Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 5

message: I think this page should be protected. Obviously, edits are a kind of ping-pong game between Mr-Natural-Health and others, with Mr-N-H removing any criticism of "natural medicines" for various alleged reasons. David.Monniaux 16:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: If MNH keeps removing my comments from this page, others should feel free to restore them - David Gerard 13:23, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you for clearly establishing the fact that you have persisted in your personal attacks of me on this talk page, after I have consistedly informed you of the error of your ways. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should not edit out personal attacks. It may seem helpful, but this is a controversial topic and deleting user comments will only inflame the discussion. Ashibaka ✎ 17:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MNH's continuing vandalism of this talk page

message: I tried to address some complaints about support arguments being stripped of nuance and meaning, and remove multiple, duplicate, references to the same works, as well as removing some misleading rants (not all AM practitioners believe they operate in the physical medicine realm) Ronabop 08:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestly, I wrote much of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section. I will review your above re-writes tonight around midnight. I may take 2 weeks before I remove all of the vandalism done to the support section. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More swings at NPOV, in support section

message: This conversation was copied from the former Talk:Conventional medicine.
My area of interest in alternative medicine is psychosocial treatments.  Psychosocial treatments is the Alternative Medicine of the New Millennium.  I find it an exciting field.  There is a lot of overlap between psychosocial treatments and some other forms of alternative medicine.  In many respects it is a method of organizing the different forms of treatments.   While a few forms of psychosocial treatments require the professional services of psychologists most can be self-taught with the aid of books or instructional videos, or can be learned from an experienced practitioner. Although some initial training is needed, once these techniques are learned, most people will need no additional outside assistance.  I  think that these psychosocial treatments will leave TCM behind in the dust.
I am going to first update my web site with this information.  I am currently writing editorials on it.  I will eventually get around to writing another 100% original article on it, here.  I am not going here first, of course.  These people are too hostile and narrow minded.  I am kind of tire of wasting my valueble time with these @#$*^% over this NPOV nonsense.  Most of these critics, are about 30 years out of date.  I am not going to throw my pearls in front of swine, as they say.  Most of these editors rank the importance of alternative medicine at the same level as the their article on tampons.  It is said really, but it is their problem.  -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosocial Treatments as Alternative Medicine 

message: Alternative medicine is a controversial topic as the appropriate noticed has been posted above it for some time now.  This notice actually means something.  So, kindly remove the weaselspeak from the criticism section.  I have identified the following weasel terms below.
*"...are rejected by..."
*"...often dismiss the entire field..."
*"...this would only prove..."
*"...be willing..."
*"...many if not most scientists ..."
*"...chafes at the restrictions..."
There may be more weaselspeak.  Since literally none of the nonsense spouted in the criticism section has documented its sources as required by Wikipedia policy (documented by following the links in the controversial topic notice) I will also shortly start removing all the POV nonsense contained in the criticism section with non-attributed assertions. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 09:25, 8 Apr 2004
: The current The neutrality of this article is disputed noticed that I recently placed in alternative medicine,is a temporary notice. It is specificially in reference to the the Criticism section.
* What I have found is that the medical scientism people have consistently violated the rules of controversial topic discussions.  They make non-attributed assertions that are laced full of weaselspeak.
*  Remove the non-attributed assertions that are laced full of weaselspeak from the criticism section and I will remove the NPOV notice.
:-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:41, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be proceeding to clean up the garbage dump called the Criticism section within in a few days.  Then I will take a second look at the support section.  Talk about an edit war?  Boy wont that be fun? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made my day, by removing one more piece of garbage from the criticism section which had been violating a number of clearly established Wikipedia guidelines (See the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine Standards of Quality Guidelines for details) for quite a while. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: A note to contributors: This article is about medicine in general. Please consider adding your contributions about medical topics to individual articles rather than this page (many are linked below, and there are more on the List of medical topics), and please think twice before adding more links here - otherwise this article could easily degenerate into an unreadable list of links.
What is good enough for medicine, should likewise be good enough for alternative medicine.
I propose that the Controversial topic notice:
* be a permanent part of the alternative medicine article,
* that it should follow the definition paragraphs, and
* that it should be enclosed by horizontal lines.
User:Pakaran Revision as of 22:26, 14 Dec 2003 added the following to Wikipedia:List of controversial issues.
* Alternative medicine and closely related issues
Permanent notices, like in the medicine article, should be placed so as not to distract from the definition of the article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kindly remove weaselspeak from the Criticism section and Attribute its assertions! 

message: Alternative medicine should be modeled after the medicine article.
In medicine, after the definition paragaraph there is the following notice which is enclosed by horizontal lines.
:A note to contributors: This article is about medicine in general. Please consider adding your contributions about medical topics to individual articles rather than this page (many are linked below, and there are more on the List of medical topics), and please think twice before adding more links here - otherwise this article could easily degenerate into an unreadable list of links.
What is good enough for medicine, should likewise be good enough for alternative medicine.
I propose that the Controversial topic notice:
* be a permanent part of the alternative medicine article,
* that it should follow the definition paragraphs, and
* that it should be enclosed by horizontal lines.
User:Pakaran Revision as of 22:26, 14 Dec 2003 added the following to Wikipedia:List of controversial issues.
* Alternative medicine and closely related issues
Permanent notices, like in the medicine article, should be placed so as not to distract from the definition of the article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative medicine should be modeled after the medicine article.

message: I am removing the false vandalism claim. The non-stop libel by "Mr Natural Health" is again out of control.  Recall that he tried to scare me away from Wikipedia by claiming to be a Nazi and knowing where I live, and that he has a long history of sending threats to those on Usenet newsgroups whom he disagrees with. Many members of the Wiki-En list have chastised him, and he is on the verge of being banned. Please do not encourage him. RK 15:04, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Coming from someone who reverted an article 9 times in one day, your accusations seem specious. Fred Bauder 19:48, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr_Natural_Health Ashibaka ✎ 16:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles.  Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK.  Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel by My Natural Health 

message: I protected this page to stop the edit war, in hopes that RK and MNH can come to some sort of come to some sort of compromise. I hope you can both agree on the following points:
#There should be a section in support of alternative medicine as well as a section of criticism of it (and preferably summaries of several other positions). This is simple NPOV policy.
#Both the "support" and the "criticism" sections should be written in an NPOV way, using language that presents the arguments instead of making the arguments themselves.
#It's pointless and childish to revert simple, constructive changes such as the format of Craniosacral therapy and various other links.
Could you two agree on that? Αλεξ Σ  16:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: During my 30 day ban (Feb 11 - Mar 12, 2004), the "support" and the "criticism" sections were removed by somebody else.  I learned to live with the AM article without a "support" and the "criticism" section.  I did not make any reverts!  Then User:Ashibaka showed up and started dicussing writing style.  From the edit summary comments of  User:David Gerard I added back the the "support" and the "criticism" sections to AM while maintaining all of the then current text.  This naturally took more than several days to acommpolish.  Never once did I revert simple, constructive changes made by User:RK  because RK never  made any constructive edits whatsover to Alternative medicine per the above vandalism comments of mine.  Everything RK did in alternative medicine today, and for the last several months was a revert.  The last edit summary made by me today before RK's reverts was (=Branches of alternative medicine= Kinesiology is a science studied by physical therapists rather than a form of alternative medicine. Ergo, Applied kinesiology is AM, but kinesiology certainly is not).  Therefore, I have been making 100% constructive additions and changes to this article on Alternative medicine over the last month, with the except of reverting RK's reverts. I have prevented nobody from editing and making changes in this article or from discussing it in talk.  I have and will continue to be willing to discuss in talk any specific edit made by me on the alternative medicine article.  So, obviously:  YES, I agree on what you have stated above. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: YES, a few well chosen rational criticisms is all that is needed. Please, try to improve the criticism section. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm going to unprotect the page. I was hoping that RK would be around to work out his problem with MNH. Since this doesn't seem to be the case, I guess there's no point in keeping it protected. However, revert wars are seriously damaging to a page and I hope that next time we will see edits instead of reversions. Talk it out before you start reverting. Αλεξ Σ  01:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wonder exactly who you are addressing, as RK does not seem to me here nor care about doing anything other than revert my constructive additions to this article? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man. Ashibaka ✎ 18:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Right now, the article is a block of prose (criticisms) and a string of bullet points (support). Each part is in fact a bit of its own turf, with the two factions defending "their" parts against intruders from the other side. This is of course not what NPOV is about.
I suggest that we structure the article by topic, rather than by POV. That would mean that we get sections like
# Science or pseudoscience?
# Legal framework
# Placebo effect
# International use
..and so forth, with each section having opinions of both critics and supporters. This would help in turning a collection of opinions into an encyclopedia article.
Citations would also be useful. The matter is complicated by the fact that both factions usually focus on a discipline of AM, rather than on the field as a whole. However, that may simply mean that an article about the field as a whole should primarily consist of brief summaries and links to the different fields.--Eloquence* 22:25, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
:No, I don't think so!  RK doesn't have to follow the rules.  And, I am not going to destroy stuff, that I will only have to add back at a later date.  Outside of a simple list of the branches of AM, and the definitional paragraphs; this article is 100% PRO vs CON AM, no matter what the section headings state. 
:Until I see the above MD working on this article to clean it up permenantly some editor will attempt to destroy it the first opportunity that they they get. 
:I am thinking about starting a Wiki Project for Alternative Medicine.  But, that will take a lot of work, and there is currently little support for it.  So, please don't tell us what should be until RK and his ilk have to follow the rules.-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 02:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural suggestion 

message: The Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine aims primarily to facilitate the development of professional looking articles on all aspects of complementary, alternative and integrative medicine. One of its goals is to end the never ending edit wars that exists in many of the alternative medicine related articles.
At this stage of development, I am seeking:
* Comments and suggestions from any Editor.
* Editors interested in becoming participants.
Please take a few minutes of your time to leave your comments on Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone interested in the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine? 

message: This however also works the other way around - proponents of alternative medicine sometimes cite a single example of success with one technique attempting to prove that all alternative medicine is effective.
I think that if you are going to make an assertion, you should be able to provide some specific examples thereof.  I have no idea what you are talking about!!! --  John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  proponents of alternative medicine sometimes cite  ... Huh? 

message: Currently, alternative medicines are often sold as "dietary supplements," exploiting a loophole in government regulation.
Attacking dietary supplements is like attacking homeopathy.  The criticism sections is supposed to be about the generic concept of alternative medicine.  Want to criticize dietary supplements?  Then take your attack to the dietary supplement article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative medicines are often sold as "dietary supplements,"  ... Huh? 

message: several of its forms (particularly herbal medicine, chiropractic, and acupuncture) are at least potentially dangerous.
Cannot you provide some examples of your assertion?  Again, take your criticism of chiropractic and acupuncture to their respecitive articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not hard to figure out at all. Sticking needles into people might cause infection, herbal medicine might have side effects, and hitting people sometimes hurts them. Ashibaka ✎ 03:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I remember seeing in the news the sad story of some people who had taken some "medical" herbal teas... and destroyed their kidneys, leading them to have to undergo dialysis until some eventual transplant. I would of course like to find a reference for this, but this proves that, contrary to the expectations of many people, so-called "natural" health techniques can have very bad side effects. David.Monniaux 06:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, try attributing the assertions made in the criticism section of the actual article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  potentially dangerous ... Huh? 

message: The scientific community argues that many studies carried out by alternative medicine promoters are flawed, as they often use testimonials and hearsay as evidence, leaving the results open to observer bias. They argue that the only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered. This research should then be reviewed by peers to determine the validity of the research methodology. Testimonials are especially useless in this procedure, because by chance alone some people will get cured and will be able to testify that the method really helped them. Furthermore, if the majority of people using a method do not notice any benefit or even get worse, there will still be a minority that can testify that the method really helped for them.
I give up!  You have just argued about research methodology.  Now, what does that have to do with alternative medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All medical techniques, to be accepted as such, have to demonstrate some properties (efficiency on some illness, reasonable side effects etc...) - otherwise, they can't be called "medicine", not even "alternative". It's thus of primary importance with respect to so-called "alternative medicine" to point out that in many cases, that demonstration has not taken place. David.Monniaux 06:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Now, try attributing the assertions made in the criticism section of the actual article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research methodology