| Revision as of 17:44, 2 April 2008 editTheNautilus (talk | contribs)1,377 edits →Archive: less bigoted version should be the default lede, otherwise it rewards delay, one of the deadiliest forms of denial← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:44, 2 April 2008 edit undoTheNautilus (talk | contribs)1,377 edits →AMA discussion: premature & "advertising"Next edit → | ||
| 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 ] so people can discuss the issue. ] (]) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) | In response to your concerns about the inclusion of this source, I have posted a question at the ] so people can discuss the issue. ] (]) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I think that is premature, as I said since the AMA doesn't even state "orthomlecular" anywhere that is ] or offtopic. Also many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine.--] (]) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:44, 2 April 2008
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
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)