Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 6

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.

Contents

studies

Is having studies that support or detract from specific alt med claims really a good idea? The problem is that I could produce dozens of studies that find not effects for homeopathy of chiropracty and the articlr could end up looking slightly odd. Wouldn't it be better to put studies aimed at specific forms on thier own pages?Geni 16:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Correct! Studies on homeopathy and chiopractic should go on their respective articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That's reasonable but the problem is, the section gives the impression that AM therapies are on the whole ok, and that some people dismiss the whole of AM becuase of the failings of one branch of it. I am trying to redress the balance by showing that debunking is not confined to just say for example homeopathy, but in fact applies to many other bramches of AM. If you or anyone can think of a way of wording this critism of AM without the need for all the references, then i am happy to port them to the respective pages. theresa knott 14:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think one example per critism would be a good apraoch. Currently we have two examples of research showing that a perticular alt med does not work I havn't got round to reading the iridology research yet but assuming it is of good quality I would keep it ond drop the mention of the bbc test (which doesn't really test homeopathy anyway). There are some cross CAM aricles such as this onehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12974558 which may be useful. I'll see what else I can find.Geni 16:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I hate to break your bubble, but the way of real science says that no single research study can either prove or disprove anything in medical / health research. Most research papers state more research is needed for a reason. Even conventional medicine does this. They issue practice guidelines which tries to or suggests how clincial practice should treat a specific medical condition. To repeat, a single research study never ever is the final word on anything in the wonderous way of real science . -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is not however nesscary to include these studies in the article. If you fell otherwise I will be more than happy to insert studies that back the 'it does not work critism'. Just expect to end up with a very long article that is a pain to readGeni
I suggest that you try reading the very first paragraph in the support section. Nobody, certainly not me, is certifying that alternative medicine works. Nevertheless, there are plenty of real physicians who use complementary and integrative medicine in their clinical practice of medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The reason I put them in is because Mr Natural health tends to remove critisms of AM if they are not backed up by studies. theresa knott 18:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I did read it. I'm not objecting to it. I'm suggesting that it may not be be nesscary to provide so many many studies that on focus on one critism. Since you don't feel this is the case do you wan't me to list all the studies I have avaible supporting the varius critisms? Geni

John we are not trying to "prove or disprove" anything. We are trying to write a well balanced article. The fact that plenty of real physicians who use complimentary medicine does not mean that the article should not have a robust critism section. Dont you agree? theresa knott 19:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Per comments I made on my talk page: There are a number of possible academic arguments that can be made against the field of alternative medicine. I could list them *all* myself. In fact, I wrote most of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section.
What I want are *all* the rational clearly established criticisms added to the article and all the irrational nonsense against alternative medicine taken out so that the current state of edit wars can end. It is as simple and as plain as that. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Citing Michalsen 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003... Psychology (CBT, Hypnosis) and a hot bath (hydrotherapy), are alternative medicine? How are studies about fairly welll known, HMO/publicly publicly paid for, normal kinds of medicine "alternative", be useful in supprting C/AM? I don't see anything in the listed branches of C/AM that covers hot baths being good for circulation as anything other than accepted science, or that indicated basic psychotherapy as being anything other than conventional medicine.

I was going to remove the studies, and all text that references it, but it might be nice if someone could explain to me how hot baths are anything but accepted conventional medicine, or why CBT is supposed to be something beyond mainstraim, conventional, science and medicine. Ronabop 06:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by most scientists.

Actually, the correct comment should be: This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by those people who think that they are a scientist.

At this time, I would like to point out that my comment in our Wikiproject standard of quality guidelines about adding any hint of controversy in the first 3 paragraphs documents non-compliance to our guidelines was created long before the latest change in the article.

Of course, alternative medicine has been adding controversy in the first three paragraphs for quite some time, now. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

contirversy=staments that are not pro alt med?Geni

The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter

What has this got to do with anything? It is type specific It is a logiacl fallicy (appeal to popularity) It has nothing to do with the legitimcy or otherwise of alt medGeni

It is of course a response to the following criticism under regulation.
Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. This would require these treatments to be proven safe and effective in scientific trials, a hurdle that these critics strongly believe would not be met; some herbal preparations, like ephedra, have been proven to be dangerous. Herbal preparations also vary in potency and may be contaminated.
-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it doesn't even respond to the critism. "The criticism voiced about the need to regulate and control herbal medicines and dietary supplements is a call by the medical community for these over-the-counter products to be available by prescription only" it's not a call to make them prescription only, it's a call to make them regulated.The are plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter. theresa knott 00:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


They're plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter." No, I do not think so. Regulation requires control, and that means prescriptions and pharmacies. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if you are poorly traveled in the english speaking world, deliberatly naïve, or what. In the US there are bountiful amounts of regulated, and unregulated (and in some cases fatal) substances available at local supermarkets, convenience stores, bodegas, etc. While shopping here, and picking up some bread, I can buy substances that are banned from the Olympics, substances that are sometimes fatal, with no regulation, no prescriptions needed. What would you prefer as proof? Academic citations, or will a few pictures of my local markets do? Ronabop 10:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
In the UK there are many drugs with a general sales lisence. Even at the most basic you must admit that aspirin and paracetamol are avaible that way.Geni 11:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I have been reporting on aspirin research studies for the last two years. There are plenty of people who want to make the use of aspirin regulated. The borders of the US are regulated, too. So, much for that theory! The only practical way to regulate vitamins would be to make them prescription, only. In Mexico, I can buy presription drugs over the counter. I can also buy prescription drugs over the counter on the Internet and legally by mail. Do we really want to be talking about Mexico, the Intenet, and buying drugs from the Caribbean by mail-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Your stament is incorect and largly based on speculation. At the very least it fails to take into account Pharmacy medcine and it also mists genral sales list. The argument that people will go else where is irrelivant. You are trying to defend the claim that regualtion will make things prescription only and that this is in some way a bad thing.Geni 14:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope sorry but OTC medicines like aspirin are still conventional medicine.theresa knott 14:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost, forgot! OTC use of aspirin is one of those home remedies that you claim never work. Aspirin seems to work for me. And, it is an effective home remedy within certain parameters. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
So, you are saying that OTC vitamins, minerals, and the herbs that need to be regulated are still conventional medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
That's not what I said at all. I said that calls for OTC herbal medicines to be regulated does not imply they will (or should) become POMs. Let's stick to the point please. theresa knott 15:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of sticking to the point ...
Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
The word medicine, you know, has a double meaning. So, to translate: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional prescription medication. It is not my planet. I just happen to live on it. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not interested in word games. Unless it can be shown that regulation=POM I'm going to remove that sectionGeni 16:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition

The definition that currently leads this article is "broadly describes diagnosis, treatment or therapy used in place of conventional medical treatments." This is vague and is contradicted within the next few paragraphs by the mention of "complementary medicine". I assume that the author did not intend to exclude complementary use of alternative therapies, but that is precisely what the definition says. I propose to delete it and replace it with the more precise and accurate definition I added at the end of the first paragraph, but as a matter of courtesy and in view of the amount of controversy on this page, I am inviting comment before deleting. My major reservation about my new definition is that it is primarily applicable in the US and Canada, and probably most of Europe and the developed world. I welcome further improvement. alteripse 1 may 04

First of all, the very term is an oxymoron! I started out about 5 talk archives ago with using my own personal definition of alternative medicine. It did not last long. I suggest that we simply stick to how it is defined in the dictionary, if for no other reason than NPOV. About 30 different online internet dictionaries currently define the term, as we have defined it. So, I fail to see any problems with the present method. The science people seem to think that it is all alternative medicine. That AM is by definition quackery, etc., etc., etc. Using your own private definiton, Perhaps, is the very definition of controversy? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. I think I understand what you are saying, but the definition as it stands is simply wrong. Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine, which is what the definition says. You didn't address this objection.
Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine. Yes, I am glad that the MD wrote this statement. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
  • 2. The definition I offered is quite objective and applies to everthing in the list of types of alternative medicine. Why do you claim it is NPOV? Whether something is licensed is not a matter of POV, and you haven't offered any other criterion by which all those types of alternative medicine are related. *alteripse 1 may 04
I think there's a problem in defining alternative medicine by what it is *not.* It is not very informative. Alteripse, if you sign your comments with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~) without the spaces between them, your user name and date/time stamp will appear after you comment. heidimo 18:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me. I changed the sentence and will not change the primary definition. I think the concept I am offering is worth keeping because it is the principal core of the controversy. (and I'll try the tilde trick) Alteripse 18:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Think about it a bit. ... therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat disease." If it is legal, then it is regulated by the government. So, if it is both legal and regulated then the alternative practitioners are licensed to diagnose and treat disease. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't have put it better, Mr. Gohde. You've grasped the paradox and the essential dishonesty in so much of alt med, at least in the US. Why do you think all the wanna-be physicians from chiropractors to naturopaths to the makers of dietary supplements tell the consumer "this product/procedure is not intended to diagnose or treat disease..."? Much of alt med is simply people and companies who want to pretend to be physicians without the inconvenience of having to learn so much and without the responsibility of being accountable for outcomes. The biggest difference between the stuff you buy in the nutrition store and the stuff you buy from the pharmacy is that those who sell things labelled "dietary supplements" can avoid all the inconvenient laws related to honest labelling, consistency of contents, and that little item of demonstrating that the product actually helps the condition they sell it for. But that of course is POV. Alteripse 20:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition. In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's. And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
And, it accounts for why there are already five archives. Perhaps, number six will be here before night fall? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Nice answer. You are right, it is hard to fit this stuff into the article without it becoming a rant (and I won't try). Alteripse 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Gohde, your removal of my factual sentence without justification is discourteous. It was an entirely factual statement regardless of your or my POV. It is also a very core issue in this field, and helps people understand why this page is so controversial. I kept my POV interpretations on the Talk page. You owe me and this project more respect than this. Alteripse 19:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Kindly STOP making personal attacks against me. In my opinion, you are totally confused, are wasting my time, and have violated more than one well established Wikipedia guidelines which are clearly pointed out in the project's quality of standards guidelines. While you obviously think that you are the most important person in the entire world, I do not hold your view. I have entertained your nonsense, too long as it is. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Other than pointing out what appeared to me a discourtesy, I made no personal attacks. There were no violations of Wik policy. However, if you see it otherwise, you may relax, as you have demonstrated that there is no possibility of constructive interchange or discourse on this article. I will leave you to squat on it in peace. Alteripse 22:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
It's a shame that Mr NH has driven you from the page. I just want to say that you have not made any personal attacks. IMO mt NH does not really believe that you made a personal attack. He simply said that in order to gain the upper hand. theresa knott 22:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
It's a shame that TK likes to reply when she can launch more harassment and personal attacks my way.
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, aka Mr-Natural-Health 01:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Put up or shut up Mr NH. Take me to the arbitration committee.I'd love to see what they make of your new bout of rudeness. You know that they are still monitoring your behaviour to see if your ban had the desired effect? theresa knott 09:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be confused TK! This is Phase I. It is not until Phase IV of the project that we will bring the 'wrong doers' to task with community support. You know TK, at the end of summer 2004. Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of their success stories. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL you won't get community support against me. Yo're living in some kind of dreamworld. As for you being a sucsess story, I don't call driving Alteripse away from this page much of a success story. We are supposed to be nice to newbies here. theresa knott 07:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Dream world? The project is not against you per se. In Phase IV of the project the wrong doers will be taken care of through a consensus of community support. Today, the CAM project reached a tentative agreement with the WikiDoc project, I would call that a form of community consensus. In the future, the project will prefer to deal directly with organized groups of editors. We really don't have time to waste on individual trouble making renegades. But, we will deal with the wrong doers when the time comes as the need arises in Phase IV of our project. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 23:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I am not reverting the paragraph but insist you are making a factual error. Honest chiropractors treat subluxations to maintain health; they don't treat disease. They will be the first to tell you that. Again, your example supports the essential importance of this distinction. If you want to argue that alternative practitioners are actually diagnosing and treating disease in the same way physicians do, you are accusing them of doing something illegal in much of the developed world. This issue of whether and how alt med practices and the alt med culture are shaped by the laws defining medical diagnosis and treatment is at the heart of the whole cultural controversy over alt med. You keep omitting the sentence but you haven't responded with anything that is civil, accurate, and substantive. I said I would leave the page alone and I will keep my word. This is a last attempt to engage in civil and substantive discussion but if you can't or won't I'll drop it and leave the whole topic alone here as well.Alteripse 02:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
From Chiropractic medicine, to-wit: Classical chiropractic theory holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease So, I would like to receive a public apology from you for wasting more of my valuable time. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I am sincerely sorry that my comments have wasted both of our times. No more. Alteripse 03:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition. In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's. And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. Try to tell me that DO's do not diagnosis and treat disease. Chiropractic, just like Osteopathy, has expanded and developed since it was first introduced in America. Their scope of services has expanded to include diagnosis and treatment of diseases. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=alternative+medicine&ls=a shows 19 online dicitionaries all defining alternative medicine the way we have done it in alternative medicine. I guess all those dictionaries are just plain stupid, too? Of course, somebody who has only been on Wikipedia for one month knows all the anwers and the collective efforts of all our editors over a couple of years doesn't match your opinion. I wonder why? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
He seems to have Wikiquette down fairly well. Better than some who have been here far longer. -- Politeness-man 03:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Severe social disconnect

The last time I was struck by the level of disconnect was when MNH implied that people might have to actually pay for vitamins.... I guess he lives in a country where people don't pay for basic health. In the US, we almost always pay. For everything. Vitamins, drugs, everything.

That made me think about a whole lot of other issues. Mostly about his tone in this discussion. He may be fighting to get vitamins to the public, while others are so tired of paying for fake "supplements" that they decry his vitamins. He may live in a country that does ten times as much about a fatal disease, but people still die, so he may blame the available medicine. Others of us note that we don't get free basic HIV cocktails, and have become cynical about paying for new "cures".

In the US, we don't get interesting, free, "complementary" medicince. We don't even get free medicine. We are fighting for mere basics, he is fighting for luxuries.

Anyways, I think we should all note that we are not connecting on the same level. If we adjust our minds for such, maybe we would have less flamewars. Reading into MNH's pages, folks in the US don't even eat well,, but in the US, how would we know? Ronabop 10:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

None of what you are arguing about is even in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.
And please stop putting your lies into my mouth which I have never said, nor even hinted at. I regard your above comments as yet another personal attack wage by the wrong doers in Wikipedia. The age of your ilk is rapidly coming to an end.
My health accredited website was just re-certified about a week ago. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Ronobop tries to calm the discussion down amd you see that as a personal attack? theresa knott 15:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh! You mean like Uncle Ed declaring an edit war, here, which nobody came to? May I suggest, that the science people don't post unless they are in a coherent frame of mind? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
No you may not suggest that; some of us would never get to edit ;-) (incidentally Ed did not call for an edit war - but you knew that already)
I wrote declared. See the dictionary for details. If you people are watching, then you are wasting a lot of time. :) -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry, i have plenty of time to waste. You won't drive me away like you did Alteripse. Have no fear of that. theresa knott 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry, i have plenty of time to waste.  :O) Brilliant :O) I have it proposed for Wikigems. Who knows, it might become a criterion for new sysops :O) We all have a purpose in life, Theresa. Perhaps yours is to waste your time :O) Have no fear either, I will not let you waste John's time. You may count on that :O)
I'm not sure what all this rucus is about, but the problem people have with what governments internationally have agreed to do with vitamins + minerals and other dietary supplements is horrorfying for people whose lives literally depend on these things. People pay for these products now, the issue is governments trying to implement de-facto bans on supplements at the bequest of medical companies who view them as financial competition. They do not want people realising that a myriad of physical and 'mental' conditions can often be easily treated by taking these products, when they have so much money to make out of drugs. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ
What governments are trying to ban the sale of OTC vitamins? theresa knott 16:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
The FDA has gone for them in the past ('50s-'60s, owing to abuse of them by quacks), though I don't know about recently - David Gerard 16:24, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Kindly move this off topic discussion to dietary supplements. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
This whole off topic (as you call it) discussion has taken place because you argured that the section "The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter" was a response to critisms that AM "medicines" should be regulated. theresa knott 16:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I shall repeat, yet again. None of what you are arguing about is currently in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.
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, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
How have I harrased you or made a personal attack? (The AC's decree was to stop irismeister harassing me, he followed me around insulting me wherever i went, but you already know this) You can take me the the AC anytime you like. I expect they could do with a good laugh. theresa knott 17:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
The decree explicitely prohibited you from engaging into policing more competent contributors than you are. In other words, it intimated for your vastly improved understanding to stop spilling around your disgraceful bits of deconstructive attitudes. Amazing what a little sleeves pulling does, er? Alas, it didn't last. You need a booster. Here it is, for your sysoping pleasure: Watch out, Theresa, you are carefull watched AS WELL! And you are systematically reported form now on, for abuse of sysop power, incompetence and malevolence, until you are downgraded to the position you can maintain - drawing tampons with pride, and using the Word as Photoshop with a revenge. I will again have some students inspect your "contributions" in health articles you mess around with. Last - what you stated on your page about other people doing corrections for you, is haughty, naughty und unwise. We are not here to teach you English, word spelling or the guidelines of logical thinking. However, you were right - we'll happily check, from now on, EVERY instantiation of your Wiki-destroying attitude, turned into "edits" in health related articles :O) - irismeister 12:12, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? I specifically wrote don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth which I have never written or hinted at.
Oh I see, you were just trolling me. theresa knott 17:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
You are not that important, even if you try to look like important. Nobody trolls you. If you are watched, so that you may not destroy Wiki health articles, as you keep doing for months now, this is SANITY, and a service to the Wiki community not trolling. This Theresawatch restores good Wiki habits you are so keen to mingle into, so that you might hope to see them destroyed. Nobody trolls you, Theresa. You just need some hard homework before you waste people's time in Wiki. The cause of health is far more important than you are ! As you know, I commit my time as a free service to the Wiki community, in order to spare others some time used better for real editing not your self-righteous blahblah- irismeister 12:12, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
Feel free to continue arguing about stuff that is not in alternative medicine, while I get real constructive work done with the project. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of other points of view

MNH's recent edits appear to be expuinging points of view he doesn't agree are true. While he may have a case that they are not true, I would suggest that removing incorrect points of view is actually a bad idea if they are points of view that are commonly held. Removing something as a "lie" is inappropriate if it is a view that is sufficiently commonly held to mention, even if marked as false.

An example is this [1] edit, in which a both common and notable view was removed (with an inaccurate edit summary - 19th century tabloid??) when it clearly belonged in the article, but in a different place [2].

While MNH's tremendous and dedicated energy [3] is to be admired, I might suggest others may care to go through the removed content and replace portions as appropriate in the article. The article is not a one-person project with MNH the arbiter, after all. I shall be devoting some time to this myself, in the interest of a better article - David Gerard 23:37, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

There is no more commonly held opinion that alternative medicine works, and that proof by Western medical standards is not needed in order to prove it. So, once you open the door to putting false information into articles the size of this article will double overnight. -- John Gohde 23:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
And you are seriously suggesting that I can legally put quotes by every famous person in alternative medicine into the medicine article, because they speak for a lot of people interested in alternative medicine.
Yes, why should I quote research when I can use quotes by Jack LaLanne? -- John Gohde 23:55, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
You assume I hand out licenses for you to do something you yourself are calling appropriate? You aren't making any sense to me here. Is Jack LaLanne a pen-name for Richard Dawkins (whose quote was the example I was using)? - David Gerard 00:09, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests. First of all, we cannot deliberately put derogatory comments into encyclopedic articles that are supposed to have a NPOV. Second, AM can be tested, is being tested, and some of it has been shown to be effective on a weekly basis. If Dawkins said that recently he is both a kook and a liar, with a degree standing behind his attitude problem. Third, I do not deal with personalities. I am merely doing some spring cleaning on this old irrelevant article. Why people are whining about MNH editing is because they are fundamentally just whiners. My watchlist says I am watching some 150 articles. And, the list keeps on growing. -- John Gohde 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Tch! You may consider Dawkins a crank, but he is respected by a great many. You are indeed attempting to "spring clean" POVs you don't like - David Gerard 01:06, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
[personal attacks deleted] I did not attempt anything. I simply "did" a routine article clean up. -- John Gohde 05:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

So what was precisely wrong with the original presentation of a quote from Richard Dawkins?

Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests.

Per Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality Guidelines the above paragraph violates at least five (5) clearly established Wikipedian guidelines.

  1. SQG #1-No advocacy of any kind is permitted.
    • The quote clearly advocated the opponent's viewpoint, since the information provided was:
    1. in the first 3 paragraphs of the article,
    2. explicitly labeled as derogatory, and
    3. factually incorrect.
  2. SQG #2-Points of view can only be presented as points of view.
    • The quote clearly advocated the Dawkin's viewpoint as being a fact, rather than the nonsensical statement that it was.
  3. SQG #4-Introductory paragraphs are presented without controversy and are to the point.
    • It was originally in the first unlabel section of an article otherwise known as the introductory section.
    • It clearly added controversy to the definitional paragraphs.
    • Nor, was it to the point.
  4. SQG #7-Controversial assertions must be footnoted to sources of information.
    • The assertion was never footnoted, but was merely presented as fact.
  5. SQG #10-A footnote may reference a book, newspaper or magazine article, online web site, or a citation to a published research paper.
    • Individuals are not sources of information that can be cited. Books written by Dawkin are acceptable, but merely saying that Dawkin's said something is not a valid attribution.

-- John Gohde 15:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The quote can be attributed to one of the essays in A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins (ISBN 0753817500), which also appeared as the foreword to John Diamond's book Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations (ISBN 0099428334). - MykReeve 15:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
It still does not change the fact that the quote is making a obviously false and derogatory assertion. -- John Gohde 19:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Which is why it goes in "criticism." Fairly obviously. What part of this concept did you have difficulty with? You do need to learn to try to shift things to an appropriate section, rather than merely blithely delete them. Is this deletionist attitude appropriate? - David Gerard 19:26, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Deliberately quoting a known lie should be grounds for permanent bannishment. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? I don't care who said a lie, it is still a lie. And, the people who are deliberately putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote are de facto caught red handed in the act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! -- John Gohde 19:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I would have thought it fairly obvious that it goes in the "criticism" section. That's the bit you have trouble getting your head around. Does the entire idea of "alternative medicine" have critics? Yes, lots. Are some of them quite prominent? Yes, Dawkins counts. So they get mentioned. What you are doing is quite easily construed as advocacy by exclusion of opposing views - while I'm certain your motives are entirely pure, for your edits to remain they would need to be obviously sensible to readers well after the fact - David Gerard 19:54, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
I would have thought it is fairly obvious. Whgat is the bit that you have trouble getting into your head? Does the entire idea of "conventional medicine" have critics? Yes, lots. Are some of them quite prominent? Yes, most of them. Do all of their quotes belong in the article on medicine? Not a chance! Since they are not allowed, even though what they say is 100% correct the lies of Dawkins do not count. As long as criticism of conventional medicine in any form is NOT allowed in CAM articles, let alone in medicine your garbage is likewise not permitted. And, putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote is a de facto act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! -- John Gohde 21:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

People who are deliberately putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote are de facto caught red handed in the act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! And, I will personally deleted it and Revert it twice a day from now until the next century. -- John Gohde 20:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

But its not a lie is it?"that set of practices that cannot be tested" Certian form of treament that only promis to increase wellness and some kinds of faith healing ", refuse to be tested" psychic surgery for example "or consistently fail tests." Those that pass propely conduted tests stop being alt med. Geni 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the comments from yesterday. -- John Gohde 21:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I did. You made a number of assurtions. Your claim of weekly tests is meaningless unless thoes tests are properly conducted.
[personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 21:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
What that the standards of the tests are low? Clearly you are reading different studies to the ones I read. POerhaps you could point me in the direction of these well conducted studies that show alt med to be effectiveGeni 21:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
What I learned this weekend from my research is that physical therapy is in fact classified as an alternative treatment by both physicians and thousands of research studies that show up in Medline with the cam[sb] selector for CAM. Support for alternative medicine is where you find it. -- John Gohde 01:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Try reading my newsletter. Reading is a wonderful thing. It might actually educate you. -- John Gohde 23:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

SQG #11-Sources of information cited must be reliable and not idiosyncratic.

SQG #11 has been revised to cover this loop hole. It is taken from another direct quote.

The perfect Wikipedia article...

  • is well-documented. It has references. The references are not idiosyncratic to the author [of the article] but are the references that are most often used in the field. (See The perfect article)

-- John Gohde 20:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

It would be a terrible pity if you were to retreat to an attitude of throwing up legalisms instead of having an attitude of being willing to work to consensus. (e.g. when you quote a style guide - strictly advisory - as a reason for wholesale deletionism and state that you will pursue what you see as its decrees doggedly.) Such an attitude could only detract from the quality of your hard work on Wikipedia - David Gerard 21:57, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
[personal attacks deleted] I count a violation of six out of 12 guidelines for a total of 50%. [personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 23:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
NPOV includes the inclusion of viewpoints one considers hideously wrong, such as you feel about Dawkins. I'm sure we can take on each of your other edits in this manner with much productive discourse, leading to a workable consensus for all - David Gerard 00:00, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV also includes the deletion of total nonsense such as the Dawkins quote. -- John Gohde 00:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Your problem is that NPOV is not the total picture. [personal attacks deleted] It is NPOV, Controversy, and Health Information that counts in CAM. [personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 00:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
I would be most interested in you detailing these six out of twelve guidelines - David Gerard 00:14, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
??? Try reading the above comments! SQG #11 was in addition to the first 5 listed. -- John Gohde 00:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

The long process of restoring other points of view to the article

I'm starting on an effort to restore alternate points of view to the article. That one side considers them "wrong" and "lies" doesn't change the fact that they're notable points of view that exist and should therefore be mentioned in the relevant section.

I'm doing this by going back through the long, long, long edit history and restoring deletia wherever feasible (to an appropriate section) - I'm assuming the people who put that stuff in did so with the best interests of the article at heart, not in order to spread "lies," as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith. "The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone."

If others feel this is a suitable task, I encourage them to do so as well. (If not, I'm sure it'll be apparent that I'm the only one.)

(I am assuming good faith on the part of MNH, something I have failed to do in the past. I apologise for this and will try harder.)

Would someone like to change the section headers to be labels rather than declarative statements of a point of view? The meaning need not change - only the didactic tone - David Gerard 09:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

No, there is nothing to restore, David, and the very long process of making this article a very good example of NPOV has already been active, did you notice, for a few months. Patience is to be credited to John. He already went into that long process, and there is bliss after his patience. Not that it is perfect, but he worked hard and did a great, simply great job - much unlike others here, people with a cop's mentality, whom I will not name again since we all know who they are. But we'd much appreciate a less stereotypical and more content-happy attitude from you. Just restore less, redirect less, and contribute more - content, that is. Contribute content, not discussions, and contribute it in a NPOV manner, as per Wiki policies. Thank you, and happy editing :O)
Please rest assured that I too am into an even longer process of ALWAYS re-restoring the NPOVs as they have been painfully gathered, hand picked and cherished by John, to say nothing about his incredible patience with you and his commendable, down-to-earth formulations.
Frankly, David, it's too easy to call for destruction and then claim reconstruction. It's more difficult, but also braver in the heart and deeper in the general direction of wisdom to build without destroying (forget Halliburton).
Last, the very definition of wisdom is to find ALTERNATIVES, including to your feigned restoration - you know, like in ALTERNATIVE medicine, healing without destroying first. I am here to watch you, knowing what your contributions were in the past :O) irismeister 11:48, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
What he's saying is that Iridology needs bit of restoration too - David Gerard 12:38, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Negative - what I'm saying is that wherever cops "perform" in medicine, doctors will never make police :O) - irismeister 12:46, 2004 May 17 (UTC)


Theresa, stop being a Cop ! Immediately ! (second warning)

LOL. David is adding stuff back in the NH cut and you accuse him of destruction. How funny you are. theresa knott 11:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

~

Oh my, o my :O) Look who's here! You are under AC decreee prohibition to address to me as a cop. You are watched. You don't answer my messages to you. You don't stop messing around in health articles with devastatingly self-important "edits". You say you have nothing to say. Oups, I forgot - you just said you have plenty of time to waste. So I see :O)

If you have something to say contentwise, in medical articles, just go ahead. If you only want to insert your LOL viral code into my conversation with people, just shut up! - :O) irismeister 12:46, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

LOL viral code? then ROTFLMAO must be the mother of all viral codes. And yet it's so true. You know what's so funny? You don't want my commenting yet you choose to invite my comments by posting crap on my talk page. Strange behaviour indeed, unless you secretly enjoy me laughing at you. Go on admit it irismeister - you fancy me, don't you? theresa knott 13:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
But of course, sugar! It was love at first sight! Why did you waste so much time ? Took you SIX months to notice :O) Sadly, for the destiny of our burgeoning romance, this is ony a place for editing AM stuff. And I'm not available anyway. I am happily married, and have lots of kids and less and less time for you. For the sake of John's time, and even yours, my dear, go do some homework and let us do the real work here, will you ? Be the nice girl I know you are. And the next time you are a fancy London guide for us transoceanic savages, forget Bedford Street or I'll kick your retroviral code out of your policing or diverting AM "contributions" :O) - irismeister 13:58, 2004 May 17 (UTC)