Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 16 May 2004

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:CamNoticePrevious discussions are archived here:

• Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 1
• Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 2
• Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 3
• Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 4
• Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 5

studies

Is having studies that support or detract from specific alt med claims really a good idea? The problem is that I could produce dozens of studies that find not effects for homeopathy of chiropracty and the articlr could end up looking slightly odd. Wouldn't it be better to put studies aimed at specific forms on thier own pages?Geni 16:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Correct! Studies on homeopathy and chiopractic should go on their respective articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's reasonable but the problem is, the section gives the impression that AM therapies are on the whole ok, and that some people dismiss the whole of AM becuase of the failings of one branch of it. I am trying to redress the balance by showing that debunking is not confined to just say for example homeopathy, but in fact applies to many other bramches of AM. If you or anyone can think of a way of wording this critism of AM without the need for all the references, then i am happy to port them to the respective pages. theresa knott 14:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think one example per critism would be a good apraoch. Currently we have two examples of research showing that a perticular alt med does not work I havn't got round to reading the iridology research yet but assuming it is of good quality I would keep it ond drop the mention of the bbc test (which doesn't really test homeopathy anyway). There are some cross CAM aricles such as this onehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12974558 which may be useful. I'll see what else I can find.Geni 16:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hate to break your bubble, but the way of real science says that no single research study can either prove or disprove anything in medical / health research. Most research papers state more research is needed for a reason. Even conventional medicine does this. They issue practice guidelines which tries to or suggests how clincial practice should treat a specific medical condition. To repeat, a single research study never ever is the final word on anything in the wonderous way of real science . -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not however nesscary to include these studies in the article. If you fell otherwise I will be more than happy to insert studies that back the 'it does not work critism'. Just expect to end up with a very long article that is a pain to readGeni

I suggest that you try reading the very first paragraph in the support section. Nobody, certainly not me, is certifying that alternative medicine works. Nevertheless, there are plenty of real physicians who use complementary and integrative medicine in their clinical practice of medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason I put them in is because Mr Natural health tends to remove critisms of AM if they are not backed up by studies. theresa knott 18:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did read it. I'm not objecting to it. I'm suggesting that it may not be be nesscary to provide so many many studies that on focus on one critism. Since you don't feel this is the case do you wan't me to list all the studies I have avaible supporting the varius critisms? Geni

John we are not trying to "prove or disprove" anything. We are trying to write a well balanced article. The fact that plenty of real physicians who use complimentary medicine does not mean that the article should not have a robust critism section. Dont you agree? theresa knott 19:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Per comments I made on my talk page: There are a number of possible academic arguments that can be made against the field of alternative medicine. I could list them *all* myself. In fact, I wrote most of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section.

What I want are *all* the rational clearly established criticisms added to the article and all the irrational nonsense against alternative medicine taken out so that the current state of edit wars can end. It is as simple and as plain as that. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Citing Michalsen 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003... Psychology (CBT, Hypnosis) and a hot bath (hydrotherapy), are alternative medicine? How are studies about fairly welll known, HMO/publicly publicly paid for, normal kinds of medicine "alternative", be useful in supprting C/AM? I don't see anything in the listed branches of C/AM that covers hot baths being good for circulation as anything other than accepted science, or that indicated basic psychotherapy as being anything other than conventional medicine.

I was going to remove the studies, and all text that references it, but it might be nice if someone could explain to me how hot baths are anything but accepted conventional medicine, or why CBT is supposed to be something beyond mainstraim, conventional, science and medicine. Ronabop 06:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by most scientists.

Actually, the correct comment should be: This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by those people who think that they are a scientist.

At this time, I would like to point out that my comment in our Wikiproject standard of quality guidelines about adding any hint of controversy in the first 3 paragraphs documents non-compliance to our guidelines was created long before the latest change in the article.

Of course, alternative medicine has been adding controversy in the first three paragraphs for quite some time, now. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

contirversy=staments that are not pro alt med?Geni

The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter

What has this got to do with anything? It is type specific It is a logiacl fallicy (appeal to popularity) It has nothing to do with the legitimcy or otherwise of alt medGeni

It is of course a response to the following criticism under regulation.

Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. This would require these treatments to be proven safe and effective in scientific trials, a hurdle that these critics strongly believe would not be met; some herbal preparations, like ephedra, have been proven to be dangerous. Herbal preparations also vary in potency and may be contaminated.

-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it doesn't even respond to the critism. "The criticism voiced about the need to regulate and control herbal medicines and dietary supplements is a call by the medical community for these over-the-counter products to be available by prescription only" it's not a call to make them prescription only, it's a call to make them regulated.The are plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter. theresa knott 00:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

They're plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter." No, I do not think so. Regulation requires control, and that means prescriptions and pharmacies. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you are poorly traveled in the english speaking world, deliberatly naïve, or what. In the US there are bountiful amounts of regulated, and unregulated (and in some cases fatal) substances available at local supermarkets, convenience stores, bodegas, etc. While shopping here, and picking up some bread, I can buy substances that are banned from the Olympics, substances that are sometimes fatal, with no regulation, no prescriptions needed. What would you prefer as proof? Academic citations, or will a few pictures of my local markets do? Ronabop 10:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

In the UK there are many drugs with a general sales lisence. Even at the most basic you must admit that aspirin and paracetamol are avaible that way.Geni 11:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I have been reporting on aspirin research studies for the last two years. There are plenty of people who want to make the use of aspirin regulated. The borders of the US are regulated, too. So, much for that theory! The only practical way to regulate vitamins would be to make them prescription, only. In Mexico, I can buy presription drugs over the counter. I can also buy prescription drugs over the counter on the Internet and legally by mail. Do we really want to be talking about Mexico, the Intenet, and buying drugs from the Caribbean by mail-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Your stament is incorect and largly based on speculation. At the very least it fails to take into account Pharmacy medcine and it also mists genral sales list. The argument that people will go else where is irrelivant. You are trying to defend the claim that regualtion will make things prescription only and that this is in some way a bad thing.Geni 14:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope sorry but OTC medicines like aspirin are still conventional medicine.theresa knott 14:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost, forgot! OTC use of aspirin is one of those home remedies that you claim never work. Aspirin seems to work for me. And, it is an effective home remedy within certain parameters. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

So, you are saying that OTC vitamins, minerals, and the herbs that need to be regulated are still conventional medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. I said that calls for OTC herbal medicines to be regulated does not imply they will (or should) become POMs. Let's stick to the point please. theresa knott 15:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of sticking to the point ...

Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The word medicine, you know, has a double meaning. So, to translate: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional prescription medication. It is not my planet. I just happen to live on it. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in word games. Unless it can be shown that regulation=POM I'm going to remove that sectionGeni 16:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition

The definition that currently leads this article is "broadly describes diagnosis, treatment or therapy used in place of conventional medical treatments." This is vague and is contradicted within the next few paragraphs by the mention of "complementary medicine". I assume that the author did not intend to exclude complementary use of alternative therapies, but that is precisely what the definition says. I propose to delete it and replace it with the more precise and accurate definition I added at the end of the first paragraph, but as a matter of courtesy and in view of the amount of controversy on this page, I am inviting comment before deleting. My major reservation about my new definition is that it is primarily applicable in the US and Canada, and probably most of Europe and the developed world. I welcome further improvement. alteripse 1 may 04

First of all, the very term is an oxymoron! I started out about 5 talk archives ago with using my own personal definition of alternative medicine. It did not last long. I suggest that we simply stick to how it is defined in the dictionary, if for no other reason than NPOV. About 30 different online internet dictionaries currently define the term, as we have defined it. So, I fail to see any problems with the present method. The science people seem to think that it is all alternative medicine. That AM is by definition quackery, etc., etc., etc. Using your own private definiton, Perhaps, is the very definition of controversy? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

• 1. I think I understand what you are saying, but the definition as it stands is simply wrong. Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine, which is what the definition says. You didn't address this objection.

Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine. Yes, I am glad that the MD wrote this statement. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• 2. The definition I offered is quite objective and applies to everthing in the list of types of alternative medicine. Why do you claim it is NPOV? Whether something is licensed is not a matter of POV, and you haven't offered any other criterion by which all those types of alternative medicine are related. *alteripse 1 may 04

I think there's a problem in defining alternative medicine by what it is *not.* It is not very informative. Alteripse, if you sign your comments with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~) without the spaces between them, your user name and date/time stamp will appear after you comment. heidimo 18:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me. I changed the sentence and will not change the primary definition. I think the concept I am offering is worth keeping because it is the principal core of the controversy. (and I'll try the tilde trick) Alteripse 18:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Think about it a bit. ... therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat disease." If it is legal, then it is regulated by the government. So, if it is both legal and regulated then the alternative practitioners are licensed to diagnose and treat disease. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't have put it better, Mr. Gohde. You've grasped the paradox and the essential dishonesty in so much of alt med, at least in the US. Why do you think all the wanna-be physicians from chiropractors to naturopaths to the makers of dietary supplements tell the consumer "this product/procedure is not intended to diagnose or treat disease..."? Much of alt med is simply people and companies who want to pretend to be physicians without the inconvenience of having to learn so much and without the responsibility of being accountable for outcomes. The biggest difference between the stuff you buy in the nutrition store and the stuff you buy from the pharmacy is that those who sell things labelled "dietary supplements" can avoid all the inconvenient laws related to honest labelling, consistency of contents, and that little item of demonstrating that the product actually helps the condition they sell it for. But that of course is POV. Alteripse 20:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition. In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's. And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

And, it accounts for why there are already five archives. Perhaps, number six will be here before night fall? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Nice answer. You are right, it is hard to fit this stuff into the article without it becoming a rant (and I won't try). Alteripse 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Gohde, your removal of my factual sentence without justification is discourteous. It was an entirely factual statement regardless of your or my POV. It is also a very core issue in this field, and helps people understand why this page is so controversial. I kept my POV interpretations on the Talk page. You owe me and this project more respect than this. Alteripse 19:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Kindly STOP making personal attacks against me. In my opinion, you are totally confused, are wasting my time, and have violated more than one well established Misplaced Pages guidelines which are clearly pointed out in the project's quality of standards guidelines. While you obviously think that you are the most important person in the entire world, I do not hold your view. I have entertained your nonsense, too long as it is. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Other than pointing out what appeared to me a discourtesy, I made no personal attacks. There were no violations of Wik policy. However, if you see it otherwise, you may relax, as you have demonstrated that there is no possibility of constructive interchange or discourse on this article. I will leave you to squat on it in peace. Alteripse 22:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame that Mr NH has driven you from the page. I just want to say that you have not made any personal attacks. IMO mt NH does not really believe that you made a personal attack. He simply said that in order to gain the upper hand. theresa knott 22:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame that TK likes to reply when she can launch more harassment and personal attacks my way.

And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 01:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Put up or shut up Mr NH. Take me to the arbitration committee.I'd love to see what they make of your new bout of rudeness. You know that they are still monitoring your behaviour to see if your ban had the desired effect? theresa knott 09:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be confused TK! This is Phase I. It is not until Phase IV of the project that we will bring the 'wrong doers' to task with community support. You know TK, at the end of summer 2004. Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of their success stories. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL you won't get community support against me. Yo're living in some kind of dreamworld. As for you being a sucsess story, I don't call driving Alteripse away from this page much of a success story. We are supposed to be nice to newbies here. theresa knott 07:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Dream world? The project is not against you per se. In Phase IV of the project the wrong doers will be taken care of through a consensus of community support. Today, the CAM project reached a tentative agreement with the WikiDoc project, I would call that a form of community consensus. In the future, the project will prefer to deal directly with organized groups of editors. We really don't have time to waste on individual trouble making renegades. But, we will deal with the wrong doers when the time comes as the need arises in Phase IV of our project. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 23:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not reverting the paragraph but insist you are making a factual error. Honest chiropractors treat subluxations to maintain health; they don't treat disease. They will be the first to tell you that. Again, your example supports the essential importance of this distinction. If you want to argue that alternative practitioners are actually diagnosing and treating disease in the same way physicians do, you are accusing them of doing something illegal in much of the developed world. This issue of whether and how alt med practices and the alt med culture are shaped by the laws defining medical diagnosis and treatment is at the heart of the whole cultural controversy over alt med. You keep omitting the sentence but you haven't responded with anything that is civil, accurate, and substantive. I said I would leave the page alone and I will keep my word. This is a last attempt to engage in civil and substantive discussion but if you can't or won't I'll drop it and leave the whole topic alone here as well.Alteripse 02:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

From Chiropractic medicine, to-wit: Classical chiropractic theory holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease So, I would like to receive a public apology from you for wasting more of my valuable time. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry that my comments have wasted both of our times. No more. Alteripse 03:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition. In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's. And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. Try to tell me that DO's do not diagnosis and treat disease. Chiropractic, just like Osteopathy, has expanded and developed since it was first introduced in America. Their scope of services has expanded to include diagnosis and treatment of diseases. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.onelook.com/?w=alternative+medicine&ls=a shows 19 online dicitionaries all defining alternative medicine the way we have done it in alternative medicine. I guess all those dictionaries are just plain stupid, too? Of course, somebody who has only been on Misplaced Pages for one month knows all the anwers and the collective efforts of all our editors over a couple of years doesn't match your opinion. I wonder why? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

He seems to have Wikiquette down fairly well. Better than some who have been here far longer. -- Politeness-man 03:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Severe social disconnect

The last time I was struck by the level of disconnect was when MNH implied that people might have to actually pay for vitamins.... I guess he lives in a country where people don't pay for basic health. In the US, we almost always pay. For everything. Vitamins, drugs, everything.

That made me think about a whole lot of other issues. Mostly about his tone in this discussion. He may be fighting to get vitamins to the public, while others are so tired of paying for fake "supplements" that they decry his vitamins. He may live in a country that does ten times as much about a fatal disease, but people still die, so he may blame the available medicine. Others of us note that we don't get free basic HIV cocktails, and have become cynical about paying for new "cures".

In the US, we don't get interesting, free, "complementary" medicince. We don't even get free medicine. We are fighting for mere basics, he is fighting for luxuries.

Anyways, I think we should all note that we are not connecting on the same level. If we adjust our minds for such, maybe we would have less flamewars. Reading into MNH's pages, folks in the US don't even eat well,, but in the US, how would we know? Ronabop 10:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

None of what you are arguing about is even in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.

And please stop putting your lies into my mouth which I have never said, nor even hinted at. I regard your above comments as yet another personal attack wage by the wrong doers in Misplaced Pages. The age of your ilk is rapidly coming to an end.

My health accredited website was just re-certified about a week ago. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Ronobop tries to calm the discussion down amd you see that as a personal attack? theresa knott 15:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh! You mean like Uncle Ed declaring an edit war, here, which nobody came to? May I suggest, that the science people don't post unless they are in a coherent frame of mind? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

No you may not suggest that; some of us would never get to edit ;-) (incidentally Ed did not call for an edit war - but you knew that already)

I wrote declared. See the dictionary for details. If you people are watching, then you are wasting a lot of time. :) -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, i have plenty of time to waste. You won't drive me away like you did Alteripse. Have no fear of that. theresa knott 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this rucus is about, but the problem people have with what governments internationally have agreed to do with vitamins + minerals and other dietary supplements is horrorfying for people whose lives literally depend on these things. People pay for these products now, the issue is governments trying to implement de-facto bans on supplements at the bequest of medical companies who view them as financial competition. They do not want people realising that a myriad of physical and 'mental' conditions can often be easily treated by taking these products, when they have so much money to make out of drugs. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ

What governments are trying to ban the sale of OTC vitamins? theresa knott 16:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The FDA has gone for them in the past ('50s-'60s, owing to abuse of them by quacks), though I don't know about recently - David Gerard 16:24, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Kindly move this off topic discussion to dietary supplements. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

This whole off topic (as you call it) discussion has taken place because you argured that the section "The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter" was a response to critisms that AM "medicines" should be regulated. theresa knott 16:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I shall repeat, yet again. None of what you are arguing about is currently in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.

And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

How have I harrased you or made a personal attack? (The AC's decree was to stop irismeister harassing me, he followed me around insulting me wherever i went, but you already know this) You can take me the the AC anytime you like. I expect they could do with a good laugh. theresa knott 17:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? I specifically wrote don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth which I have never written or hinted at.

Oh I see, you were just trolling me. theresa knott 17:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to continue arguing about stuff that is not in alternative medicine, while I get real constructive work done with the project. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of other points of view

MNH's recent edits appear to be expuinging points of view he doesn't agree are true. While he may have a case that they are not true, I would suggest that removing incorrect points of view is actually a bad idea if they are points of view that are commonly held. Removing something as a "lie" is inappropriate if it is a view that is sufficiently commonly held to mention, even if marked as false.

An example is this edit, in which a both common and notable view was removed (with an inaccurate edit summary - 19th century tabloid??) when it clearly belonged in the article, but in a different place .

While MNH's tremendous and dedicated energy is to be admired, I might suggest others may care to go through the removed content and replace portions as appropriate in the article. The article is not a one-person project with MNH the arbiter, after all. I shall be devoting some time to this myself, in the interest of a better article - David Gerard 23:37, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

There is no more commonly held opinion that alternative medicine works, and that proof by Western medical standards is not needed in order to prove it. So, once you open the door to putting false information into articles the size of this article will double overnight. -- John Gohde 23:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

And you are seriously suggesting that I can legally put quotes by every famous person in alternative medicine into the medicine article, because they speak for a lot of people interested in alternative medicine.

Yes, why should I quote research when I can use quotes by Jack LaLanne? -- John Gohde 23:55, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

You assume I hand out licenses for you to do something you yourself are calling appropriate? You aren't making any sense to me here. Is Jack LaLanne a pen-name for Richard Dawkins (whose quote was the example I was using)? - David Gerard 00:09, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests. First of all, we cannot deliberately put derogatory comments into encyclopedic articles that are supposed to have a NPOV. Second, AM can be tested, is being tested, and some of it has been shown to be effective on a weekly basis. If Dawkins said that recently he is both a kook and a liar, with a degree standing behind his attitude problem. Third, I do not deal with personalities. I am merely doing some spring cleaning on this old irrelevant article. Why people are whining about MNH editing is because they are fundamentally just whiners. My watchlist says I am watching some 150 articles. And, the list keeps on growing. -- John Gohde 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Tch! You may consider Dawkins a crank, but he is respected by a great many. You are indeed attempting to "spring clean" POVs you don't like - David Gerard 01:06, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yoda,the Jedi Master, began Luke Skywalker's training in earnest. Like you, Luke failed to "unlearn" his preconceptions. When asked to raise his sunken starfighter from the Dagobah swamps with the power of his mind alone, he responded he would try. "No," scolded Yoda. "Do, or do not. There is no try." I did not attempt anything. I simply "did" a routine article clean up. -- John Gohde 05:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

So what was precisely wrong with the original presentation of a quote from Richard Dawkin?

Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests.

Per Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality Guidelines the above paragraph violates at least five (5) clearly established Wikipedian guidelines.

1. SQG #1-No advocacy of any kind is permitted.

• The quote clearly advocated the opponent's viewpoint, since the information provided was:
  1. in the first 3 paragraphs of the article,
  2. explicitly labeled as derogatory, and
  3. factually incorrect.

1. SQG #2-Points of view can only be presented as points of view.

• The quote clearly advocated the Dawkin's viewpoint as being a fact, rather than the nonsensical statement that it was.

1. SQG #4-Introductory paragraphs are presented without controversy and are to the point.

• It was originally in the first unlabel section of an article otherwise known as the introductory section.
• It clearly added controversy to the definitional paragraphs.
• Nor, was it to the point.

1. SQG #7-Controversial assertions must be footnoted to sources of information.

• The assertion was never footnoted by merely presented as fact.

1. SQG #10-A footnote may reference a book, newspaper or magazine article, online web site, or a citation to a published research paper.

• Individuals are not sources of information that can be cited. Books written by Dawkin is acceptable, but merely saying Dawkin's said something is not a valid attribution.

-- John Gohde 15:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics