Talk:The Body Electric (book)

A "new" article

This article is the recreation of a previous article which ended its life in this remarkable manner.

As this article is about a book, the main source is of course the book itself. Any criticism should be expounded in full sentences on this page. OlavN (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, You don't duplicate and make new articles when something happens to another article. The original article was redirected precisely because it is full of OR and doesn't establish notability, instead of dealing with that you appear to have tried to sidestep discussion by duplicating the old article without informing anyone. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

AMSA

The article previously cited

• Beverly Rubik. "AMSA EDCAM Initiative: A National Curriculum For Medical Students C6. Bioenergetic Medicines". Retrieved 2012-05-27.

saying

The American Medical Student Association placed the book on the organization's national curriculum list for medical students.

(It actually used a version of the document on a third-party site so I found the original reference on amsa.org.)

I do not believe the AMSA document supports the claim in the article. First, although the document is titled "... a national curriculum...", reading the document makes clear that it is actually a series of guidelines for medical schools to use in developing their own curricula. Second, and more significantly, the form of words used in the article suggested that the book is recommended reading for all medical students in the USA. In fact, it merely appears in the bibliography of this particular curriculum discussion article. There is no suggestion that the bibliography is a reading list for students; rather, it is something that ought to be read by somebody designing a curriculum on complementary medicine, that may or may not include bioelectric medicine. There is no discussion of the book within the document; it appears only in the bibliography. Dricherby (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)