Talk:Orthomolecular medicine: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:16, 2 April 2008 editTimVickers (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users58,183 edits →Archive: note← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:44, 2 April 2008 edit undoTheNautilus (talk \| contribs)1,377 edits →Archive: less bigoted version should be the default lede, otherwise it rewards delay, one of the deadiliest forms of denialNext edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:"Notable OM Drs & Scientists" would be okay with me. I prefer the 3-4 column format, too.--] (]) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		:"Notable OM Drs & Scientists" would be okay with me. I prefer the 3-4 column format, too.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:08, 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. ] (]) 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 ] attacks given ] 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.--] (]) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

	==AMA discussion==		==AMA discussion==

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.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Template:Calm talk with tea

Archives

Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, Edit history Jan 2006-Mar 2008

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)

Categories: