:

  • Move the box to the Talk pages, or
  • Make it smaller and not orange, or
  • Actually state your views rather than simply dumping a box on every page!

I hope something can be worked out, because this is simply not acceptable! JFW | T@lk 10:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This attack against {{CamBottom}} is total nonsense, as you very well know. {{CamBottom}} is an ASB.
  1. The WikiProject on Medicine's ASB is absolutely huge.
  2. The WikiProject on Medicine's ASB violates the every WikiProject has to chose and use its own color rule.
  3. The WikiProject on Medicine's ASB pushes a POV, just as much as our ASBs do.
  4. Everywhere we have actually bothered to state our views, our ASBs etc. have been deleted / vandalized. Everywhere where we have wasted time doing what you people have asked for our ASBs etc. have been deleted / vandalized.
-- John Gohde 14:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those strongly objecting to {{CamBottom}} now have two options. They can either elect to display it on the very top of the article as a Category or on the very bottom of the page. Clicking on either will provide the explanation. {{CamTiny}} now works completely like text, because it is text. So, you can place it anywhere near the bottom of the page.

  • Template:CamTiny

It is your choice: Categories on top or See other on the bottom. [[Category:Alternative medicine]] should be put on the very bottom of the article, but it always displays on top.

-- John Gohde 20:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider applying for a bot to place a bambox on every article in the encyclopedia? I am sure that you could find some tenuous (I got the word right that time) link to AM from each and every article in the encyclopedia.... - Xgkkp 01:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiproject%7EAlternative_Medicine_Archive_of_Addressed_Criticisms_1_1355.html"