Talk:Medical intuitive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Sites of practitioners
Is this section necessary? Does the dentistry section contain a lists of dentists? AED 06:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Quackery
Who thinks this category should be included? It seems there is some dispute about this. --Ariadoss 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the category. -AED 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Too pejorative, better to add detail from critics. Be careful not to unbalance the article too much towards the skeptical view, keep it as WP:NPOV as possible. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Energy Medicine and Medical Intuition
It seems to me that this article talks more about energy medicine, auras etc.. rather than the history and practice of medical intuition. Revision needs to be made to separate the different practices. - Medintuitive 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Medintuitive
I'm the person who updated the page wholesale recently. I even joined the Wiki Skeptics group.
Short version:
As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a Wiki page on M.I.s, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compare and contrast section, like I had included, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.
If no comments by Aug 14, I'm replacing the old page with the new one again. Commetns invited
Long version
The old page was very dated. It mentions Carolyn Myss but does not highlight her significance. The old page lumps Myss into virtually the same group as psychics from the 1950s and 1960s. This does her and the field of MI a tremendous disservice, a slight and an insult!
The significance of Myss to MI was to define a level of professionalism and objectivity beyond the character of psychics from 1950s. People working as MIs strive to have a level of objectivity quite in contrast with 1950-style psychics and it's useful and healthy for readers to be able to discriminate this difference today in the field.
Myss spawned a new more professional level of intuitive practitioner, one who cooperates and collaborates with Mds and Dos in solving problems. Christel Nani, Karen Grace Kasey MUST be mentioned. These are the famous people taking over where Myss left off in her 1:1 practice with clients. Up and coming people include Maryann Castellanos.
The people mentioned in the old article, Parkhurst Quimby, can easily be seen to be only extremely distnat cousins to the example of Myss. Why include them? If you want a history of psychics, put that info there. As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a page on Mis, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compre and contrast section, like I have, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.
Also the International Association of MIS (IAMI) needs to be mentioned and is not.
I agree that listing of Mis is not a good precedent.
I'm replacing the new page again. Please make comments here on WHY it is inappropriate. Comments are of course welcome. - Medical intutitive 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the article back to the last version. If you think things should be changed in the article, at least attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines for writing and formatting articles. Of particular concern to me (beyond the formatting, grammatical, and punctuation problems) is that you keep signing yourself at the top of the page and putting editorial/discussion comments within the body of the article (that's what this Talk page is for); you also have a tendency towards both unbiased wording and quoting yourself as an expert. - Motsa 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shoemaker's Holiday deletion tag
The reason stated in this tag are inaccurate and do not comply with WP:NPOV - "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" - Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books is obviously a RS on MI. To claim otherwise suggests entrenched bias. SmithBlue (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
