| Revision as of 18:40, 2 April 2008 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,257 edits →Lead: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:46, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,564 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners| |
|
|
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B|attention=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid|attention=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
{{Calm talk with tea}} |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive index |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive <#> |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
|
|
|
: |
|
|
==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. ] (]) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Notable== |
|
|
:"Notable OM Drs & Scientists" would be okay with me. I prefer the 3-4 column format, too.--] (]) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What do you think about "Notable supporters"? The word "doctor" makes me itch, because it can legitimately include PhDs, but is usually received as "licensed physicians." ] (]) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Lead== |
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, there are some concerns with the lead, but let's give it a rest for a while. Perhaps over the weekend, we can start a fresh subpage to edit the lead -- edited just like it was the real article, until we can get a reasonable compromise that we can then paste into the article. |
|
|
:::One suggestion in the meantime: If there's something that you want to eventually be included in the lead, would you please make sure that it's present in the main body of the article? The guidelines state that the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article," and I'm inclined to enforce the ''covered the article'' bit fairly strictly. So if you want any particular point in the lead, please make sure that it's appropriately represented in the article. ] (]) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
