Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Archive 2

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: List of Ayurvedic medicaments 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: The Body Soul & Spirit Expo 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Wikiproject created WP:AMED as its shortcut. I don't plan on wasting my time trying to update your maze of shortcut directories. Will create a shortcut for our portal, just as soon as we create a portal. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The short cut for our portal is P:CAM. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: This project hasn't gotten very far. The project page does not look too inviting. I don't think the main focus should be on the CAM infoboxes but on getting the project revived and attracting participants. I have now set up the project's assessment department and created a project banner to be placed on all relevant articles' talk pages. I am going to continue tagging articles which have a natural belonging within the project, and hopefully this way, more people will find their way here and chip in to effect the changes that need to be undertaken. __meco 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main focus of this Wikiproject is not, nor has CAM infoboxes ever been, its main focus.  Your current tagging of some 500+ articles with the project banner, is not any different from our earlier participants occupation with tagging / identifying articles with our various infoboxes; as far as I am concerned. The only difference is that article tagging in now currently accepted.  Furthermore, another group has tagged the branches of alternative medicine articles in Wikipedia with a much bigger infobox than our orange box ever was. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crucial assessment department added 

message: Looks to me like this Banner could be tighten up and made shorter to look more like the notice for WikiProject Medicine.
-- John Gohde 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Comparing the banners the WikiProject Medicine banner is more succinct. However, I personally don't think this is a significant issue. Our current banner does not differ much from a lot of WikiProject banners, and I don't think it displaying one way or the other will make any difference. If you make the change that you propose, I will not object, however. __meco 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it is not a significant issue.  And, as you have stated that you would have no problems with me changing it; I have. The issue of a better graphic can come up again just as soon as someone comes up with something better. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For one thing, it is referencing absolutely the wrong article. We want to be promoting our glossary of alternative medicine if nothing else. -- John Gohde 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our new Wikiproject symbol, with a mouse-over message, has a background that is invisible. John Gohde (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am curious about the use of the Yin Yang symbol to denote "Alternative Medicine". What is the rationale behind this? Have there been any other suggested images? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why.  Would like to know myself, why. -- John Gohde 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is appropriate at all. And though I can't readily think of something perfect, I would even think that the Rod of Asclepius image would be more apropos than the Yin-Yang. But then again, perhaps I am being too Western-centric. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I picked it. The rationale os obviously the holistic and harmonizing connotations that is carries. Feel free to come up with something else. __meco 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think the banner should link to Glossary of alternative medicine. Alternative medicine or Complementary and alternative medicine are the articles that should be considered the "home base" of this project (in the main namespace). __meco 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if you were to go back two or three years of discussions pages, you would obviously know that Glossary of alternative medicine is our featured article, even if it is actually a list.  It is also one of our success stories since I was able to prevent it from being deleted by calling it a glossary. Alternative medicine, as it is presently written, positively is not.  Complementary and alternative medicine (completely re-written by me, at one time) is very likely to be either deleted or merged.  Try reading our wikiproject page.  I know that our subject is alternative medicine, but the Glossary of alternative medicine is our primary success story. This glossary is precisely how we can ignore that absolutely anti-alternative medicine article. -- John Gohde 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not up-to-date on the appearance of either the AM or the CAM article, but I believe that we have to consider these articles our main articles even though they are not of the quality presently which we would like. On another note, the editors who have made changes that you find inappropriate to those two articles should also be invited to participate in this project. We should not perceive of ourselves as a faction of the defenders of these articles against those who fiercly oppose, or are merely skeptical towards, this paradigm. I believe anyone who attempts to insert bias and POV into these articles should be met with an invitation to bring their qualms here, because I think such an action could help instill a sense of responsibility and loyalty towards consensus-building instead simply obstructionism towards a field that they dislike. __-- meco (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am not going to be a Stockholm syndrome victim. If the world was what it ought to be and should be, then there would be no wars and no crime. This WikiProject is for dealing with Wikipedia as it is rather than with  what it ought to be and should be.  I have better uses of my time than editing alternative medicine.  Cleaning up our glossary of alternative medicine will be my first task.  A true glossary should be absolutely neutral.  A glossary is supposed to be a list of terms, with absolutely no place for skepticism of any type, per the rules of Wikipedia. Work on what ever you want to. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  In addition, Talk:Alternative medicine currently has 14 archives. My user names are on most of those pages. Talk:Alternative medicine has 14 different archives for a reason. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we cannot be champions of alternative medicine per se either. This WikiProject, like any WikiProject must allow for any user interested in this field to participate and be given a fair hearing for their views, even if their basic motivation is to fend off the lunatic fringe. __-- meco (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has never been at issue, nor have most of the objections that you have been raising for that matter. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not seen the Yin-Yang symbol used in association with any alternative medicine practitioners. I associate Yin Yang with the philosophy/religion of Taoism and perhaps traditional Chinese medicine which, it itself, is just a subset of Alt Med. I think it is highly inappropriate to use the symbol in conjunction with alternative medicine. That being said, I have yet to come up with a better alternative; though I think we would be better off with no symbol than Yin-Yang. I just checked out the Yin and yang article here and it makes no mention of alternative medicine. I don't know. Perhaps since Alternative Medicine tends to be more holistic in its approach, a simple outline of the body human would serve us better. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at the talk page of the Yin and yang article you will notice that I made a post back in September regarding the use of the symbol to identify the present WikiProject. Noone has so far raised any objections. I do not share your appraisal of it being misapplied in our context, rather I agree with Fyslee that much of the alternative health movement is closely assosiated with the new age movement and easily identifies with this symbol, however acknowledging its origin in Taoism. __meco 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess my big contention is that when I see the logo the topic of "Alternative Medicine" doesn't leap into my head. I think of Taoism, Asian culture, good vs bad, etc... but Alt Med doesn't come to mind. However, I am being critical here while offering no solution. I guess that there isn't a unifying image to encompass Alt Med (probably because it is a hodge-podge of so many different kinds of disciplines and practices merely thrown together in a category because they don't - for whatever reason - fit into the mainstream category). Still, I think we can do better than Yin Yang. Again, I think a body image might serve us better. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. __-- meco (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To be usable the image has to be uploaded to Wikipedia and pass copyright questions. -- -- John Gohde (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see what the members of this project think. (Why aren't you a member of this project?) -- Levine2112 discuss 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote for the aura version, but I think it should be a tad smaller in size. John Gohde (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks beautiful. __meco (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Wikiproject Banner 

message: This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine.  Please visit the project page for details or ask questions on talk.
::Our new Wikiproject symbol, with a mouse-over message, has a background that is invisible. John Gohde (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am curious about the use of the Yin Yang symbol to denote "Alternative Medicine". What is the rationale behind this? Have there been any other suggested images? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why.  Would like to know myself, why. -- John Gohde 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is appropriate at all. And though I can't readily think of something perfect, I would even think that the Rod of Asclepius image would be more apropos than the Yin-Yang. But then again, perhaps I am being too Western-centric. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I picked it. The rationale os obviously the holistic and harmonizing connotations that is carries. Feel free to come up with something else. __meco 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think the banner should link to Glossary of alternative medicine. Alternative medicine or Complementary and alternative medicine are the articles that should be considered the "home base" of this project (in the main namespace). __meco 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if you were to go back two or three years of discussions pages, you would obviously know that Glossary of alternative medicine is our featured article, even if it is actually a list.  It is also one of our success stories since I was able to prevent it from being deleted by calling it a glossary. Alternative medicine, as it is presently written, positively is not.  Complementary and alternative medicine (completely re-written by me, at one time) is very likely to be either deleted or merged.  Try reading our wikiproject page.  I know that our subject is alternative medicine, but the Glossary of alternative medicine is our primary success story. This glossary is precisely how we can ignore that absolutely anti-alternative medicine article. -- John Gohde 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not up-to-date on the appearance of either the AM or the CAM article, but I believe that we have to consider these articles our main articles even though they are not of the quality presently which we would like. On another note, the editors who have made changes that you find inappropriate to those two articles should also be invited to participate in this project. We should not perceive of ourselves as a faction of the defenders of these articles against those who fiercly oppose, or are merely skeptical towards, this paradigm. I believe anyone who attempts to insert bias and POV into these articles should be met with an invitation to bring their qualms here, because I think such an action could help instill a sense of responsibility and loyalty towards consensus-building instead simply obstructionism towards a field that they dislike. __-- meco (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am not going to be a Stockholm syndrome victim. If the world was what it ought to be and should be, then there would be no wars and no crime. This WikiProject is for dealing with Wikipedia as it is rather than with  what it ought to be and should be.  I have better uses of my time than editing alternative medicine.  Cleaning up our glossary of alternative medicine will be my first task.  A true glossary should be absolutely neutral.  A glossary is supposed to be a list of terms, with absolutely no place for skepticism of any type, per the rules of Wikipedia. Work on what ever you want to. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  In addition, Talk:Alternative medicine currently has 14 archives. My user names are on most of those pages. Talk:Alternative medicine has 14 different archives for a reason. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we cannot be champions of alternative medicine per se either. This WikiProject, like any WikiProject must allow for any user interested in this field to participate and be given a fair hearing for their views, even if their basic motivation is to fend off the lunatic fringe. __-- meco (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has never been at issue, nor have most of the objections that you have been raising for that matter. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not seen the Yin-Yang symbol used in association with any alternative medicine practitioners. I associate Yin Yang with the philosophy/religion of Taoism and perhaps traditional Chinese medicine which, it itself, is just a subset of Alt Med. I think it is highly inappropriate to use the symbol in conjunction with alternative medicine. That being said, I have yet to come up with a better alternative; though I think we would be better off with no symbol than Yin-Yang. I just checked out the Yin and yang article here and it makes no mention of alternative medicine. I don't know. Perhaps since Alternative Medicine tends to be more holistic in its approach, a simple outline of the body human would serve us better. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at the talk page of the Yin and yang article you will notice that I made a post back in September regarding the use of the symbol to identify the present WikiProject. Noone has so far raised any objections. I do not share your appraisal of it being misapplied in our context, rather I agree with Fyslee that much of the alternative health movement is closely assosiated with the new age movement and easily identifies with this symbol, however acknowledging its origin in Taoism. __meco 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess my big contention is that when I see the logo the topic of "Alternative Medicine" doesn't leap into my head. I think of Taoism, Asian culture, good vs bad, etc... but Alt Med doesn't come to mind. However, I am being critical here while offering no solution. I guess that there isn't a unifying image to encompass Alt Med (probably because it is a hodge-podge of so many different kinds of disciplines and practices merely thrown together in a category because they don't - for whatever reason - fit into the mainstream category). Still, I think we can do better than Yin Yang. Again, I think a body image might serve us better. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. __-- meco (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To be usable the image has to be uploaded to Wikipedia and pass copyright questions. -- -- John Gohde (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see what the members of this project think. (Why aren't you a member of this project?) -- Levine2112 discuss 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote for the aura version, but I think it should be a tad smaller in size. John Gohde (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks beautiful. __meco (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Wikiproject Banner 

message: How's this? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated our project banner with our new graphic.  I stuck with the original size.  It did not look quite as good smaller and Medicine's graphic is also rather tall.  Plus, I added a mouse-over message. John Gohde (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smaller logo

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken care of this article. There exists plenty of first-rate references that can still be applied to expanding this article further though. __meco (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Mosaraf Ali 

message: : What do you think? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. -- John Gohde (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Template 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On these VfD stub articles, if the article is related to CAM the procedure would be to first add the definition to the glossary of alternative medicine before physically deleting it. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the categorization, it is related to Alternative Medicine; if that is incorrect, the categorization should be removed (I can do that edit if you let me know either way).  Also, I am not nominating for deletion; I am informing so that knowledgeable editors can determine if the article is worth saving or should be allowed to pass quietly into the night. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is alternative medicine. I found one reference to it in PubMed. Put the definition into our Glossary.  But, I am of the opinion that useage of the term "Bioecological medicine" in the alternative medicine community is almost unknown and must have been introduced not much more than one year ago. Most simply would refer to it as probiotics.  There are only 60 hits when the exact phrase is Googled.  And, most of the references are to this WikiPedpia article. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD: Bioecological medicine 

message: Somebody wiped out all the editing I did at Complementary and Alternative Medicine without any history being recorded. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be two distinct articles due to case-sensitivity of Wikipedia: Complementary and alternative medicine and Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Perhaps a merge is in order? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you manage to post so fast?  I redirected the newest version to the oldest version.  I consider this article to be very important, and don't want something like this to mess it up.  If anybody wants to merge the text is still avialable as the file was not deleted. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had my Watchlist surgically implanted into my cerebellum. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I, myself, merged the material on NCCAM.  This makes the CAM article even bigger and more unique.  The rest of the material seems to be a confusion over the fact that the English Edition of Wikipedia caters to the English speaking world, which is namely the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Got a major problem 

message: Somebody is trying to have Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Quotes, a part of our CAM Portal deleted.  Quotes are a standard feature of many portals. Everyone needs to vote on this process. -- John Gohde 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. -- John Gohde 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yay! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Problem 

message: I am wondering if there is a way to remove articles from the CAM project that are not medical based?  Therapeutic horseback riding is designated as part of the CAM project, but therapeutic horseback riding is a recreational or sport activity that teaches people with disabilities to ride horses.  The requirements for teaching therapeutic riding are being over 18 years of age and passing a weekend workshop.  This is not a Complementary Alternative Medical treatment.  
However, hippotherapy is a medical treatment by a licensed medical health professional using the movement of the horse to provide functional outcomes.  This would be appropriate to be listed under the CAM project.
Is there anyway to remove an aticle from the CAM project?
69.34.62.89 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While horseback riding is recreational, Therapeutic horseback riding positively is not.  The word therapeutic certainly does not indicate a sport activity.  While more than one WikiProject could claim this article, as a non-drug and a non-surgical treatment option, therapeutic horseback riding certainly would fall under the CAM umbrella. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, that article is an appropriate topic for this Wikiproject.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Articles from CAM 

message: There has been discussion of this in several places with varying results.  To attain a more clear consensus, with input from more editors,  comments are invited at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine#Request for Comments: merge proposal for complementary and alternative medicine articles.  
To be clear - I'm not advocating for the change, just requesting discussion from interested editors...  Thanks.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments requested re merge of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-related articles 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Reiki history 

message: Hi! Could somebody, who knows enough about this matter, help? This article seems to involve legal and medical aspects... See main article Ryke Geerd Hamer... I personally would like to delete that article, but there seem to be quite rampant proponents for that article... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Germanic New Medicine]] / request for help 

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: Yo San University 

message: An RfC has been created on  Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy]] 

message: To attain a more clear consensus, with input from more editors,  comments are invited at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine.
Vote at the bottom of  Comments by involved editors. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting requested on the latest merge attempt of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-related articles 

message: The article Anti-psychiatry is currently tagged for .  Since this is within the scope of this project, I was wondering if some editors here would like to improve the article to cover more viewpoints -- in particular, the conventional view that psychiatry is ethical and efficacious.  At the moment there are problems in the article of WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints, as well as the common problem of insufficient citations.  Any new references you can add (from sources not already used) would benefit the article.
The most pressing needs are (1) references from sources skeptical to the anti-psychiatry movement, supporting particular practices of existing psychiatry; (2) scientific studies on the effectiveness of psychiatry, ideally neutral; and (3) references from those supporting anti-psychiatry, showing it as a broader movement than the current narrow viewpoint in the article.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-psychiatry 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden Totnesmartin (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Donna Eden]] AfD 

message: I added Mobile phone radiation and health‎ and Electrical sensitivity to this project. Do others agree that these belong here? Do we need to adjust the project scope to encompass them? __meco (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't within the scope of this project, and I don't see how they could be without this project being changed a lot. Those two articles have nothing to do with C/AM. --88.84.144.193 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe articles added 

message: See Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Request for comment on the attribution of criticism in the lead, all comments welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Orthomolecular medicine]] 

message: I have been doing research since 1959. I have many articles pub lished, and 13 books so far. It is usual to support quotes, statements, et aal, with citatioons which are both meaningful AND very easy for anyone to find and so confirm. Some of the articles in Wiki do not have page numbers, or something like that, thus req  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.241.209 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAKE CITING EASY PLEASE - FROM FRANK HILLS 

message: fEW PROPLE WILL READ A LONG ARTICLE TO CONFIRM A CITATION, SO PLEASE PAGINATE OR USE SECTIONS OR SOMETHING. THANKS!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.241.209 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE MAKE CITATION EXACT 

message: I believe that an article on Health Kinesiology would be useful. I gather that this form of therapy has a few practioners around and might not be as popular as others. Do we have anyone here who knows about it? Here is a website: .--Filll (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for an article 

message: Please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care. Comments are welcome; please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Comments on claim of bias and proposal for fix for comments so far. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Chiropractic]] re effectiveness of chiropractic care 

message: I would appreciate if some people could review the article I've created for the natural health firm Nelsons. I've added some basic factual copy with a few refs, but it could really do with some peer review and further refs to avoid it being deleted out of hand. Thanks --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Help: [[Nelsons (Natural Health)]] 

message: Can anyone point me towards independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the Horstmann technique? I prodded it a few weeks ago, and the prod was removed with a bare assertion that such exist. The article creator has not, however, seen fit to share what any of these sources might be. It is not mentioned at PubMed or NCCAM, nor is it listed in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine or other usual suspects. All of the internet hits seem to be either substantively copied from the originator's website or mere directory listings. While this does confirm that someone invented this technique and started teaching classes, it does not provide anything with which to work for improving the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated it for deletion here. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horstmann technique 

message: The Nelsons (homeopathy) page has been proposed for deletion.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Result was non-admin keep by consensus.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD :[[Nelsons (homeopathy)]] 

message: I have listed the article Dianetics for Good article reassessment. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dianetics/1.  Cirt (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAR]] for article [[Dianetics]] 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Feel free to provide your inputs on the deletion discussion for the detoxification methods category. It has only a 6 articles, and it is not likely to grow much. All of these articles are linked to from the detoxification article. I think putting it in a category of its own gives it undue weight, and is unnecessary. Others disagree; maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like some more input. II | (t - c) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on deleting detoxification methods category 

message: Currently, 598 articles are assigned to this project, of which 274, or 45.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page. 
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: There is a new template at :Template:Medicinal herbs & spices. I believe it to be unworkable, as basically all culinary herbs in the :Template:Herbs & spices template may also be used for medicinal purposes, and there are thousands of herbs used for strictly medicinal purposes. Badagnani (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New medicinal herb template 

message: *The people who have contributed to this page, what are you currently working on?  I know one has set up his own dictionary of CAM.  But was wondering what the rest of you were upto and how you are keeping?Merkinsmum 12:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what are people currently doing? 

message: * Added free full text documentation to the  Wellness Movement article.
* Freshen up this project page to make it more inviting, as well as up-to-date. -- John Gohde 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participant John Gohde

message: Due to its relation to this project within WP, members might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion 

message: Hi there: I'm a new user with a suggestion to have a Wikipedia entry for Stott Pilates. (Disclosure: I am employed by Stott Pilates.) I have taken the liberty of drafting an article on my user page but didn't want to post publicly due to conflict of interest. Anybody agree that this warrants an article? How can I help? Kalliope1 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new entry 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Alternative medicine 

message: It's been suggested to exclude Cochrane Collaboration and similar reviews from Chiropractic on WP:OR grounds. Comments are requested at Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from [[Chiropractic]]? 

message: I was just looking for a place to request a reassessment of an article which has undergone major changes since it was rated. Bates method is the article I want to request that for, since the B-Class rating is about a year old. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment? 

message: This is a request to add our informational/bulletin board-style site for zen shiatsu to your external links. My teaching partner and I teach zen shiatsu at three different schools in Tucson throughout the year. One is a career training program at Asian Institute of Medical Studies, one is a venue for continuing education credit and public classes, and the third is foundational training in an established massage therapy program. Our site is http://www.zenshiatsutucson.org
Thank you for your consideration, sincerely.
Kristin Schaefer
68.230.53.231 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SPAM and WP:LINKFARM. As a policy, Wikipedia only includes external links which meet a specific criteria. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding "Zen Shiatsu Tucson" link 

message: Hi, I have done some serious revision of the shiatsu article. I have tidied up the introduction, adjusted the Namikoshi bias and added a more global view, added more explanatory notes on diagnosis, made reference to a major europe wide shiatsu study of shiatsu and mentioned the opposition to shiatsu from health authorities.  It's worth looking at again and perhaps removing the controversial tag that welcomes the reader now.
85.56.60.158 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  review of the shiatsu article 

message: There is, what I believe, a blatant skepto-attack on Donna Eden.  The article is being put up for deletion a second time.  Legitimate sources have been removed (which I put back).  The motivation seems clearly that there is a set of people who think energy medicine is junk and thus all things related are not noteworthy.  If you have an interest, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2.  
P.S. Is this a reasonable use of this page?  I'm not sure.  If not, let me know what alternative approach to take. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be careful that you do not violate WP:CANVASS. I am of the opinion that you are not violating that particular set of rules with this post, but always keep it in mind when you are trying to gain visibility for projects/ideas you want to see happen at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Request 

message: Article claims he had a significant role in "systematization of Traditional Chinese Medicine" if someone could clarify it would be appreciated, as my knowledge of this area is low. --Nate1481 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wang Zi-Ping]] 

message: The Alternative medicine WikiProject tag was recently added to this article's talk page, but I don't see how it is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Any explanation? --WikiSlasher (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should ask the editor, Sticky_Parkin who did the addition --Sultec (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had already put it in the category, I am just adding the banner and rating to articles in the categories.  Presumably the concept of soul someone felt to be important in alternative medicine as otherwise practitioners would have no problem with 'normal' medicine.:)  One of their beliefs is sometimes that the person has an essence and normal medicine doesn't address diseases of thhe person's soul.  The article doesn't much address the alt.med aspect at the moment but that doesn't mean that isn't possible or the concept isn't important in alt med with WP:RS on the subject discussing it.  Anyway, don't ask me lol I'm just adding the classes or banners in accordance with what other people had put in the category.:) Sticky Parkin 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soul 

message: A user wants to rename Category:Alternative medical systems to Category:Whole medical systems as he says that is the NCCAM or something name for it.  I would appreciate your opinion on the category's talk page or something, but I don't link to them or whatever page I'm on ends up in them lol, but you can put them in the search bar to find them. Sticky Parkin 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Alternatve medical systems 

message: This article is being considered for deletion, just thought I'd let you know in case you want to give your opinions. Sticky Parkin 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glossary of alternative medicine]] 

message: Oxygen bar, an article within the scope of your project has been completely re-written as an advert (in my opinion). I have reverted once, but User:Oxygeninc has now reverted back to their promotional version. I have explained my views on the talk page and requested discussion, but this SPA has not left a single comment, nor edit summary. Any third-party view on the relative merits of the two versions would be appreciated. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen bar - request for other views 

message: While slightly battered, the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine is currently more active, successful, and accepted than it has ever been before; in the true spirit of how Wikipedia is supposed to function.
The generally accepted Wikipedia scorecard of success is shown on the chart to the right of this comment.  Close to 1,000 articles have been tagged as being related to the topic of alternative medicine.  And, there is also all those articles that have been tagged with an alternative medicine related category.
Over the years we have lost a number of articles and project sub-pages.  But the two key lists that were once deleted, have been restored one way or the other by popular demand.  Our original project scope has once again been restored to where it was at the start of 2005.
I would have to say that the core original ideas of this WikiProject have been vindicated over the test of time. While the layouts, design, color, vocabulary, and techniques have somewhat changed, Wikipedians have implemented ALL of our original core ideas.
Major CAM related articles have a box on them that is bigger than ever.
CAM related talk pages have our tag on them.
A type of rating is being displayed on our talk page tags.
The value of lists has withstood the test of time.
-- John Gohde (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of WikiProject on Alternative Medicine 

message: I'm unsure if this is OR / vanity or is properly notable. I thought you chaps might be best placed to help. I'll also drop a line at WT:INDIA --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sheethali Chikithsa]] 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: An Alternative Medicine wikiproject banner was added to "Rejuvenation Research". I think this is incorrect. Agreed? --Green06 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of alternative medicine 

message: :Category:Homeopathic remedies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Cgingold (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD nomination of Category:Homeopathic remedies 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps invitation 

message: After not having much success with a lot of editors that would rather deny everything then give it a chance, I stumbled upon this wikiproject. Electrical pollution and electrical hypersensitivity are topics of alternative medicine that have been readily denied (Like all alternative medicine) by the "mainstream scientific community". I am looking to make a page for electrical pollution explaining the causes, symptoms, and treatments for it, as well as rebuking the common myths that popular science throws on it. Are there any editors in this project that have an understanding of these concepts and want to help collaborate a notable and well sourced article on this (I have made a minor minor start on it over on my user page (Please do not make judgements based on this. It it 10 minutes worth of work for what will be a much larger article))?
PS: I am not here to debate the existence of electrical pollution of to convince you why you should believe in it.
-- Floydian τ γ 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you collaborate on Wikipedia is to post articles.  The number one problem for all article writers is coming up with a good name for it.  Right now, I would say that you need to find a better name. What you really got is only a stub.  So, I would try posting it to Glossary of alternative medicine to see how the community would respond to it. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical Pollution (Looking to collaborate) 

message: I started the article Zanthoxylum americanum and assessed it up to start-class. I think it should be higher than that, but will not assess higher myself. Could someone please assess it? I'd also appreciate feedback on the talkpage there as to what improvements would be needed to bring it to GA-level. Thanks, LadyofShalott 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles in Wikipedia fall under more than one project. Botany and :Category:Medicinal plants considerations would have to be the primary considerations for articles of this nature. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment request 

message: FYI, we have an article at Bonghan theory, which if I'm understanding correctly is about a hypothetical physiological system which explains acupuncture. Article is tagged with "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. ... Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days...", so please give editors their several days to work on it, but IMHO we want to keep an eye on this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bonghan theory]] 

message: The Magnet Therapy article requires a major overhaul. This article previously described using magnets as pseudoscience with little scientific backing. In recent years, major research has proven static magnetic fields affect several biological processes, most notably blood microcirculation. This effect results in relief of pain and swelling from recent injury and trauma, and improved wound healing after surgery. Substantial research is accumulating for other physiological and behavioral effects of both static and electromagnetic fields.
I have begun to re-organize this article, and have added substantial references based on this research. Though I'm not a member of this project, (I am new to Wikipedia in general), any constructive input would be greatly appreciated. Spades07 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnet Therapy (Request for Review & Comments) 

message: rasatibakshayatisarvanlohan rasaityabidiyate meaning that which digests all the metals is known as rasa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.70.132 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of rasa 

message: Does the article Warburg's Tincture, which I have created, come under the remit of this WikiProject?  thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but I added the Category:History of medicine. --Dyuku (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warburg's Tincture 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant AFD 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassessment of [[Vitamin C]] 

message: Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Proposed new section "Alternative medicine as mainstream" 

message: Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people]]. 

message: Shouldn't alternative medicine be a separate topic for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting? It appears to me that that would be useful. __meco (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Deletion sorting 

message: Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement of RfC at [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Wikilinking_to_Category:Pseudoscience_in_this_policy|Talk:NPOV]] regarding use of [[:Category:Pseudoscience]] wikilinks 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia and currently am working on the article for Traditional African Medicine for my Shaping of the Modern World class at Duquesne University and would greatly appreciate it if anyone could edit my article or give me any suggestions, especially on how to better organize it. Mitchel2 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional African Medicine 

message: There's something of a debate going on at Talk:Johanna Budwig about what is appropriate to include in an article about this person (developer of the Budwig diet/Budwig protocol, which still has its enthusiasts as a supposedly beneficial diet for cancer patients). At the moment two of us take a similar position, whilst a third wants to make drastic cuts. I would appreciate the perspective of people who aren't already involved. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Johanna Budwig]] 

message: 2010 June 23*
Should :Category:Osteopathic medicine be merged with :Category:Osteopathy? Any input is helpful. Gabbe (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category mergers 

message: Please see AfD:Greg Caton (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Finemrespice (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD:Greg Caton 

message: I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;
*Talk:Meditation#Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation
I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.
I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.
I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a second discussion, to clarify; quite a simple suggestion, and it could really do with more input, if anyone can contribute to the discussion, thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditation 

message: WP:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project has recently identified several underdeveloped articles that they would like to see improved:
* Vitamin E
* Triphala
* Withania Somnifera
* Asana (yoga), and 
* Ayurveda.
If you're interested, please jump in.  Even ten minutes' effort can help a lot, and this project multiplies your efforts out to several Wikipedias around the world.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed for translation project 

message: A Wikipedia Administrator, whose edit description claimed to be doing "categorization/tagging/cleanup using AWB" basically removed the whole article, including LOTS of references, to emphasize his opinion that the modality, and all 'therapeutic touch' is pseudoscience. Has anyone else had an experience like this? What's the best way to proceed? An opposing view is one thing, but just destroying the page seems antagonistic. Can I roll back the edits? Any feedback or information would be helpful. Thank you!
Souljerky (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit description is not misleading but simply missing. You can rollback the changes and ask for explanation why it has been stubbed. Richiez (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  His response indicates that it's "just hand-waving assertions that have no basis in actual research" and that it's a promotional puff piece. Is it not appropriate to describe the underlying principles and that it is based on Polarity and Cranial Osteopathy, which he deleted and replaced with a reference to Therapeutic Touch, which wasn't in there originally? Thanks for the help!
Dln108 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  Dln108 -- Would you like to roll it back with edits that address his concerns? Souljerky (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: If I roll back, am i picking a fight? Souljerky (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: would be better to see how the discussion here develops. Richiez (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you! Souljerky (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Core Synchronism]] redaction 

message: There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits".  It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction.  Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment about [[Chiropractic]] 

message: A new article Color light acupuncture is being considered for deletion. Could some experts from this project please take a look and advise. Its origins seem to be COI and spam, but it could it make a valid article one day? Derek Andrews (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely to be anything other than a footnote to the main article - and I imagine even that would be resisted. Verbal chat 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Main article? I was thinking this might be merged with Chromotherapy. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Colorpuncture is in my opinion not a variety of chromotherapy but of acupuncture and I think that is where it belongs. I also find it interesting that the discussion page is much larger than the actual article. --JHvW (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color light acupuncture 

message: There's a new article, Vitamin D and influenza‎. I tried to develop it a bit, but the author obviously knows what he's doing. Should this be listed as 'Alternative medicine'? Actually, it's almost mainstream medicine nowadays. In any case, it's drugless medicine, so should be relevant. --Dyuku (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: YES, definitely.  Any use of vitamins to treat and/or prevent disease is alternative medicine.  In nature, Vitamin D is usually paired with Vitamin A which has a much bigger effect on preventing Influenza, IMHO - John Gohde (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that Vitamin D is not an actual vitamin but a group of vitamins, Vitamin D3 usually (but incorrectly) being referred to as Vitamin D. Vitamin A and D3 can be harmful (in some countries they are classified as poisons) when taken in high dosages. Vitamine C has also been mentioned as an influenza profilactic (amongst others by noted scientist Linus Pauling), however there is no statistical or empirical evidence to suggest any form of efficacy. --JHvW (talk)  11:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  new article: [[Vitamin D and influenza‎]] 

message: Hello. I edited the Chemotherapy article in an attempt to improve NPOV in terms of showing that there is criticism of the therapy and that alternatives exist. Any help with approach would be greatly appreciated. DJ Barney (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Needed with Chemotherapy Article 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Alternative medicine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative medicine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: I read some controversy about the way Infrared mammography has been promoted in an NZ paper recently (and from a search I'm seeing similar things in the Australia). Taking a look at the article I think it needs attention. For what I understand is technique who's efficacy is still in much doubt the article seems rather positive to me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Infrared mammography]] 

message: The article Eco-somatics has been nominated for deletion. Its AfD entry can be found here. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eco-somatics AfD notification 

message: Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Agada]] 

message: Hi. I noticed massive blanking in this article, which is listed of interest to your project. A little further investigation shows that it is being heavily edited by several IPs who were cautioned for edit-warring on the article in 2009. Frankly, on page size alone it seems that it could use some pruning, but I have no knowledge of and little interest in naturopathy, and the content at least appeared to be well-sourced. I have restored it, but it is in the process of being removed without comment again. (Since the IP seems to rapidly cycle, it's possible that the contributor had not received my notice.) I thought that it might be worth bringing the article to the attention of the projects under which it is tagged in case some repairs may be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Naturopathy]] 

message: A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here. PPdd (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal ''Homeopathy'' an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions 

message: Request for re-evaluation of Anthroposophical medicineI did a total rewrite of Anthroposophical medicine. Both POV's seem happly now.  Can the article be re-evaluated? PPdd (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for re-evaluation of [[Anthroposophical medicine]] 

message: In the highly edit war-prone homeopathy related articles, there is a model of cooperation in which balance was achieved not by making both sides unhappy, but both sides happy (apparently by unanimous consensus) here. PPdd (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A model of cooperation in which both highly POV sides of a homeopathy related article are happy 

message: There is a new article at Integrative medicine that is largely redundant with Alternative medicine. I have started a merge discussion at Talk:Alternative medicine#Merge from Integrative medicine. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Integrative medicine to Alternative medicine 

message: Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt Med journals revisited - Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals 

message: This article could use some attention of some experts. --Crusio (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain]] 

message: I found it really disconcerting to read the brief piece on sungazing, as I was hoping for a descriptive article, rather than one of someone who only seems to enjoy warning us against it. I find it sad that such an open medium is used by those in favor of, or against something. Wikipedia in my understanding is a tool for information, not some kind of sectarian place in which to express opinions.
I am wary of any kind of "ism" that tries to tell me that something is good or bad for me, and, this "article" on sungazing to me looks like a script of someone who believes that only what can be scientifically measured is true.
How sad !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.216.138 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on sungazing 

message: The "Stub" classification of this article ("Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition") seems not to be an accurate assessment. Can somebody here look at this, please, and reassess? Thanks! Vitaminman (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alliance for Natural Health]] article 

message: This article contains some medical claims and criticism directed against the NEJM. Perhaps some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at it, as it seems rather unbalanced and POV. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor seems to have taken care of this now, but more eyes would probably not go amiss. This is the source plant for tea tree oil. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Melaleuca alternifolia]] 

message: Is the term megavitamin therapy used interchangeably with orthomolecular medicine? News Edit war at six - additional input, preferably with more sources than philosophical musings, would be appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthomolecular medicine 

message: I was wondering if an article I'm trying to work with qualifies for WikiProject Alternative Medicine. It's about Ross Hauser. The article is being debated for deletion. I'm arguing that it is dificult to get reliable sources about AltMed because traditional media doesn't cover it very well. Does this qualify? It helps get information out about Prolotherapy.Savethelastbook (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Hauser 

message: Greetings Mastcell,
One cannot dispute that information sources such as NCI, ACS, FDA and so on are "information sources"; nor that they are well regarded in some sectors of the industry. Yet I say again that very significant volumes of that material are factually invalid. It is just as easy to cite peer reviewed science journal material (and there are Petabytes of it) that would discredit assertions made by these organisations as it is to support them. Therefore, it merely comes down to WHICH peer reviewed journal reports you choose. At the end of the day, it is the fundamental biology that harbours the true answers - not the opinions of a bunch of peers, for they, too, are susceptible to personal bias and personal agendas. 
Whilst I could get into conspiracy theory in support of claims I make against veracity of citation material from the aforementioned sources, that would be grinding a political axe and is plainly inappropriuate in this forum. Owing to the volume of information I have, or can access in support of my assertions to the aforesaid effect (namely the "disparagement" of those organisations) I also consider that to be inappropriate in a forum where my posts are already considerably longer than those of most other members. And grinding that axe is not my purpose here. My purpose is to challenge the factuality of such articles as may be authored by pro-orthodox contributors who happen to be careless and selective with their facts and as such, are misinforming Wikipedia's public. Dr. Barrett is merely my prime suspect - he may not be alone and probably isn't alone.
Basically on that score, I simply urge Wiki Mediators to look beneath the surface and to be more discriminating when it comes to regard for cited reference material. I draw your attention to what I said about Dr. Barrett referring to his own articles on his own website to illustrate just one case in point. Either Wiki strives to be as factual and authoritative as possible, or it pretends to be. You must appreciate that there is a clear distinction.
I also agree that personal disparagements against other living individuals on a Wiki site is likewise inappropriate. However (and I don't accept that I'm splitting hairs), the claims against Barrett are, if you re-examine them, NOT personal, apart from the fact that they identify him by name. Well, alright - I do note that I described him as "a rabid pro-orthodox aficionado". In hindsight, I'd prefer to retract the word, "rabid". Otherwise however, they express NO opinion of what he is perceived to be in terms of his character. They instead state facts about what he does - his actions. And they state a general inference, to the effect that on the basis of his literary style and the same consistent set of reference citations used in the articles discussed or alluded to - that he is suspected of being the author of those Wiki articles.
Dr. Barrett's actions as I have stated them are not opinion. I say again - they are not opinion. They are verifiable. I would also point out that Dr. Barrett himself has been known to disaparage the professionalism of a multitude of scientists and doctors including some still living, though that may not be strictly true at Wkipedia. However, among them are some of the most highly decorated and lauded on Earth by their peers. Let's start with three who earned five Nobel Prizes in Medicine between them; and another who was nominated seven times. Let's further add at least one more, whose brilliant work paralleled mainstream electromedicine in the form of MRI and other diagnostic devices of much later advent; and whose devices were commonly used in American hospitals until the early 1940s. Why they were thrown out during that time becomes a matter of opinion, so that can't be pursued here. But Dr. Barrett asserted in plain language and I quote from an article he certifiably wrote: "The bottom line is that radionics devices have no value for diagnosing or treating anything." In view of the extensive modern usage of "radionics machines" like HIFU, MRI and also in view of the experiments recorded on YouTube in which a Beam Ray type Rife Machine successfully did precisely what Dr. Rife claimed for his original devices, the ONLY conclusion to be drawn is that this statement in particular is patently false. If that were an isolated case, then it should be overlooked as an aberration. But it is not. It is stock standard fare, consistent entirely with Barrett's style of reportage. How that reflects on his own prefessionalism and personal character is something I absolutely do not need to state. People inevitably drawn character inferences of their own, regardless.
How you can favourably regard that kind of reportage and the citations selectively used to support the claims is frankly quite beyond me. The articles in question contain mixes of fact and fiction, selectively designed to promote a definite viewpoint in the medical field, where there definitely is a polarisation of people and their views.
I readily concede that Wikipedia may not be suited to a person of my particular orientation. In doing so, I can only indicate also that it implies Wikipedia simply isn't reliable and authoritative enough to continue using as a reference resource in my ongoing researches.
K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krebiozen - questionable authorship & references 

message: Thanks WhatamIdoing for the further explanation.
I would hope this will be my last post on this particular sunject, as I have made the point clearly enough.
I do agree that nothing should prevent Barrett or any of his peers from editing at Wikipedia. Neither should self-citing be prohibited if it is within reasonable limits. Also, I would hardly expect Wiki Mediators to use their crystal c]balls to ascertain WHO authors Wiki articles.
The core issue is veracity - factuality.
It is for that reason that the adjustments Wiki would make to "editorial style" over time to reflect the dominant public view is somewhat disappointing. Encyclopaedic articles on medicine (which is a SCIENCE, contrary to the way it is treated by many who work within its bounds) are supposed to be scientifically factual - are they not?
Since when does weight of peer opinion equate with that?
Circa 1968 in my first year at secondary school, a lady science teacher conducted an experiment before her class, of which I was a bewildered member. She very carefully weighed a rubber balloon and metal sealing clip on a scientific balance. She then inflated the balloon with her own expired air, sealed it with the clip and very carefully weighed it again. There was a difference in the two readings, of course - the inflated kit was heavier. This experiment purportedly proved that air has mass. I was flabbergasted. The silly woman actually proved by default that Helium has negative mass, 'if you accept the validity of the experiment's design.Italic text
Do you see my point where it applies to peer reviewed clinical trials and related material? You would NOT believe how much of this kind of rubbish I have found in my searches - that is, unitl you go searching for it, yourself.
K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krebiozen - self-authorship citation 

message: ALL YOU SAY HERE ABOUT SPIRITISM IS PLAIN WRONG. You are confusing Spiritism with mediumship and xamanism. Spiritism does not perform Medical acts. It's simple to check waht is Spiritism, in the site of the World Spiritist Council - spiritist dot org. Cheers.  A. A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.102.186 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 05 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritism 

message: I see a consistent trend in supporting mainstream opinions about medicine on this website. In particular, I complain about how the article about Dr. Max gerson talks about how the NCI and independent body could not evaluate the results the Dr. mentioned in his book about cancer cures for 50 patients as described in the quote below:
:"Gerson's records lacked the basic information necessary to systematically evaluate his claims. The NCI concluded that Gerson's data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is considered scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous."
The uninitiated in the field of the controversry as to what constitutes medicine vs. what the mainstream AMA/FDA based postion as to what constitutes medicine is, will simply take this at face value and look no deeper into the situation. The problem is the AMA and the NCI etc have vast wealth and power to suppress what is detrimental to their goals. This isn't conspiracy theory it's simply a fact of life. Just examine court cases having to do with business related suits. There are attack arguments on both sides. In order to makes ones own decision as to what is true a balanced report should be made. 
In the article about Dr. Gerson, it would have been nice to see some counter information as to what exactly the NCI found that did not allow them to "systematically evaluate" his claims. Further, what did the Dr. or his followers have to say about it. Simply making the statement that the Dr's records lacked basic informaiton is not enough because it gives the opinion that that is the final word on the subject! Dr. Gerson was a well respected doctor who devoted his life to this research and deserves better. 
Louis138.163.0.44 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We are naturally limited to whatever the published reliable sources choose to say.  If no newspaper, magazine, or other publication chose to publish exactly what the faults were in Gerson's recordkeeping, then there's nothing we can do about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced Reporting Required 

message: The article about the
Alexander technique needs work.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alexander technique]] 

message: There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the care taken (or not taken) to approach the handling of alternative medicine in the article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review for [[Gabriel Cousens]].  Input requested. 

message: Hello. I am new to Wiki and have created an article on a touch therapy system called Zero Balancing. I would like to add it to the "Types of Massage" template. Do I need permission to do this? Or can I add it myself? Thank you! (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it yourself to Template:Massage types.  Just copy the formatting that the others use, and be sure to press the "Show preview" button before saving the page, to make sure that it looks right.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding Zero Balancing 

message: Perhaps someone from this project could have a look at this list. I'm not sure the subject is notable enough for a stand-alone list and also the inclusion of some people is perhaps not warranted. George Lewith, for example, although he has published extensively on the subject, is professor of "health research", not "complementary medicine". Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an original synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod was contested, I'm putting it up for AfD . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[UK professors of complementary medicine]] 

message: Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. 
—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:HighBeam 

message: There has been a merge request of these two pages without comment for a couple of weeks, but I'm not sure I have the knowledge to merge them correctly. Actually, as I look into it, I begin to wonder if this is even a good idea; carminative being part of this project makes me think perhaps a carminative is a natural alternative to a (pharmaceutical) antiflatulent. Or perhaps this is just a matter of marketing. Can anyone enlighten me? --BDD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED is worth a moment's reading:  bobrayner (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So carminatives aren't accepted by modern medicine? This connection to humourism isn't indicated at carminative, at least. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antiflatulent]] and [[Carminative]] 

message: The article is currently in my namespace. I am concerned about potential deletion, but I do believe the topic has become sufficiently notable, for better or worse, as demonstrated by the references in my draft of the article (most of which are more recent than the last deletion in 2007). Any contributions or suggestions would be appreciated. -Hugetim (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Feedback for a new article on BodyTalk 

message: The article  is getting badgered and deleted by those who do not believe in homeopathy, even though there is evidence to support nosodes and  links to relevant studies provided. Please support the article as the studies for herpes nosodes bear significant promise for those suffering from herpes. Wikipedia is meant to be an objective source, however I am finding a serious amount of opposition to any article posted for natural treatments on the site. Support from Alternative Medicine contributors will be greatly appreciated on . NatureisScience2  —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Feedback for a new article on Herpes Nosodes 

message: What about a sub-project that deals with pharmacognosy and ethnopharmacology. Would that fit better under project medicine instead, since pharmacognosy is about modern scientific studies too? This is to make it easier to document traditional medicines (Ayurveda, Amazonian, etc) that are passed down verbally and not written down. - Sidelight12 Talk 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: botanical pharmacognosy - 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-project: botanical [[pharmacognosy]]? 

message: Requested page move from Alternative medicine to Complementary and alternative medicine initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine 

message: As per goals of WikiProject Alt Med's goals:
To help stabilize controversial CAM articles.
To support the use of the highest-quality sources, not merely the sources that support the "right" conclusions.
May I suggest to take a look at the article? I think it has to be completely rewritten. Popular press sources, speculative opinionated commercial Quackwatch, FDA letters 10+ years ago to specific websites has got to go IMHO. Ryanspir (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look and found nothing glaring. Maybe try WP:BOLD? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are 20+ PUBMED indexed sources and scientific + news releases of Univ of Leeds of UK. Nothing from it got included either. Ryanspir (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Medical uses of silver]] article 

message: :Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and  "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate Review Requested 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage of acupuncture in the military is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[Usage of acupuncture in the military]] for deletion 

message: Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/
Please contribute to  discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors 

message: The goal of wikiproject traditional medicine is solely anthropological, differentiating it from alternative medicine. Something cannot be the alternative when it is the traditional. Further more many of the topics covered by this project would be of no interest to an anthropologist as they are entirely modern. Coverage on Aztec, Mayan and even Korean medicine is far less than encyclopedic. Such pages should meet a standard of review and feature information on an assortment of organisms found within a cultures traditional territory. Only two actual species of plants are mentioned in the article for Korean medicine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Wikiproject Traditional Medicine 

message: Article for deletion discussion that may be of interest to Wikiproject Alternative Medicine for article Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges]] 

message: This poor article is need of a lot of attention if anyone is interested. I took the liberty of tagging it with this wikiproject. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fasting spittle]]

message: I stumbled across an  AFD for Cymatic therapy, and with all the sub categories involved I couldn't figure out if the alternative medicine project was getting notified... so here you go. Krushia (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD: [[Cymatic therapy]] 

message: *Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List peer review for [[List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!]]  

message: The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Is anybody aware of some specific pages of notability guidance for Alt-med topics? In the few years I've been involved with WP I've seen a lot of new editors wishing to contribute articles about CAM topics. Often they find the WP:MEDRS guidelines difficult to apply, sometimes even questioning the applicability of "medical" guidelines to something they see as a non-medical intervention. I've also noticed a lot of difficulties in evaluating sources, in particular which sources might count as high-quality. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MEDRS will apply where medical claims are made either in terms of therapeutic benefit or mode of action or where any biomedical content is included. For medical sources, go to pubmed and search for review articles (meta-analyses, etc) published in the last five years or so on your chosen topic. Read WP:MEDRS as this guideline applies to all medical content on WP whether alternative or not. As regards notability, that should follow the general notability guideline and will require significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Many alt med topics will also fall under WP:FRINGE. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks FiachraByrne, that's the advice I usually give to editors. I was just wondering if there's a way we can be more helpful. I've spent many hours explaining WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS to Alt-Med/CAM proponent editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my deepest and sincere sympathies. Maybe for notability, you could direct them to search [0=im_field_terms_archie_topics%3A948&f[1]=im_field_stage%3A3 here] and here. But there's no short-cut to proving notability and alt med isn't different in that respect from anything else - you need reliable secondary sources that give decent coverage and google news, books, scholar or a bricks and mortar library will really work as well medical databases to establish notability. If it's not covered in pubmed, however, there will be no basis for the inclusion of any medical related content (although sociological, historical, anthropological and religious aspects, etc, could be covered). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines for Alt-Med / CAM topics 

message: FYI, a cleanup request for  has been filed at WT:CHINA -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Traditional Chinese medicine}}

message: At Talk:Alternative_medicine#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".
I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section dealing with terminology in that article covers most of the major definitions (although perhaps complementary inadequately). The lead is a different beast but the major problem is that there's no accepted definition of CAM/Alt med. The definition in the lead is verging on original research but it's ok although it privileges a particular, if fairly mainstream, perspective. What kind of alternative would you offer? (For full disclosure, I wrote the terminology section some months ago (never quite finished it) although it may have been edited since then.) FiachraByrne (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the definitions of "alternative medicine" by "major world health organization[s]"? 

message: #List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
#Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit! 

message: Hi, there has been significant restructuring of the human body, human physiology and human anatomy articles over at WP:Anatomy, making the Human body article the main, offering opportunities for future expansion once significant information is available.
There is currently not anything on alternative views of the human body, such as those from TCM, if you are willing to add a section that doesn't make any medical claims (as per WP:MEDRS), only giving views of the human body that would be most helpful.
CFCF (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of alt-med beliefs about the human body would bypass the need for WP:MEDRS? bobrayner (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-medical ones perhaps - if they were signalled as culturally specific beliefs? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human body]] 

message: I believe this paragraph has an error:
Aflatoxin, a extremely potent carcinogen and major cause of mitochondria damage, and hence all bodily processes including skeletal muscles, has been shown to be inhibited by whey protein and ginseng extract.[27] However, the amount of aflatoxin within whey protein itself, was shown to be reflected by the amount in the unprocessed milk used to make it.[28]
I am not sure what they were trying to say, but it does not make sense.  First, it says that Whey inhibits the carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin.  Then, it insinuates that there is actually aflatoxin within whey itself.  So, whey contains aflatoxin, and whey makes aflatoxin non-carcinogenic at the same time???  That is what this appears to say.  It needs to be better explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.5.5 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think something is wrong with this paragraph ... 

message: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" was added to wp:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Are there any opinions about this? - Sidelight12 Talk 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - prohibiting primary sources 

message: I have suffered wth asthma most of my life and I am now 80 years old. I came across the Buteyko Method of breathing in 1998 when the BBC published their boolet QED abd also ran a TV series on it.
I have found it the best reliever of Asthma and every Asthma sufferer should be aware of it.
I have recently read of two deaths of young students "from Asthma".  But I was taught when I was 20 that "Nobody dies of Asthma" only the so-called medical cures for asthma cause death. Every time I feel that an asthma attack is building up, I start my Buteyko breathing and it subsides.
I went to an ASTMA CLINIC at my doctor's surgery, but no mention was made of the BUTEYKO Method.
The medical profession should teach it in all their Asthma clinics and it would save the NHS Billions of pounds. The excuse given is that it is not scientifically proven to be a cure. But then neither is Ventilin or all the other Asthma Inhalers prescribed. All they do is give temporary relief. But the emphasis is on the word temporary. After a time the patient becomes totally dependent on the inhaler and is frightened to leave the house without it.
the Buteyko method is free and you always have it with you. So what is it. Basically it is learning to completely exhale and then hold your breath for as long as possible. In my case 20 seconds is enough to bring relief from an Astma attack. The common belief about Asthma is that you cannot breathe in. But the real problem is that you have not trained to exhale properly. the reason you cannot breathe in is that your lungs are full of bad air.
Once you have trained to exhale you are on the way to long term Astma relief.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.102.78 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buteyko breathing - my personal experience 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Alternative_medicine#Pseudoscience_category_being_added_again.  Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at Category_talk:Alternative_medicine#Pseudoscience_category_being_added_again

message: This article's sources are all primary, with 11 of the 12 being from the founder's writings. This is a very fringe form of bodywork and I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the secondary source books I'm consulting for another bodywork page, Rolfing. It is in the list of types of massage at the bottom of the Rolfing page, but I think it should be removed from that list due to be quite obscure. Google didn't produce much useful information, either, nor did it produce local practitioners. I'm hesitant to rip into this page myself, being a newbie and not being sure how to handle an utter lack of sources. Thought you might be interested. Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed at [[Postural_Integration]]; possible fringe article 

message: The Gary Null article is getting hammered.  It started out as a biased article, I started adding to it to make it objective, more balanced, and give more information.  Apparently I have a conflict of interest because my dad did his radio show in the 70s and 80's.  Any editors wanna pick this up and develop the article?  Its getting hammered by several editors who rather than look at facts just keep reverting the article.  I am not interested in counterattacking or sanctioning these people, but they seem very interested in counterattacking and sanctioning me.  
If you want to help, add useful, accurate information to his article. hello 02:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gary Null Article

message: I have been working on the Dahn Yoga article on occassion for a while now.  I don't know much about the group, but it appears that members have been editing and whitewashing the article on and off since it was created, which piqued my interest.  An unregistered user recently added a sentence stating that all the lawsuits against them had been dropped or dismissed; the "source" is a press release by Dahn Yoga itself in PRNewswire.  I was unable to find an objective source regarding the status of these suits.  Is it appropriate to undo the edit by the unregistered user?  Also, I will probably not be back on Wikipedia regularly, is there some way to watch the page in case those affiliated with the group return to edit it again? -Lciaccio (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Would like feedback on Dahn Yoga Article

message: A discussion of the propriety of using NCCAM classification as a basis of Wikipedia article organization is here. FloraWilde (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the NCCAM classification system be used at Wikipedia? 

message: Template:Zangfu has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion of Template:Zangfu 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: This is a notice about :Category:Alternative medicine articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. The category currently contains International Society of Acupuncture, and I don't know whether this category will become populated with other articles after a while. Iceblock (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention 

message: There is a (so far limited and dated) discussion about merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine at Talk:Folk medicine#Merge.  I would like additional input from this Wikiproject, please. – Maky « talk » 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Traditional medicine]] and [[Folk medicine]] 

message: Hello everyone, there is an RFC that people from this project may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. Thank you for your feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC notification 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcanum corallinum.  
I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place to mention such things; if I am incorrect in my placement please feel free to remove.  As you can see from the page discussion it is unclear that a consensus was reached; I clearly do not believe that one was.  Instead of leaving the page and beginning a discussion on redirect/improvement/alteration, it looks as if a simple vote count was done.  There is now a dead link from Maslama al-Majriti to Arcanum corallinum.  I bring this to the project's attention because I feel as though a valid piece of knowledge was summarily lost.  Thanks very much.  WookieeV (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DRV Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently Deleted AltMed/Alchemy Page 

message: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture closed by motion on 12 January 2015.  The result is that all articles and all edits about complementary and alternative medicine, "broadly defined", are now covered by Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  
* If the article is about CAM, then discretionary sanctions apply.  
* If the edit is about CAM, even if the article is about a different subject (for example, if you're writing that Joe Film uses an herbal supplement),  then discretionary sanctions apply.  
* If there's even a hint or a question about whether the article or subject is about CAM, then discretionary sanctions apply.  
As a result of this definition, every single article supported by this group is likely subject to discretionary sanctions now.
If you're not familiar with this system, this is a "one strike and you're (maybe) out" system that applies to everyone, as a result of the bad behavior of other, previous editors.  If an editor causes even a small problem at an article, and the editor has already been officially warned about the existence of the sanctions (this message doesn't count, because no one could prove that anyone else read it), then the editor can be blocked or otherwise punished by any uninvolved admin.  Discretionary sanctions are supposed to be applied against editor behavior, not against editor's beliefs or viewpoints.  For example, if an editor reverts the same material twice in a CAM article, then it is not supposed to matter whether the editor is pro-science or anti-science, or pro-altmed or anti-altmed.  
In general, my advice is that editors proceed with caution and that they use formal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution whenever there is any concern.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretionary sanctions for all of CAM 

message: Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article San healing practices  (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating.
Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Primary School invitation

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Atsme☎️📧 13:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC taking place now on COI for alt-med practitioners 

message: I edit regularly for Project Medicine and have come across the interesting trend that conventional medicine is now endorsing probiotic treatment for bacterial vaginosis.  This seems to conflict with most of the content and references that now exist on this topic and on all the probiotic topics in general.  I guess what I want to discuss is the move of probiotic treatments into the area of conventional medical treatments.  There will be some resistance from both sides, I suppose, but the medical journal review and systematic review articles are now in consensus about the benefits of probiotic treatments for gastrointestinal problems and for bacterial vaginosis.  I would appreciate any insight or advice on how to proceed.  At this point, I plan on identifying these articles/topics with both alternative medicine and project medicine talk templates.  I would also like to apply the med ref search template to probiotic talk pages.  This template leads to medical journal articles that are considered the best sources in project medicine, although I don't believe citations are as strict in alternative medicine. Best Regards,
:  Bfpage |leave a message  12:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is consensus, what is the problem? In any event, it is now known that the health of the human microbiome is vital.  Probiotics of various types and concetrations are being used in the management of chronic sinusitis and fecal translplants (eating shit?!) is healing all kinds of chronic disorders including diabetes.  Our bodliy bacteria are a new frontier for restoring health.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The veracity of the info is not the problem. What I'm talking about is how best to work with the different projects. Bfpage from my mobile phone and signed in   Bfpage |leave a message  18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Probiotic treatment for bacterial vaginosis

message: A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether  Category:Pseudoscience  should be added to the article on Ayurveda.  Participation in the RFC is encouraged.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayurveda RFC 

message: A Request for Comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? is taking place here.  Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: () --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks like [[WP:OR]]... is it? 

message: Hello ,
You are invited to join the Essential Oils WikiProject, 
a WikiProject and resource dedicated to the study and improvement of Essential Oil and related articles.
To join the project, just add your name to the participants list. We're so glad you're here! 
Ilikeguys21 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: I would like to improve the content on the Bowen technique page and would like to ask this project for help. I'm studying Bowen so I have an interest, so does that automatically exclude me from being able to edit it?
When I compare it to pages of other complimentary therapies it doesn't have much content - main missing area being Theory. If I update this will it be automatically rejected? Can anyone who has successfully edited a complimentary therapy page help me? Many thanks.
Megan9999999 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is finding sources which are WP:FRINDependent, and (for biomedical claims) which conform to WP:MEDRS. I actually think our article is pretty good, given the out-of-the-way good sourcing on this niche topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help improving the Bowen technique page 

message: I am working on SuperHumans Project. From the traditional Indian medicines of Ayurveda and Rasashastra, I have found some formulations to make the homo sapiens to the SuperHumans. I have seen nice results in my clinical trials. If anybody want to join me on this project you can contact me for sure. Dr. Milind Chatrabhuji, Suvarna Ayurveda, Shop No. 10, Chandravilla Flats, Near Atmajyoti Ashram, Ellorapark, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Call me at plus Nine One Eight Triple Zero Four Five Nine Seven Three Two. or Email me at milind.chatrabhuji at gmail dot com.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.163.255 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am working on SuperHumans Project. 

message: As a student of reflexology I was truly shocked at how biased against alternative medicine this description is. . I tried to add a comment to address this imbalance and add a link which provides evidence to support reflexology and was blocked as they said my comment was not 'neutral'. Well excuse me but their article is not neutral either . While mainstream pharmaceutical medicine may be very biased again natural medicine- we are taught that natural medicine can COMPLEMENT mainstream medicine and are trained to advise our clients to in turn tell their doctor if they are receiving reflexology. We are taught that we never offer reflexology as an alternative to GP prescriptions but only to complement their treatment. Thus if their symptoms improve perhaps the dosage of their medication can be reduced. Onre of my case studies led to my client being able to gradually reduce her anxiety and depression medication to the point where she felt well enough to come off them altogether. It is well known that pharmaceutical medicine can and does cause side effects which in turn can lead to a prescription for more pharmaceutical medicine to deal with the side effects..overloading our bodies with chemicals leads us away from our natural equlibrium. 
Anyway heres the link they did not accept:
http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/reflexology/what-does-research-say-about-refloxology  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.93.34 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  coverage of reflexology 

message: You are invited to participate in the upcoming
"420 collaboration",
which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!
----
The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.
----
WikiProject Alternative medicine participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: :Category:Cannabis and health and :Category:Medicinal use of cannabis.
----
For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.
 ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming "420 collaboration" 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: Just started a new wikiproject. Since some people on this project might be interested in joining, I figured I'd post here. WP:CHIRO. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CHIROPRACTIC 

message: Please see the discussions at Wikipedia: Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 28.  John Carter (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative medicine categories at CfD 

message: I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" this article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class 

message: The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  420 Collaboration 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion]]

message: Section makes a lot of medical claims, and I think it's poorly supported and violates WP:MEDRS. I removed it, and then it has been added back. Discuss here:
* Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ad_and_MEDRS
Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sahaja Yoga]] 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template_talk:Alternative_medicine_sidebar#Medical_conspiracy_theories_—_alternative_and_pseudo‑medicine]] 

message: Does this article fit in the Template:Alternative medicine sidebar and vice versa? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a legitimate therapy which has an illegitimate use in altmed. So, not clean. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that a no? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chelation therapy]] 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of  (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at . — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on whether [[Quackwatch]] is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] 

message: :See also WT:MED#Mayo_Clinic_Complementary_and_Integrative_Medicine_Program
The Gaia,_Inc. page has had a lot of additional activity over the last months (I think partly because of an increased advertising campaign). If any WP:ALTMED folks would be willing to add the page to their watchlists, an additional set of eyes on it is always useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaia, Inc. 

message: The RIFE MACHINE description is an OBVIOUS FEAR MONGERING article that belongs someplace pnline with the others...
    NOT ON WIKI! if it is not removed or altered then WIKI is the equivalent of an enquirer magazine or snopes style producer of information. 
SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA! 
    RIFE FREQUENCIES SAVED MY FAMILY MORE THAN ONCE! I MEAN I WOULD BE DEAD BECAUSE NO DOCTORS KNEW WHAT WAS WRONG WITH US.
HAD I STUMBLED HERE BEFORE LEARNING ELSWHERE I WOULD NOT HAVE LEARNED MORE AND HELPED SO MANY MORE WITH MY KNOWLEDGE.
REDSKYWALKER333 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHEN DID WE GO BACK TO 1960 & LET THE RIFE NAME AND CREDIBILITY TO CURE BECOME QUESTIONABLE AND CRIMINAL?  

message: Ws1351 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Representation on Eastern Alternative Medicine 

message: I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about in/excluding sources on Talk:Orgone 

message: Quantum healing  could use a little revision.  
(e.g. per WP:EPSTYLE) 
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:A104:257E:E9B1:84A5 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Quantum healing]]  could use a little revision 

message: I am requesting additional editor's input on discussion and recent edits to Trametes_versicolor from an alternative medicine perspective. Please see edit history and talk page. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey Tail Mushroom / Trametes versicolor 

message: ––Formal  talk 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed redirect of [[Peter A. Levine]] to [[Somatic experiencing]].