Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Archive of Addressed Criticisms 1

message: Why is the info box so ugly? Can it be another colour than that? We need to at least put it at the bottom of crowded pages like iridology. Sam [Spade] 00:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply already exists at 23 -- John Gohde 00:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: I don't consider this npov: "Real science offers the highest quality of Knowledge / Evidence by Western standards."  Thoughts?  heidimo  03:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, we have to let the science people be happy.  Let them have this one.  Remember, not even the clinical practice of medicine qualifies as a real science.  Only evidence-based medicine and integrative medicine does. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Western equates to Scientific.  That is the whole point. The Western view of nature, is a scientific view of nature. Natural philosophy is Western rather than Eastern in origin for a reason. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I just added a new standard of knowledge called Enlightenment in order to classify meditation. If you want to make changes, you have to be specific. -- John Gohde 16:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV & Standards of Knowlege

message: I'm confused about the options under modality.  What does a lay practitioner, an unlicensed practitioner get called?  An example would be a lay midwife, or a reiki master.  It is not "self-care," nor is it "group," but it is not licensed and "professional" says licensed.  heidimo  03:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Clicking on the Professionalized link should now answer your question.  When you have to go to a doctor of any type, such as a midwife, then it is professionalized.  If you have to go to a group, then it is a group modality.  Otherwise, it is self-care. -- John Gohde 05:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Someone who took a class in Reiki and then starts practicing - We should not be giving a lot of coverage to illegal practices of CAM.  Offically, CAM should only be practiced by those legally licensed to practice. What the public decides to do from our articles on CAM is entirely up to them. -- John Gohde 18:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If Reiki isn't regulated, then anyone can practice it, correct?  I certainly agree that people who wish to practice medicine would benefit from study and licensure.  heidimo  20:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Homeopathy is legal in only 4 four out of 50 states in the US.  I assume that means that anybody trying to practice Homeopathy in Virginia would be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.  Anybody who either diagnoses or treats illness can be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, unless the state licenses a particular branch of alternative medicine. As far as Reiki goes, a lot of nurses practice it.  So, perhaps it is legal provided you are already a RN or a nurse practitioner.? -- John Gohde 07:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Modality question

message: I have made some changes to the "Participants" section of this WikiProject, and will be making more changes to other sections. My goals are:
# To remove any suggestion that one particular editor has more rights over the current or future direction of the project than any other.
# To remove any suggestion that the Project is any more than a set of guidelines.
# To open up the project to people who may not be supporters of Complementary and Alternative medicine, but are prepared to address the issue in a neutral way.
# To ensure that CAM articles are held to the highest standards of Wikipedia, without imposing additional requirements that other articles do not face.
These are my personal goals. Of course, I welcome discussion and disagreement, and will attempt to work amicably with anyone who disagrees on any of it. --  ALargeElk | Talk 13:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Project

message: I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Medicine to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it.  If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 08:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- It is still active.  But, I guess that you really want it to be active? No problem'o. John Gohde 08:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still active? 

message: The article series box  should be placed on the following types of articles.
*Stub articles (under the stub notice).
*For articles about CAM and at least one other topic, or for articles that are claimed by another Wikiproject (ex., Hatha yoga). 
*For articles where you don't want to make a lot of noise.  
*It is, also, perfect for those editors who cannot deal with customizing our infoboxes.  The article series box should be viewed as a more complete replacement for those See also link lists which are often seen at the bottom of many articles.
The primary version of our infobox is just for the Branches of Alternative Medicine (which covers the area of fully developed systems of alternative medicine or specific alternative methods of treatment or therapy).  A few branches, however, are not just about CAM; like the articles on astrology, cognitive behavior therapy, and hypnosis.  For these article exceptions, you should be using our article series box .
For articles on the Philosophy of CAM (which is a very broad area of alternative positions on health, healing, and illness) or for famous people in CAM that are very strongly related to our topic you should be using the secondary version of our infobox.  Examples would be Lifestyle diseases for a philosophy of article.  And, Samuel Hahnemann as a representative founder of a branch of CAM called homeopathy.  For a person like Frances Wright who did many different things in her lifetime use the articles series box .  For a philosophy article like wellness that really should be totally about our subject, but is currently laced with a lot of scientific stuff you should be using the article series box  until the article receives a major re-write during Phase V of our project.
In short, when in doubt you should be using the article series box .  But, if the article is strongly about CAM as it is currently written try to use one of our customized infoboxes. -- John Gohde 16:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What infobox am I supposed to be using?