| Revision as of 09:07, 2 June 2004 editJohn Foley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,104 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:42, 5 June 2004 edit undoGeni (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,935 edits →Alternative medicineNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ::-- ] 09:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) | ::-- ] 09:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) | ||
| ::: If someone put in more about the health benefits or otherwise of walking it might make sense. At the monement I don't see that it does.] 22:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:42, 5 June 2004
I am an avid hiker (that means I like to walk in wilderness areas, typically on trails and up and down hills or mountains) and a competent English speaker. From this article, I couldn't tell what you meant by "walking"--I mean, it would really help if you would explain exactly what happens, where you go, what you do, etc., when you are "walking" in the sense you describe here. --LMS
Alternative medicine
The latest addition encapsulating walking within Alternative Health is not very convincing. There are, of course, health benefits to walking but there are plenty of reasons for walking which have nothing to do with health, for example, it is a form of transport. Would the health enthusiast care to reconsider...
- Every article can be classsified more than one way. So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet. They are part of natural approaches to health such as Natural hygiene which is classified alternative medicine. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- John Gohde 07:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- John, this is certainly an improvement. However, whether it is a box or not, my point is that the extended reference to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is inappropriate. I do not readily accept the argument that since every article can be cross-referenced in more than one way this entitles a proponent for one of these ways to make a "land grab" for the topic. On that argument, we could anticipate banner cross-references cluttering up the page from every sort of enthusiast. I advocate moderation and discretion in promoting your links. For example, how about suitable links to Health as well as CAM? I am a supporter of CAM but I do not believe that it should be cross-referenced in this way. The reasons for my opinion are :firstly, the reference is unnecessarily large especially in relation to the overall size of the preceding text. One gets the impression that one is reading an entry in some faddish health advertising-supported website rather than an encyclopaedia. Secondly, the reference itself includes subreferences to major topics such as philosophy and history which is (a) misleading since they refer only to the philosophy and history of CAM (as opposed to philosophy and history in general or the philosophy and history of walking) (b) unnecessary since if the interested reader wants to find out about these topics they can follow the link from the main CAM page.
- PS The correct spelling of "Complimentary medicine" should be "Complementary medicine"