224:- well I don't think so. If somone comes, says they are a doctor, acts like a doctor, contributes like a doctor they are very welcome ('Gedday' we all shout in unision!) and we add them to the list (register). If they want to be able to veto consensus decisions then they just need to (in confidence) reveal their true identity (send us an email, or if their home e-mail is DrX@hotmail, ask the secretary at the hospital they work at to confirm their address) and we can just check out their registration/licence on the web. ooh gotta go kids need me!--
672:
31:
327:
seriously compete with medical textbooks. but that is just pie in the sky thinking. btw i too think the 'mess' is fantastic... I guess we should all recruit new members! I claim
Alteripse as my recruit (gedday Alteripse!) - still have a long way to catch up with JFDW tho! the proposal i've made is really just an add on suggestion to the good work already done you all.--
141:
into
Knowledge. bascially because I think we can achieve more that way - especially in controversial areas - as the world medical community is only now making inroads into smoking - we're still not going to be able to influence content to an enormous extent. but if the community trusts us as a group we our 'health warnings' are likely to be respected. --
554:
leaves its defenders only the nonsense. Their definition of course is quite different and they keep trying to insist that lots of perfectly sensible things that wouldn't raise a skeptic's eyebrow deserve to be called "alt", ---I guess they think approving or claiming a few rational things makes the rest of the silliness less obvious.
216:
the 'brand' WMA or whatever unless they achieve consensus. (ie most of us are members of our own
Medical Associations but, it is rare for one of us to act as its spokesmen. Once membership gets above 16 consensus is likely to be impossible so that's why I put in the idea of the executive committee and voting).
648:
link list that I added a while back with a more complete list of articles. We could have placed a much more prominent infobox right on top of the article. CAM is a total package. I am personally not remotely interested in {revolting alternative treatment} but it is part of the total package. There
215:
my personal view is that at least while membership is below ~16 then all decisions of the group should be made be consensus. This will tend to make the group conservative but I think that is Ok. Individual members or subgroups can always try to push their own agends - it's just until they cannot use
140:
On further thought... a formal committee would only aim to restrict editing to a single pageā¦ and that would be the 'Wiki
Medical Register'. And then the rest would be wiki as normal... in some ways this is about establishing a brand and attempting to carrying the reputation we have in the community
553:
So what kind of boxes would you add to wellness? I thought the article was pretty unobjectionable, and not really "alternative," though part of the disputability of alt med is that any thing that sounds rational and reasonable doesn't seem to deserve being called "alt" to me, or argued about, which
115:
As for the proposal, regarding who should be a member of the group - I think we're trying to be too exclusive if we limit ourselves to physicians. Anyone who is interested in health-related topics should be able to write any of the topics, and many topics will need non-physicians to help edit (ie:
326:
Yes.. pre-embryological... dunno about anybody else but wikipedia seem big enough for all of us... so i for one am not proposing we go anywhere!! although I wonder if (one day) a 'wiki-book' dedicated to information for patient's could be good? also wonder if a highly formalised future wiki could
134:
chips in. The proposal is certainly not intended to be restrictive, but merely to enable clear labelling. I may just be influence by a few days I wasted on somebody who was claiming to be a doctorā¦ but certainly didnāt act like one. To be honest it put me off
Knowledge a bit: āwhy am I wasting my
413:
I just looked at it. I'd vote for letting the person who writes an article decide whether to feature it in a series with a box. On the other hand, I like Erich's suggestion that common symptoms/signs/complaints might deserve their own different box theme rather than the disease one. Or you might
120:
for the group, how about just doing it on an achievement-based view (number of pages edited, quality of the edits, etc.), rather than the actual level of training of individuals. Leaders are needed, to settle any disputes amongst the members (ie: what should be in a blue box).
639:
That is why we have more than one infobox. I especially designed that project namespace for articles only tangential to CAM or as it says related to alternative postions on health, healing, and illness. If you were to take a close look at
116:
pharmacists will have useful insight into a lot of the pharmacologic agents we write about, medical students will be pretty good about the general physiology and anatomy aspects, and never underestimate a well-read individualĀ ;-) ). As for
595:
wikipedians who believe in science... and there seem to be many excellent scientists here. There are too few of us otherwise. Also in my experience
Medicine is generally classified as part of health (I work for
427:
But seriously, I try to stay away from the CAM pages, however oxymoronic some statements may sound to us skeptical, "narrow-minded" pathophysiological hardliners. Erich, you ought to do something about this
507:, I think it would be a shame if the WikiDocs started flaming the CAMmers and vice versa. My strategy so far has been to stay out of ridiculous edit/reversal wars, and I'm not planning to change it...
103:
I think getting a formal WikiDoc group, with ideas about naming convention, who to target articles towards, and a consensus on the blue boxes is enough for now. That group will eventually hold this
525:
Rashness bows to your experience and wisdom. I'll stay away. Reading the arguments is sort of like looking at gruesome accident pictures though, sort of draws you in despite yourself...
720:
712:
707:
79:
71:
66:
493:
20:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC) In my humble opinion, psychoneuroimmunology is about as relevant to alt med as quantum mechanics is to the homeopaths (and as well understood, too).
414:
consider my opinion worth what I'm charging you for it. P.S., I wouldn't have been tempted to add a couple words to your article if not for that missing comma.
298:
It is nice to have one place rather than all around
Knowledge. We're still talking about doing this all in Knowledge, right? We ae not starting a new wiki.
688:
649:
are many modern areas of CAM that actually do work. There are many articles that are related to alternative postions on health, healing, and illness such as
571:
which I think is a fantastic inclusive term encompassing all our allied health and nursing colleagues believing in a scientific approach to improving health.
47:
17:
563:
well personally I wouldn't have any boxes, but I'm uneasy about the advertisment for CAM at the bottom of a page which I agree is not alt at all! If we
337:
In other words, if this were a pyramid scheme, you're claiming a percentage of my production? You'll probably try to skim the vowels or something...
248:) that we move all WikiDoc stuff to a WikiProject page. I suggest starting a new WikiProject to supersede the old and defunct ones, and to call it "
249:
341:
13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC) just as well it's not a pyramid scheme - if it were, i'm sure you wouldn't miss the lower half of the fullstopsĀ ;-) --
93:
Start new topics for discussion here. (please introduce new topics with ---- and a header on level 3 (e.g. ===Recombinant amyloid===)
357:
135:
time... here this is chaosā. So the thrust of the proposal is really about allowing doctors to identify themselves in the community.
653:
which figures prominently into questions of diet and exercise. Feel free to add you own infobox at the bottom of the page. --
460:
607:
Service'. So I think we should graciously subsume ourselves under health science and be proud that although our field is
657:
624:
558:
546:
529:
520:
504:
497:
471:
444:
418:
400:
382:
373:
345:
331:
321:
302:
283:
228:
145:
679:
38:
455:
btw JFW.. had a quick look at the abdo pain debate, user:num nuts may have a point about the blue box not being
130:
Gedday... Yes, very embryonic - possibly even an 8 cell zygote! Knowledge is fantanstic because everybody from
542:
proponent, I am sure we should all be rightly bowing your experience and wisdom not the other way around!) --
268:). Please give your views and other points that need to be incorporated into the "Clinical medicine" proposal.
254:
I will probably write a new introduction to "Clinical medicine" and include our "agenda" as discussed on the
260:
We can also use the associated Talk page as a springboard for an in-depth discussion on page nomenclature (
654:
482:
429:
265:
261:
255:
574:
I've picked up on some comments about health, that i think are worth exploring... IMHO... <rant: -->
515:
439:
368:
316:
278:
245:
189:
621:
543:
490:
464:
397:
379:
342:
328:
225:
166:
155:
142:
481:
uh oh... now you've done it!Ā ;-) I guess Cam is part of my motivation for the 'proposal'. (
538:
probably needs to have 0 or 2 boxes though (?) have you had a look? (now
Alteripse, as a
308:
This project will be firmly
Knowledge. Erich's plans are still decidedly embryological.
588:
580:
568:
555:
526:
494:
486:
468:
415:
407:
338:
511:
508:
467:
00:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC) I agree, see above (and no quid pro quo changed hands here).
435:
432:
364:
361:
312:
309:
274:
271:
185:
182:
687:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
299:
290:
241:
122:
108:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
650:
270:(I will be cross-posting this on the Talk pages of all WikiDoc participants.)
360:. I hope it will get some more response and lead to some form of consensus.
608:
576:
535:
393:
616:
356:
I've raised the "naming issue" again, this time on a widely-read page:
534:
JFW, Alteripse, agree completely! am still nagged by the thought that
612:
584:
539:
597:
666:
25:
289:
Sounds like a good idea, and a step in the right dirrection.
567:
to add another box then I'm thinking something focussed on
644:
the talk name space is actually a replacement of the
172:
620:
right now that's off my chest! do I make any sense?
98:Proposal to create a formalised group of wiki docs
603:for example and, of course UK has the 'National
579:and the wikidocs by snuggly sheltering in with
8:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine
358:Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Medicine
406:Man, I've had a fight over putting it on
583:and conceptualising medicine as part of
575:, I think there is much to be gained by
392:should we put JFDW's beautifull box on
685:Do not edit the contents of this page.
459:right there. should we have a box for
175:Knowledge Association of Doctors (WAD)
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
461:common symptoms and health complaints
165:Knowledge Medical Association (WMA) (
7:
154:now fun stuff! naming suggestions (
24:
611:, we aim to improve and maintain
670:
222:would all this be a lot of work?
29:
181:Knowledge Medical School (WMS)
1:
250:WikiProject CLINICAL MEDICINE
178:Knowledge Doctors Group (WDG)
591:also rightly aligns us with
739:
489:'s area wouldn't it?) --
293:15:53, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
125:11:54, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
658:06:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
625:02:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
559:01:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
547:00:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
530:22:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
521:21:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
498:01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
472:01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
445:20:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
419:01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
401:19:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
383:19:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
374:12:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
346:15:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
332:20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
322:18:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
303:17:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
284:12:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
229:07:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
146:19:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
683:of past discussions.
483:Psychoneuroimmunology
266:Myocardial infarction
42:of past discussions.
388:Feeling assertive???
503:As I've stated on
726:
725:
695:
694:
689:current talk page
518:
442:
371:
319:
281:
192:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
730:
704:
697:
696:
674:
673:
667:
516:
505:John's talk page
440:
369:
317:
279:
190:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
738:
737:
733:
732:
731:
729:
728:
727:
700:
671:
463:or some such??
390:
378:Good on you! --
354:
244:suggested (see
239:
132:all backgrounds
100:
90:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
736:
734:
724:
723:
718:
715:
710:
705:
693:
692:
675:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
619:</rant: -->
589:Health science
581:health science
572:
569:health science
551:
550:
549:
510:
485:would be more
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
448:
447:
434:
424:
423:
422:
421:
408:abdominal pain
389:
386:
363:
353:
350:
349:
348:
311:
306:
305:
295:
294:
273:
269:
259:
253:
238:
236:Are we moving?
233:
232:
231:
218:
217:
207:
205:
204:
194:
184:
179:
176:
173:
170:
169:current vote):
162:
161:
160:
159:
149:
148:
137:
136:
127:
126:
112:
111:
99:
96:
89:
86:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
735:
722:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
703:
699:
698:
690:
686:
682:
681:
676:
669:
668:
659:
656:
652:
647:
643:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
626:
623:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
557:
552:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
531:
528:
524:
523:
522:
519:
513:
509:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
443:
437:
433:
431:
426:
425:
420:
417:
412:
411:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
387:
385:
384:
381:
376:
375:
372:
366:
362:
359:
351:
347:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
324:
323:
320:
314:
310:
304:
301:
297:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
276:
272:
267:
263:
257:
251:
247:
243:
237:
234:
230:
227:
223:
220:
219:
214:
210:
209:
208:
202:
198:
195:
193:
187:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
163:
157:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
144:
139:
138:
133:
129:
128:
124:
119:
114:
113:
110:
106:
105:Doctor's Mess
102:
101:
97:
95:
94:
87:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
701:
684:
678:
645:
642:page history
641:
622:Erich gasboy
604:
599:
592:
564:
544:Erich gasboy
491:Erich gasboy
480:
465:Erich gasboy
456:
398:Erich gasboy
391:
380:Erich gasboy
377:
355:
352:Naming issue
343:Erich gasboy
329:Erich gasboy
325:
307:
262:Heart attack
246:my talk page
240:
235:
226:Erich gasboy
221:
212:
206:
200:
196:
143:Erich gasboy
131:
117:
104:
92:
91:
88:General talk
60:
43:
37:
677:This is an
598:Queensland
203:vote! above
107:, as well.
36:This is an
655:John Gohde
651:Syndrome X
396:? he he --
213:Leadership
721:ArchiveĀ 5
713:ArchiveĀ 3
708:ArchiveĀ 2
702:ArchiveĀ 1
556:Alteripse
527:Alteripse
495:Alteripse
487:Alteripse
469:Alteripse
430:red link!
416:Alteripse
339:Alteripse
80:ArchiveĀ 5
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
646:see also
609:medicine
577:medicine
536:wellness
394:Wellness
197:add here
680:archive
617:science
256:WikiDoc
118:leaders
39:archive
615:using
613:health
605:Health
600:Health
585:health
300:Kd4ttc
291:Ksheka
242:Angela
201:please
123:Ksheka
109:Ksheka
540:latin
457:quite
258:page.
16:<
565:were
517:T@lk
441:T@lk
370:T@lk
318:T@lk
280:T@lk
199:and
191:T@lk
593:all
512:JFW
436:JFW
365:JFW
313:JFW
275:JFW
264:vs
211:Re
186:JFW
717:ā
587:.
514:|
438:|
410:!
367:|
315:|
277:|
252:".
188:|
167:my
158:):
156:es
76:ā
691:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.