Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous discussions are archived here:


Section headers need to be made phrases (descriptive), not sentences (didactic).

That anecdotal evidence (the newspaper quote) looks desperate. Is there anything better as a 'for' argument? - David Gerard 11:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you David are the only one looking desperate, here. Keep it up, and I will remove the Dawkins quote since if anything is desperate, that bunch of garbage from Dawkins surely is. Is there anything better as an 'against' argument? -- John Gohde 14:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
David is suggesting that a tabloid quote be replaced by a better supporting quote. You are suggesting that if he looks for a better one you will delete a perfectly good quote by a well respected scientist. How is that going to improve the article? How would that be NPOV. What would you hope to achieve anyway, you know someone will just reinsert it. This agressive attitude of yours MNH is making the article worse. This is a cooperarive project. You need to start cooperating and starting to work for the good of the article. theresa knott 20:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Surely you cannot be serious? Your pointblank bias is more than showing. It is starting to get disgusting. Please STOP your trolling activities. I remind you once again that talk is not a newsgroup. -- John Gohde 21:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trolling, I'm completely serious. You need yo concentrate on the quality of the article instead of trying to score points. theresa knott 01:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
But you are trolling! We know you! We have a whole file of your medical "contributions". Do you want proof? If so, in how many more kilobytes? And you need to concentrate on serious Wiki contributions, or leave the place for more competent and willing and less obstructionist editors than you. Please STOP your trolling activities! - irismeister 21:50, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)


I've put a request concerning User:Mr-Natural-Health on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - David Gerard 09:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It may also be described as...

I'm aware of varius alt med regulation authorites. In every case I am aware of there are groups that do not sighn up to these authorites. As such the defintion holdsGeni 18:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Heidimo. You are totally out of order. And, please stop creating new articles on alternative medicial subjects for the express purposes of trashing them. At the very least you could make sure that they are not about professional wrestling. Why did it take you 3 edits to figure something so obvious out? -- John Gohde 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
You have not adreesed my points. As for what you have commented I am of course free to create whatever articles I chose. If you view them as POV you are free to edit them. AS for the edit the wiki kept crassing on me and you were reverting it so I couldn't see itGeni 20:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Implying that all alternative medicine is practiced by unlicensed practitioners is simply not true,
I really don't see how it describes all alternative medicine as being practiced by unlicensed practitioners. In fact, it explicitly doesn't say that: "although practitioners are frequently so licensed." Note that the intro says that the methods are what do not require licensing, which is the case and is pretty much the definition of "alternative" medicine - that is, an alternative to the licensed stuff - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
and posting deliberately false information is called vandalism. Wiki policy is to revert all vandalism, and report it. The sentence you so insistently keep replacing is not saying what your statement above is saying. So, say what you mean, and quit the vandalism.
This is a content dispute, not vandalism. - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you want to say what you're saying above, it does not belong in the definition. Wiki policy is a one-sentence definition. You are violating policies. A discussion of licensure would need to take place in a paragraph below. Follow policy or get reported. heidimo 22:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Who do you plan to report this content dispute to? - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We need something on the history of the classification "Alternative medicine"

The following was posted to my talk page by User: I'm posting it here for discussion. I don't personally agree with the idea of giving Mr-Natural-Health apoplexy, by the way. But I do agree we need something on the history of the term "alternative medicine." - David Gerard 10:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It may also be described as "diagnosis, treatment, or therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat illness" — although practitioners are frequently so licensed.

I offer you a fuller explication of the point to use as you see fit:

Much of alternative medicine might accurately be described as medicine practiced by persons not licensed to practice medicine. Most states and legal jurisdictions provide licensure of those legally permitted to practice medicine, usually defined as the diagnosis and treatment of disease, usually by prescribing drugs or performing surgery. The laws were originally enacted to prevent inadequately trained practitioners or those using theories and ideas considered of no value from holding themselves out as physicians. In the US, before licensure laws, homeopaths, naturopaths, and many other practitioners of what would now be considered "alternative medicine" held themselves out to the public as physicians. To some extent this legal distinction still provides a valid perspective on the whole field, at least partly explaining a number of phenomena. Here are two examples of phenomena that arise at least in part from the licensing laws or their history:

1. If you look at the websites, books, advertising literature, and products sold by many if not most alt med practitioners, you will find notices to the effect that their device, advice, product, or treatment “is not intended for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.” Much chiropractic literature for much of the last few decades explicitly claimed to be treating subluxations, not disease, to avoid being prosecuted for “practicing medicine without a license.” It simply illustrates my point that the disavowal is usually is contradicted by the explicit or implicit claims made by the same practitioner or product.

2. The same phenomena perhaps tainted some treatment methods for real physicians: “if someone else could do it without a license, it can’t be worth as much to the patient as something only I can do.” This is obviously an exaggeration, but I suspect had and has some validity as an explanation for some of the resistance to the less outre’ alt med ideas. In other words, I was trying to make the point that much of what defines and characterizes alt med and especially the hostility between the alt med practitioners and real physicians arises from these social and legal constraints. I think it is a fairly important aspect of the whole topic.

3. A related point, which we didn’t even get to, and will really give MNH apoplexy, is the definition of “natural.” If you watch the alt med claims and advertising you slowly realize that the only thing that all the treatments described as “natural” have in common is that they can be administered, sold, or advocated without a license to practice medicine. There is no other sense of the word as broadly applicable to all the bizarre, loony, artificial, and often synthetic or factory-made alt med products and practices that are claimed to be “natural.”

When MNH first denied the original sentence, which is fairly objectively supportable, I thought he was doing so on the basis that “medicine” shouldn’t be defined as narrowly as the licensure laws do. However, he quickly demonstrated that his opposition was far less intelligible, defensible, or discussable. I don’t know if heidimo understands that this was the original point of the sentence, or would concede it if she did. I suspect she might, unless she is simply too invested in opposing it. I have to agree with her that when MNH appended “although practitioners are frequently so licensed” it rendered the sentence confused if not nonsensical without further clarification. Does the clause refer to licensed physicians prescribing alt med treatments or does it claim that a naturopath or massage or chiropractic license is the same as a license to practice medicine, or did he mean something I can’t even guess?

You may repaint this with HMS and sail it as you wish, and perhaps even remove it from this harbor, as I wish to remain a noncombatant if not neutral in sympathy. - User:

I will note that the above is US-centric - in Australia, for instance, chiropractors are regulated health professionals and are called "Doctor." - David Gerard 10:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a difficulty in a number of systems (particulry the manipilative thearpies)in that they pratice different things from place to place. So in the US oseopathy is basicly part of conventional mecine while in the UK it is clearly alt med.Geni 11:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
yes, in US also, but what is scope of practice-- a general license to diagnose and treat disease (i.e., "practice medicine"? or limited to treatment of subluxations by manipulation? thats the point being made 11:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good question. I'm not sure ... - David Gerard 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Note that this is not a claim that "natural" means something different to MNH-- just that his preferred meaning doesn't apply as accurately to the broad range of alt med products and practices which their sellers and practitioners claim are "natural".
I doubt user 68:wished to give MNH apoplexy, and refrained from posting it here directly because of a realization the chance of reasoned discourse was far smaller than the perception that it would be perceived as a deliberate provocation to outrage. Let's at least remove a couple of the more offensive phrases. 11:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Putting your own words into someone's text as if they wrote them is generally a bad idea. I've separated your words out - David Gerard 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In all honesty, your comments are totally beyond comprehension, David. At best, your are simply totally confused. At worst; I better not say. You comments simply make no sense whatsoever, in my opinion. And, I am being perfectly serious. -- John Gohde 17:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) (The new and improved (?) system changes keeps logging me off. Why do I have to log on 5 times a night? Why are the servers still so bad? When will they actually work?)
The above is likely User:Mr-Natural-Health - see [1], [2] - David Gerard 09:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from within function "Article::updateArticle". MySQL returned error "1205"

from within function "Article::updateArticle". MySQL returned error "1205

I was unable to edit this article due to the above. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 08:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cognitive Behavioural therapy isn't exactly Alternative Medicine

I've been looking at the Cognitive Therapy article, and someone pointed out that there is a link to this article. Now, Cognitive Behavioural therapy isn't exactly an alternative medicine, and if it were to be labelled so there are many other branches of psychology that I believe would be more "alternative" than Cbt. I say that the references to cbt do not belong in this article, as it is a main branch of psychology, not a fringe method, and to class it as alternative would require one to put all methods of psychology into this document. I shall wait a couple of days for comments, and then remove the reference in this article as well as in Cognitive Therapy- Xgkkp 16:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that you pay attention to the controversial topic notice, above. It happens to mean something. This issue was already discussed in talk a long time ago. Happy reading. Just because you are not familiar with the topic don't mean that it is wrong. YOU are wrong. The topic has alread been discussed. Why do you think that we have all these archives for? I have no duty to educate the uneducated. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 21:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh very frendly I must say! Way to welcome the newcomers John. theresa knott 21:25, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I bet TK looks uglier than than she talks. --[[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 21:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<puzzled>Hmm you are all of a sudden interested in what i look like? You're not having irismeister-like fantasies about me are you? </puzzled> theresa knott 21:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes - the archives are there for searching. Searching the archives will reveal only one or two references to the word "cognitive", and both are brief comments as part of a different discussion. Also, will you pay attention to the sign at the top of the page that says "Talk:" - this is a talk page, to discuss topics. I did not just edit the main page. And changing title headings[2] seems overly inflammatory to me. You may not have a duty to educate the uneducated, but you should at least have one to respect the etiquette of wikipedia.
As to your point saying John Gohde said: Just because you are not familiar with the topic don't mean that it is wrong. YOU are wrong. - conversely, I am not wrong because you say I am wrong. - Xgkkp 21:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I say that all these trolls would never have let me put it in the article unless I was able to prove my case a long time ago. It has been in the article a long time. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 21:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You are of course free to put in anything you like, just as anyone including Xgkkp is free to remove anything. Why don't you try to actually convince him by given actual reasons as to why CT is AM? theresa knott 21:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment from Xgkkp: You also aren't being very convincing, talking about trolls while changing discussion titles and throwing personal insults around. - Xgkkp 22:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It seems rather unhelpful that to support your argument (the argument being that you are right) you claim supporting evidence that seems to no longer be in existence. - Xgkkp 22:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In the actual article, CBT is thrown in alongside biofeedback and hypnotherapy - both very different, and much more fringe branches of psychology than CBT itself, which seems to be one of the most used forms of psychotherapy. It just seems to be arbitrarily thrown in where it doesn't belong. Perhaps it's mention should be changed to a more fringe crange of psychology. I presume you would know better than I which one though, as you claim to be an expert. - Xgkkp 22:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's actually one of the more scientific branches of psychology isn't it? theresa knott 17:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No one ever said, certainly not I, that CBT was alternative medicine. The articles specifically states: Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now where was I? Oh, yes .. Now I remember.
Hauser W, Lempa M. [Irritable bowel syndrome] Schmerz. 2004 Apr;18(2):130-5. German. PMID: 15067533 Abstract
"Tricyclic antidepressant agents and psychotherapy (hypnosis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) are effective for treatment of IBS [irritable bowel syndrome] forms dominated by pain."
This recent study from April 2004 states point-blank that 'cognitive behavioral therapy is effective at treating a medical condition called irritable bowel syndrome. There are 100's of more studies. All you have to do is look! -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but in case you hadn't noticed this page is for Alternative medicine, so your statement is null because you quoted it as a treatment. If every treatment for every condition were to be listed, it certainly wouldn't be an alternative treatment page. Or do you believe that the only kind of effective 'treatment' (Cbt is certainly not a medicine) is an alternative treatment? in which case having it in there would be POV. - Xgkkp 23:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What I have noticed is that you are totally confused. And, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I just proved that you are WRONG. Just thought that you might want to know. Now, on to my website where I can accomplish something intelligent for a change. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 23:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Right, so your defense is dismissal. And, please, Stop childishly changing the title of this discussion for your own means - Xgkkp 23:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then in that case, that whole paragraph could potentially be chopped, as there seems no need to list "Alternatives to Alternative medicine" in an article about alternative medicine. In fact, looking from that angle, it seems that the paragraph seems generally out of place, as "Medicine" generally seems seperated from "Psychology" anyway. Is there a place for Psychological methods on this page? Perhaps instead of particular branches, there should be a link to some hub of psychological methods or something. - Xgkkp 22:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Totally confused people, such as yourself, should do more reading. You certainly do not get out much do you? -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
this is a pointlessly childish attempt to start an unnecessary flame war. and you changed the title again. Why? - Xgkkp 23:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Xgkkp, don't loose heart mate. I agree with you. Trust the arbitration process. I think at this stage you should simply make your edits. And John, you have got to stop insulting people. Mate - it's just not on. Erich 03:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello, Bigot. How are all you bigots doing today? -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 08:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks john. It's against our policies.theresa knott 08:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find it slightly ironic that someone goes around calling people Bigots and Trolls, while at the same instance exhibiting the exact behaviour that he is accusing other people of. This discussion has long since moved from serious discussion (though no counter-argument took place beyond personal insults) and so I shall consider making the discussed changes shortly. If anyone other than John Gohde has any useful counter-opinions on the matter, please, I welcome your comments. I shall also consider culling all the pointless personal insults and attempts to start flame wars into a seperate section in this document (for 'evidence' purposes) so that people don't have to read through the rubbish.- Xgkkp 09:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No don't cull the insults just yet. The AC have a tough enough job to do as it is without making the evidence difficult for them to find. Once the AC has ruled on Gohde's behaviour we can just go through this page and delete all the personal attacks. theresa knott 10:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't going to just remove the insults, more move the relevant-ish points (or at least a copy of them) to a sub-section in front of the rest or something, so that people who want to discuss properly don't have to wade through the rest of the rubbish to see my points (and there was one, vague, attempt by john to argue, which 'I' believe was null, but it's not an attack or anything so that should be included). I was never thinking of removing all of the rest though. I'll leave it be for now though, it just seems annoying that if anyone does have something to contribute, they have to face this. - Xgkkp 11:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I propose removing the paragraph "Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. A relatively new field in psychology is health psychology." (In section Branches of alternative medicine), given it seems out of place with the lists, and also apart from Cognitive therapy (which the general consensus seems to agree doesn't belong) and health psychology (I don't know enough about this to decide if it is AM or not), are already listed in the previous block. So, I propose:

  • Add Health psychology to the 'Other branches' list below it
  • Remove the paragraph: "Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. A relatively new field in psychology is health psychology."

- Xgkkp 17:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With due respect, Xgkkp, I believe that John is correct, although he hasn't taken much trouble to explain. I read that paragraph to mean that cognitive behavior therapy is considered alternative medicine when it is used to treat a physical illness as opposed to its usual, noncontroversial use in treating psychological disorder. Isomorphic 01:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Right, good, someone actually making a proper argument against the idea. (and I believe 'hasn't taken much trouble' is an understatement!) - I read it to mean that Cognitive therapy was an alternative medicine. Perhaps it need re-phrasing, but in any case I think it seems out of place in between lists of alternative medicine treatments. And you must agree, at least, that biofeedback and hypnotherapy don't need to be there as they are in the list about 5 lines above too. perhaps something like Cognitive therapy can also be used as an alternative medicine when used to treat a physical injury instead of it's usual use in treating psychological disorders (and move it to the end of that section, out of the way of the lists?) - Xgkkp 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since we now have a temp page to work on at Alternative medicine/temp, I made the changes [here]. Let me know what you think. - Xgkkp 15:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) (update - diff removed as it seems when theresa moved the page, all of the history was lost) - Xgkkp

Dispute needed to be resolved!

I want the support section added back to alternative medicine. See discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. As everyone knows, RK likes to vandalize alternative medicine. And, I want his vandalism removed from the support section. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See, this is the problem, and the reason there is a dispute. Your idea of resolved seems to be "I get my own way", or pushing the blame onto other people, and unless that changes, I don't see this article being unprotected any time soon. The few times that you do engage in discussion on talk pages, it seems like you are more interested in throwing personal insults than serious discussion. If you can accept that perhaps your edits can be wrong sometimes (You do also make valuable contributions sometimes), then I'm sure things can be worked out without the AC having to take more serious action. Try and present an argument, rather than resorting to "quoting" hearsay, like: As everyone knows, RK likes to vandalize alternative medicine. - statements like that are never going to help anything. Abuse of edit summaries and calling his (and everyone elses) edits vandalism is also not going to help anything. - Xgkkp 10:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring MNHs unrequired emotive language The section of physicains claiming it works should be alowed to exist since it is such a popular argument amoung the alt med comunity. Sure it is a logical fallicy but so what.Geni 10:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I was going to ask RK to revert his edits and then put them back in one section at a time so that we could argue about the points one by one, when I noticed the page protection. If MNH can be brought on board, or if another person simpathetic to AM can be brought on board to see that the edits stay neutral then i think we should discuss the article section by section, reach a consensus then change the article. I am quite prepared to edit a protected article provided a consensus has been achieved in talk. (I don't think anyone is likely to call this abuse of admin powers, but if they do, I'll argue my case and take any consiquences). Forcing people to discuss edits here otherwise they don't go in may be a way of stopping the constant edit wars. What does everyone else think? theresa knott
It sounds like a good idea, but MNH seems unable to sensibly discuss a topic in the talk pages without resorting to personal insults. Personally, I'm not interested in the AM article except for the one paragraph I have been trying to discuss above. - I tried to discuss a change before making it and progress is taking place, but slowly, and no thanks to MNH.- Xgkkp 12:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know MNH is making things difficult. But consensus means "nearly everyone", so if he won't play ball then that's his problem. I do feel though that we need somone pro AM to put that side of the argument otherwise it will be difficult not to skew it unintentionally. i'm going to try approaching some people. In the meantime I've created Altenative Medicine/temp so make your changes there and we can all see what we think. theresa knott 13:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When it comes to objecting strongly to wholesale deletion of text, characterized by edits by User:RK, I will always object strongly. And, I will continue to proudly revert the next edit/vandalism done made by User:RK. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 04:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well you can't proudly revert a protected page! Have a look at the tempory page I created to see if we can come to a good compromise there. I'm happy to add changes you make to the temporary page back into the article if we can get a good consensus. (My comments above about consensus being nearly everyone apply to RK as well. He won't be able to delete stuff you add if everyone else agrees it should stay in). It's in your best interest, and it's certainly in the best interest of the article for us all to come to an agreement.
Nobody was stopping you from doing this before the mass deletion of text done by User:RK. For example, somebody was discussing CBT. You had every opportunity to discuss every section of the support section. Nobody was stopping you. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 16:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't do things before I think of them! (Sorry I'm not a timelord). I don't think you understand the situation here MNH. Let me spell it out to you. The article is currently protected on RK's version. If you want your support section back in, you have to stop arguing about things like when I could have created a temporary page and start actually making edits to that temporary page. If nearly everyone agrees that your edits are good then I will add them back into the article. I won't unprotect it, I'll edit a protected page. This means RK (or anyone) will not be able to revert. This is an unusual step, I don't think anyone has proposed this type of solution to an edit war before, and since admins can be desyopped for editing a protected page not without some personal risk. However I am quite prepared to do it, provided I get agreement. So you have a choice. Either you make the edits to the temp page, discuss them with all corncerned, get agreement, and get what you want back in the main article, or you don't make any edits, don't discuss the article and have the main article page stay at RK's version for as long as it takes. What's it going to be? theresa knott 18:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Editing a protected page has been done under circumstances like this, where a draft was used to replace the current version. As the protecting admin, I support the action you propose. →Raul654 18:43, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
OKAY, but only if we start out with my last version which has been hanging around here since I cam back from being banned the first time. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 18:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[3] in its present format is NOT acceptable. The only section that I am presently objecting to is, of course, support. When [4] contains:
  • 3.2 Support
  • 3.2.1 Some conventional doctors support CAM
  • 3.2.2 Alternative medicine is not dangerous, if it is complementary
  • 3.2.3 Scientific research on alternative therapies
  • 3.2.4 Alternative medicine as an alternative for the public searching for complementary services
  • 3.2.5 The placebo effect
let me know, otherwise I am NOT going to go this route. Second, User:RK has to participate too. We surely do not want to leave RK out!That is my offer, take it or leave it! -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 19:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In other words, I think TK's offer is clearly another attempt to waste more of my valuable time. Ergo, I am not spending my time editing anything. You start with the version, existing immediately before RK's wholesale deleting of text. Then RK has to argue paragraph by paragraph, sentence by by sentence what is wrong with it. Providing proof thereof, or please STOP wasting my valuable time.
If you do not respond soon, I plan on requesting alternative medicine to be unprotected within a few days regardless of the opinion of the protecting admin. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 19:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you argue paragraph by paragraph, sentence by by sentence about putting stuff back in, providing proof thereof, or "Please stop wasting all of our valuable time" . What makes your opinions oand views instantly better than any of ours? - Xgkkp 19:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In case you have not figured it out yet, you are just as much a victim of RK's vandalism as I am. The last time alternative medicine was protected it was protected against User:RK [5]. And, that protection lasted only a few days. RK's editing resulted in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK as well as in a quickpoll on RK which was started by somebody other than me. RK's behavior in the current situation is exactly the same, in my opnion. I did in fact post RK on User talk:RK which he ignored [6]. This will be my last edit, for the day. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 20:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<--- (dropping indent level as it's getting too high)
In the respect that I cannot edit, I agree that I am as much a victim of what you call rk's vandalism as you are. However, I am also not a victim, in the respect that from the beginning I have been prepared to discuss the changes I wanted before, not after making them. Perhaps on articles like this, if everyone worked through it with that method there would be less revert/edit wars, and the page needn't be protected, though the discussion needs to be serious, not just personal attacks and presenting 'proof' as a personal attack. Also note that changes can still be made by the admins, previewed through the temporary page . Several potentially valuable changes have already been made to the temp page, and I remain optimistic that they will be integrated into the main article in the future. - Xgkkp 20:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John I am going to ignore your condition that RK has to participate. I cannot force him to participate in this process if he doesn't want to. However if he chooses not to then he gets no say in how the article looks because it's protected. So it is in his interest too. As for the page being uprotected in a few days, I think that very unlikely. You'd have to find an admin willing to do that for you,(any admin worth their salt will read this page first). So let's get going on reaching a satisfactory compromise. Since it's the support section that you are objecting to most, I propose we start with that. I've copied the section from the article prior the RK's edit into the talk page of the temp article. I suggest you take a look and incorporate what you want back into the article. Everyone else, please take a look, if you happy say so on the talk page, or here. If your not happy make any changes you think are needed. I'll give it a couple of days, and assuming it's all settled I'll edit the real article.

One last note, I think it best if I do not edit the temp article myself at all. Just to protect myself from any accusations of wrong doing. theresa knott 21:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add - it is longstanding policy that anyone can request verification for any part of an article. John - it is not your place to tell RK to support his deletions, the onus is on you to show that they belong. →Raul654 21:49, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I most certainly do not have to defend every line of text currently existing in alternative medicine, if somebody from out of nowhere arbitrarily decides to delete large chunks of text. That is what reverts are for. Reverts are made all the time. There is a 3 revert rule a day you know. Large deletions of text automatically calls for a revert, IMHO.
Nor, am I required to waste huge amounts of time talkimg with editors who are only capable of posting unsupported garbage to articles because they erroneously think that NPOV gives them a right to trash topics that they think is quackery. This is not a newsgroup. The only parties to this dispute are [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] and User:RK. I have followed through, while RK has yet to. Everybody else on this thread is violating Wikipedia guidelines by treating this talk page as a newsgroup, IMHO. That especially applies to TK who should kindly get lost and mind her own business. I am here ready to discuss with RK, but he is not. That is the only point that counts, here.
I am totally confident that page protection will be lifted in a few days. I am the victim here. I also have the opinion that support section of any article should actually support, which it clearly does not. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 06:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You're actually wrong on that one - per NPOV, the support section should not provide support - it should list common arguments in support. With good references, if possible, indicating that they are in fact common. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary one - it is not to contain original research. - David Gerard 08:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
He is also wrong about himself and RK being the only parties to the dispute. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everyone gets to have a say. Plus the three revert rule is to prevent excessive revert wars, it is not there to say "it's ok to make three reverts a day" more like "it is certainly not ok to make more than three revers a day".As for wasting time, i would argue that discussing whether you will or not waste time actually takes longer than making the edits to the temp article. theresa knott 10:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done & Presenting the New Leaner Alternative Medicine

Perhaps RK in combination with TK have managed to bamboozle themselves, yet again? Click here [7] for my version of alternative medicine with minimal text. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 11:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The group version is better. But this page is overshadowed and degraded by the wonderment of which headbutter's head is harder in the end. It's not the collaborative project that it should be. Anyone who enters the fray does so at great risk. Pollinator 12:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
It's a great shame, but hopefully a forthcoming AC ruling will make this place nicer for everyone.theresa knott 09:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree, I feel the group version is much better. I'm tempted to do a revert (as per MNH's policy: "Large deletions of text automatically calls for a revert, IMHO." (see above)) so that people can work on the page from before, but I won't. Instead, I "Vote" for the version from before MNH's recent edits. Though, on second thoughts, maybe it would be better to wipe the page and start again from scrath, as a collaborative group project. - Xgkkp 17:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, if it is all the same to you, if it is going to be a group effort then I might as well wait until the article is unprotected. Currently, I am working on a major addition to my website that will consist of a presentation of alternative medicine as history during 19th century Europe and America. You know stuff that is based on historical fact, rather than hot air. You guys should feel free to continue editing this article in a never ending spiral of circular editing. Personally, I have better things to do than work on this nonsense. I mean really! Changing the levels of indention so that support paragraphs wont actually appear to be support? I find that a rather screwy waste of time. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way John but never the less I intend to press on. I'm starting a vote, when the vote gets to 80% one way or the other I'll copy the temp page over into the real article. theresa knott 07:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And, one way or the other there will be an admin having her admin actions being reviewed. It is not Wikipedian to keep articles protected. And,not only will I request that this page be unprotected I will have something new to complain about. RK trashed both althernative medicine and TCM exactly like he did the last time. RK has been in Talk:TCM, but not here to discuss his edit. Therefore, this page will be unprotected. That is the only thing that counts in the land of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh I fully expected to be listed on review of admin actions. That's why I'm being so careful here. Careful but not intimidated. As for requesting the page to be unprotected you are free to request whatever you like; however to state "this page will be unprotected" seems a little premature. You have to find an admin willing to do it first. As for RK, like I said before I cannot force him to edit, just as i cannot force you. theresa knott 09:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Votes for MNH's version with minimal text

  • [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]]

Votes for the previous version

  • Pollinator
  • Xgkkp (I think you are still voting yes to this version? theresa knott)
  • Moriori. What's the point of an encyclopedia which DELIBERATELY censors information about a subect ?

Votes for neither version

  • 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)
    • Would you rewrite the article and put it on the temporary page please? So we can see what you have in mind. Cheers theresa knott 09:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I will do if I get a chance - I realise that "A plague on both your houses" is not the most helpful response.-- ALargeElk | Talk 09:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks - it doesn't have to be perfect, just make a rough start and people can edit it. I only started the vote above to see if the general opinion was - should we continue working on the old version or should we start again with MNH's cut down one. theresa knott 10:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)