Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 9

message: gotta go to work... when does voting close? Erich 21:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh there is plenty of time. The most popular option so far is neither version! So I'll wait for someone to respond to my request to do a rewrite, before setting a closing date. I don't see it as being set in stone. Just which version we should be working on. theresa knott 22:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: things are quiet on the labour floor... well I was feeling sympathetic towards MNH (he's like that drunk that keeps getting beaten up - its not really his fault he's that abrasive) and was going to try and make the current temp article a bit smoother and more reasonable, but having seen his latest edit which appears to be just back to how he wants it  I could no longer be bothered. All versions I've seen are unbalanced but there is fantastic material here to make an article to be really proud of. If anyone wants to seek a 'medical view' I'll be on my talk page but meanwhile i'm taking this debacle off my watch list. good luck to all and may calm NPOV heads prevail. Erich 23:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, and an excellent starting point.--  ALargeElk | Talk 08:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *The lean version is too lean - too many references to not enough text. But the previous version is thoroughly unbalanced between criticism and support. We shouldn't need to split it like that into pro and anti - we should be able to just present the facts as they exist, without the article being a recapitulation of the "I'm right" "No, I'm right" battles that are inevitable on the talk pages. --  ALargeElk | Talk 09:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, and an excellent starting point.--  ALargeElk | Talk 08:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for neither version

message: Since this version is liked by at least a few people let's do a quick poll to see if it's a good idea to start again from there. I've initally put a couple of days down for voting as I want to move quickly. If we don't get 80% consensus I'll extend the voting period and go with a simple majority unless someone can come up with a better idea. (I've taken the liberty of adding votes for people based on the discussion above - I've only done it where I'm sure, but if I've got it wrong feel free to chastize me theresa knott 08:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified Vote - should we go back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=2930969 Older version of Alternative Medicine] and start again? (Vote Ends Friday 9am UTC unless a consensus is not reached)

message: I would suggest that we start out by voting on the required content of theAlternative medicine article.
I will start out with:
#Definitions of alternative, complementary, CAM, and integrative medicine.
#Contemporary use of alternative medicine.
-- John Gohde | Talk 20:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You just can't help yourself can you? I'm not going to respond to flamebait theresa knott 07:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. How can you claim that the reader should be left to decide on alternative medicine while on iridology the reader is spoon feed what they are supposed to believe?  I would like an an answer to that question.  Now you want the alternative medicine article to look like precisely like an older version that was changed long ago for some kind of a hidden agenda. How about just unprotecting alternative medicine so that a collective of editors can edit it? This game of yours is starting to wear pretty thin. -- John Gohde |  Talk 01:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You wanna talk about iridology? Use the iridology talk page. And no I will not unprotect AM so that more edit wars can start. Editors can edit the temp page. I will copy the temp page over to the real article once there is a reasonably ammount of support. theresa knott 07:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Looks like every damned sentence will need to be referenced. (And I don't mean with newspaper anecdotes.) - David Gerard 21:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No that would make the article impossible to read. theresa knott 01:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better idea 

message: Click here  to view new minimal version.
# John Gohde |  Talk 18:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes For new minimal version

message: # It's too minimal.  I don't understand what the objection is to having a "pro" and "con" section.  You can't sensibly write an article on this subject that doesn't even mention the placebo effect.  Obviously, though, you can't mention the placebo effect (a major issue raised by those hostile to CAM) yet omit major issues raised by proponents of CAM.  Therefore, as a practical matter, the article has to report both sides of the dispute, even if that does produce something of a "yes it is" - "no it isn't" tone.  JamesMLane 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes Against the new minimal version

message: Hi, James.
# There's no particular reason for a dmoz link to be included in this or most other articles. It doesn't (necessarily) add much more value to an article than linking to a Google search on the article's title and calling it "Search Google for ... ".
# A significant number of the dmoz links in current articles are despammed ebook2u links. They weren't added to Wikipedia in good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copies
_of_Wikipedia_content_%28low_degree_of_compli
ance%29#eBook_2u_.28http:.2F.2Fwww.ebook2u.co
m.29 diff].
# That link survived for almost 5 months as ebook2u spam and no-one seemed to misunderstand its link text: "Alternative Medicine Information". Why is "Alternative Medicine Directory" so much more confusing?
# Not everyone knows what dmoz is but most people seem to know what a directory is, given that the most popular site on the web is a directory.
# All web pages are "collections of links". If you believe that such words as "directory" or "dmoz" overestimate the cluefulness of Wikipedia readers, it strikes me that "collection of links" errs in the opposite direction.
# There are at least 30 other Wikipedia pages that assume the user either knows or doesn't care that "dmoz", "directory" and "Open Directory Project" refer to "collections of links". Do you plan to fix those pages as well?
# Should we also change all those IMDb links variously annotated as "IMDB page for ... ", "IMDb entry for... ", "IMDb filmography" to "collection of film links"? After all, not everyone knows what IMDb is.
chocolateboy 19:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: -) Thanks again.
chocolateboy 04:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Collection of links