Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 4

message: A related discussion is taking place in Talk:Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints.  The twist is that the argument is being made in reverse.
Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia.  All supporters of  Alternative medicine should vote to delete this article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:19, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bmills. This article must be an encyclopaedia article, not a dispute between so called official medecine and Alternative medecine. It must be possible to be NPOV about this too and avoid nasty and void observations. One question which might help "What was 'official medecine' before a scientific base was given to it?" So a sort of continuum exists between official medecine and alternative medecine. Seeing it this way might make it easier to come on common ground.
Vanderesch 15:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A related discussion is taking place 

message: :"Many people, including conventional and alternative medical practitioners, point out that this funding has led to corruption of the scientific process for approval of drug usage, and that ghostwritten work has appeared in major peer-reviewed respectable journals like NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ have been unable to prevent from being published (Flanagin 1998, Larkin 1999)."
The above does not make grammatical sense. There is no need to list examples of journals - the label "major peer-reviewed medical journals" implies that titles such as these are implicated, and the cited articles provide more information if the reader wants it. - MykReeve 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwriting concerns 

message: The edit comment "removing issues of concern from regulation section--There is no conneciton" is disingenuous, since the edit created the "regulation" section.
The general amendment is fine, but the deletion of the sentence regarding concern on the part of conventional medical practitioners:
:There is also a concern among conventional medical practitioners that patients may delay seeking conventional medicine that could be more effective, whilst they undergo alternative therapies, potentially resulting in harm.
is not a valid on this basis. I will restore this section to the 'Contemporary use of alternative medicine' section. - MykReeve 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disingenuous?  I can tell you what disingenuous has been for me.  I simply labeled the section for what it was in one operation. -- Mr-Natural-Health 01:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, but I still feel it was a slightly misleading edit comment - a sentence was lost, which was relevant to that broad section of the article, if not to the created "Issues of regulation" section. - MykReeve 01:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of concern 

message: Revision as of 23:16, 14 Mar 2004:
:Supporters of evidence-based medicine respond that just beause that happened in the past, this does not mean that science might not underpin future medical practice.
This sentence speaks of the opinion of supporters of evidence-based medicine, who do believe that science should underpin future medical practice - not merely that it might. Therefore, I am reverting to the earlier version of the sentence. - MykReeve 23:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But, does it?  And, the answer is no. -- Mr-Natural-Health 01:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have a point. There is certainly evidence that this isn't the way in which medical research is being conducted, particularly with regard to drug trials. However, supporters of evidence-based medicine do believe that medical research and practice should be underpinned by science, and many are as horrified by the system of drug companies' ghostwritten publications as supporters of alternative medicine. - MykReeve 01:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters of evidence-based medicine 

message: Sorry to the anonymous author (you should get a username) whor wrote that definition (using RCTs) but it is inaccurate. Much ‘conventional medicine’ does not have support from RCTs. Also many ‘alternative’ therapies do have support of RCTs. The issues are more subtle I'm afraid (sorry to hit and run gotta study - back next week)--Erich gasboy 05:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: defintional issues

message: MNH claims, in edit summary, "ALL reverts, even by RK, are not permitted because I am currently not banned." This claim is false. Nothing in Wikipedia policy limits the reversion of edits to those done illegally by banned users. Reverting is used, by and large, when the harm caused by a given edit significantly exceeds its benefit, well before abuse reaches the point where a ban is necessary. MNH has already been banned once; in this light, making false & misleading claims about Wikipedia policy should be grounds for further action. --FOo 21:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called an edit summary.  Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a different opinion. I have been keeping up with all the latest arbitrations. One editor in particular was singled out for their use of reverts. A discussion of when and where a revert may be used took place. Reverts can only be used on banned users per the commentary in the respective arbitration cited by me. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 21:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I certainly do not hope that you get carried away on a talk page. And, cause this talk page to be protected. Feel free to edit out your personal attacks as you see fit. Otherwise, I will employ refactoring anytime I see a personal attack against me, as it is my right to do so. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop altering my comments to misrepresent my position. I have removed the only portion of my comments which might reasonably be considered a "personal attack". The remainder is certainly not intended as such. Rather, I read your claim that reverting edits is "not permitted because [you] are not banned" as a simple claim of fact about Wikipedia policy, and one which is false. The clear documentation on the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version makes, in fact, no mention of "banned users"; indeed, does not contain the word "banned". That your claim is false is not a personal attack. If you are unprepared to deal with others pointing out when you are simply wrong, you will find Wikipedia a constant source of frustration. --FOo 23:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anytime an editor like User:RK makes a revert of my editing and adds an edit summary like, for example RK (Removinh nonsense from an internet vandal. Mr-Natural-Health is on the verge of being banned for his harassment) I will revert that error of judgement.  Anytime, I can edit out a personal attack I will employ refactoring.  It is as simple as that. "ALL reverts, even by RK, are not permitted because I am currently not banned," per my above stated opinion, is perfectly correct and is clearly my own opinion. Exactly what don't you understand about the use of edit summaries? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I will also point out that User:RK wiped-out the edits of two other editors when he did his revert, in error. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: You have also convinced me to make a list of Wikipedian thought police. You will appear as number one. I have pointed out, above, that you are simply wrong. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Just in case that I have not made myself perfectly clear.  I will continue to employ in my edit summaries something to the effect of  "Reverts are not permitted because I am currently not banned,"  regardless, of your above comments when the need arises. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 00:00, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims about Wikipedia policy by Mr-Natural-Health