Misplaced Pages

User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:46, 29 December 2005 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,334 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 11:47, 29 December 2005 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,334 edits Related linksNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
* *
* *
* - website critical of Quackbusters, Quackwatch and Dr. Stephen Barrett * - website critical of quackbusters, Quackwatch and Dr. Stephen Barrett

Revision as of 11:47, 29 December 2005

Your latest edit to the Alternative medicine page appears to be a copy/paste, and maybe a copyvio. I've reverted it, could you perhaps write up a summary, and reference to the study itstead? Ronabop 16:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks much more consistent with the rest of the page now. :-) Ronabop 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm still learning and appreciate the helpful suggestions. Now I need help with the Alternative medicine section about "Problems with the label "alternative"". It's far too shallow and needs supporting arguments, but AED doesn't seem to think so. -- Fyslee 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the talk archives and article history for some of the discussions on the labels used, but let me warn you, the archives and history are *filled* with acrimonious and contentious debates on the labels used (CAM, C/AM, AM, etc.). Some of the old POV warriors may have left, but to drag out an old cliché, "there be monsters there". I guess if nothing else, the history of that article can teach you a lot about the difficult sides of wikipedia. :-) Ronabop 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised...;-) As the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud Discussion List, I'm used to dealing with this stuff daily, and often feel we are dealing with cultists, rather than people who use rational arguments. There are some who do stick to reason and evidence, but not many. If the subject interests you, you're welcome to join.....;-) -- Fyslee 09:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My Sandbox

For Quackbusters:

Definition

Quackbusters is a term used in two senses:

  • 1. As a derogatory term used to denigrate opposers of quackery. This use is self-defeating, since it identifies the user as one who opposes those who oppose quackery.
When used in this sense it is an ad hominem abusive attack, especially of the type known as Poisoning the well. It's most prominent user operates the Quackpotwatch website.
  • 2. As a fitting description proudly born by some opposers of quackery, since it clearly identifies their relation to it.

What it is not

The term has no relation to its use here:

Related links