This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 11:46, 29 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:46, 29 December 2005 by Valjean (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
- The National Council Against Health Fraud
- Quackwatch
- Quackpotwatch - website critical of Quackbusters, Quackwatch and Dr. Stephen Barrett