Talk:Orthomolecular medicine: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
TheNautilus (talk | contribs) →Archive: less bigoted version should be the default lede, otherwise it rewards delay, one of the deadiliest forms of denial |
TheNautilus (talk | contribs) →AMA discussion: premature & "advertising" |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==AMA discussion== |
==AMA discussion== |
||
In response to your concerns about the inclusion of this source, I have posted a question at the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_American_Medical_Association_a_reliable_source.3F|RS noticeboard]] so people can discuss the issue. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
In response to your concerns about the inclusion of this source, I have posted a question at the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_American_Medical_Association_a_reliable_source.3F|RS noticeboard]] so people can discuss the issue. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I think that is premature, as I said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine/Archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=202355556 before] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine/Archive_5&diff=202373317&oldid=202372950 ,] since the AMA doesn't even state "orthomlecular" anywhere that is [[Original research]] or offtopic. Also many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine.--[[User:TheNautilus|TheNautilus]] ([[User talk:TheNautilus|talk]]) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:44, 2 April 2008
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archive
I've archived the enormous talk page, using the "move page" method to preserve the edit history. Let's start over, with a clean slate. Maybe we could discuss something simple, like whether #Orthomolecular doctors and #Orthomolecular scientists could be merged, before getting back to the complications of writing a perfect lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Notable OM Drs & Scientists" would be okay with me. I prefer the previous 3-4 column format, too.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that leaving the lead alone for a while in the form approved by the RfC is an excellent idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt attention, I said 2 days off. I thought we should try a more neutral, less injurious version on for size, we could still talk. The "faddism" and "quackery" are not acceptable lede material, they are poisonous attacks given WP:UNDUE weight often based on highly flawed allegations & distortions, even trivially obvious in the scientific senses. Because of the historical facts on major OMM areas, although I will agree that vitriolic critics are notable in the general sense, their inflammatory misrepresentions & coverage promoting distortions & scientific misconduct that scientifically & commercially interferes & unfairly deprecates others' legitimate results should be discussed where there is space for balancing quotes, references and reader's (yawn) voluntary continued interest.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
AMA discussion
In response to your concerns about the inclusion of this source, I have posted a question at the RS noticeboard so people can discuss the issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is premature, as I said before , since the AMA doesn't even state "orthomlecular" anywhere that is Original research or offtopic. Also many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)