Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 3

message: I am referring to:
:In the United States, conventional medicine is represented (some say dominated) by holders of the M.D. degree at hospitals and prestigious medical schools. It is supported by state boards which rate and license professionals, and by the FDA which officially approves or disapproves drugs and some therapies. 
:Alternative medicine chafes at these restrictions and seeks to bring new ideas to the people more quickly than the established procedures allow, which sometimes results in conflict. Mainstreamers maintain that official oversight is needed to prevent quackery, while advocates of alternative medicine loudly protest that their contributions and discoveres are being unfairly dismissed, overlooked or suppressed. 
:While alternative medicine is usually supposed to replace conventional treatments, 
If you people cannot restructure these comments to take out the POV, I will have no problem doing so in my mediation process.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 17:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest changes are pure POV, of course! 

message: ===part one in three: READ what you EDIT OUT or DON'T EDIT !===
I will repeat myself: 
*IRIDIAL  STUDIES.
*MULTIDISCIPLINARY.
*OPHTHALMOLOGICAL RESEARCH. 
As you know, there is a whole research site online here. There are four thousand pages online on physiological explanations about the iris, SEVEN published volumes of high-end data, FOUR aditional volumes of refined interpretation, SEVENTEEN discussion fora, a complete list of ophthalmological, iridological and alternative medical BIBLIOGRAPHY and REVIEWS, a list of five-star certified medical doctors and certified peer-reviewed practitioners worldwide, a list of test material, seminaries, hard data, serious results of twenty-one years of multidisciplinary research. 
===part two in three: DO RESEARCH!===
I will watch you very carefully in ALL the contributions that you make from now on. Such contributions will certainly destroy Wiki, like I feel they have destroyed the iridology, the mycobacterium, the hypochlorite and other articles.
===part two in three: APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD !===
In conclusion,I suggest the following five-finger approach:
* PURPOSE 
* METHOD
* DATA 
* INTERPRETATION 
* CONCLUSION 
This is called the SCIENTIFIC  METHOD. Has lots of strengths in the right hands. 
Sincerely, irismeister 09:19, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC) (14,000 Wiki edits in 3 months)
== The above contribution has been edited to decrease its rudeness == - De-rude-i-fier 09:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading the manual loud 

message: In conclusion,I suggest the following five-finger approach:
* PURPOSE 
* METHOD
* DATA 
* INTERPRETATION 
* CONCLUSION 
This is called the SCIENTIFIC  METHOD. Has lots of strengths in the right hands. 
Sincerely, irismeister 09:19, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC) (14,000 Wiki edits in 3 months)
== The above contribution has been edited to decrease its rudeness == - De-rude-i-fier 09:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: part two in three: APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD !

message: First rule here is ignorace is only a POV. As a first rule, it needs to be addressed here first. Indeed, and moreover, there is nothing more rude than ignorance posing arrogantly as savvy editing :) A few baby sitting sessions can never harm the right editor, provided she-or-he can learn. Morevoer, it's a free country, Wiki is a meritocracy and freedom of speech is not important for democracy, freedom of speech IS DEMOCRACY. Do you have POVs on the matter, De-rude-i-fier ? Or is there a consensus that we need to censor ignorance well in advance of anything else, including for-free, good-will, bona fide  (NOTE for *theresa: it means "good will") baby sitting 8). Sincerely, User:De-igno-rance-i-fier irismeister 09:42, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
: :No it's not a free country, it's an encyclopedia. We have a rule of "no personal attacks" which you find it very difficult to comply with. theresa knott 09:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articulation goes before mediation : )

message: Why do you keep cutting informative sentences without explanation, Theresa ? You only make Wiki a poor medium ! Your personal problems are NOT a reason for butchering articles. Sincerely, irismeister 09:50, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
:I've already explained why. I believe that what you are trying to add is not true. I will not let you add it in until you verify it. Not by inserting links to you own web site, but with independent results. If you can't or wont do that, I'll keep cutting it out. It's very easy to get me to stop - prove what you are saying is true by posting an independent link. theresa knott 09:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meritocratic principles of editing, is an obstacle for democracy 

message: Genuine physicians who are holders of the M.D. degree and who as physicians are subject to the disciplinary actions from the state boards who licensed them to practice medicine; do in fact offer alternative medical services to their patients.  Hence, these physicians must see some value in these alternative forms of treatments.  Further, the University of Arizona, College of Medicine, under the leadership of Andrew Weil, M.D., offers to practicing physicians a program in Integrative Medicine.  In this fellowship physicians are trained in "guided imagery, homeopathy, acupuncture and osteopathic manipulation." The program "neither rejects conventional medicine nor embraces alternative practices uncritically." -- Mr-Natural-Health
Hey guys, Alternative medicine is meant to be an encylopaedia artice about the subject, not a tit for tat for/against essay. Aducing more agruments in support or against isn't the point and the fact that so much time is being wasted on this talk on such arguments, with a liberalhelping of personal abuse, makes me despair of it ever being a proper encyclopaedia article at all. Bmills 14:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My offers of making it a proper encyclopaedia article were turned down in mediation. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New argument in support!