This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think that section headings like "Who we are" and "What we do" are good to include in an encyclopedia article. I generally think of an article as needing to be written from the 3rd person rather than the 1st person. I've been looking a little for recommendations around this in the Wikipedia Help section but haven't come across something specific yet. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
I agree. I assume it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. How about paraphrasing it so it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio? alteripse 01:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I created a section for Criticism and moved a paragraph from the opening to there. The paragraph's placement veered a wee bit close to the WP:NPOV cliff and seems better contextualized as criticism. Gobonobo 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This page seems to be mostly plagiarized, and it consequently reads like a brochure. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that a page can be largely unattributed copy and pasting, even if it is not a direct copyright violation. It seems this issue was raised two years ago; is anyone working on this page? 938 MeV ( talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that information about the budget and charter belong under organization, not criticism. Fyslee seems to have a problem with this, not sure why. hgilbert ( talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I included the complete quote from the NCCAM charter concerning council membership because the previous abbreviated quote suggested a far greater level of 'CAM' representation than actually exists. The previous quote suggested 9 members must be experts in the field of C and A medicine. This is quite wrong, as an examination of the board will show. The board is heavily loaded with representatives from the conventional medicine fields. DHawker ( talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The role of rigorous scientific evaluation in the use and practice of complementary and alternative medicine. [1]
I don't have time to work on it right now, maybe later if someone doesn't do it first. Ward20 ( talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I moved the article from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the new name for the organization National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The organization hasn't changed everything yet, so we'll just have to update some things a bit at a time as they do so. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably should update the URL to https://nccih.nih.gov at some point. The center's web pages have been updated. 96.241.31.30 ( talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I added an additional study result to this table. I may add more, unless there is a legitimate objection. The only examples in this table appeared to be cherry-picked mostly from a Skeptical Inquirer article seeking to debunk alternative medicine funding. Gives the false impression that 100% of the studies produce no positive results. It makes sense to include some positive results, too. Happy to discuss. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:FLAT WP:FRINGE WP:ORIGINAL WP:BITE
and finally, WP:YWAB
-- Akrasia25 ( talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The NCCIH was not formed until 2014 so the 2009 reference was not criticizing the current Center. Many of the sources in this article are old. I would think the article would be more useful if the historical order went from current to older. What NCCIH is today should be the focus.
About the deleted paragraph with with the addition
I don't understand Hipal's objection “rv SOAP, LINKSPAM, change in POV based upon ABOUTSELF refs/links" Bbachrac ( talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. If you intended them to be references, follow WP:CITE and the format being used in this article.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing
Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts
What NCCIH is today should be the focusThat would be soapboxing and WP:RECENTISM. The focus should be on what the best independent references have to say, ideally references that provide broad historical context. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think that section headings like "Who we are" and "What we do" are good to include in an encyclopedia article. I generally think of an article as needing to be written from the 3rd person rather than the 1st person. I've been looking a little for recommendations around this in the Wikipedia Help section but haven't come across something specific yet. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
I agree. I assume it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. How about paraphrasing it so it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio? alteripse 01:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I created a section for Criticism and moved a paragraph from the opening to there. The paragraph's placement veered a wee bit close to the WP:NPOV cliff and seems better contextualized as criticism. Gobonobo 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This page seems to be mostly plagiarized, and it consequently reads like a brochure. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that a page can be largely unattributed copy and pasting, even if it is not a direct copyright violation. It seems this issue was raised two years ago; is anyone working on this page? 938 MeV ( talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that information about the budget and charter belong under organization, not criticism. Fyslee seems to have a problem with this, not sure why. hgilbert ( talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I included the complete quote from the NCCAM charter concerning council membership because the previous abbreviated quote suggested a far greater level of 'CAM' representation than actually exists. The previous quote suggested 9 members must be experts in the field of C and A medicine. This is quite wrong, as an examination of the board will show. The board is heavily loaded with representatives from the conventional medicine fields. DHawker ( talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The role of rigorous scientific evaluation in the use and practice of complementary and alternative medicine. [1]
I don't have time to work on it right now, maybe later if someone doesn't do it first. Ward20 ( talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I moved the article from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the new name for the organization National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The organization hasn't changed everything yet, so we'll just have to update some things a bit at a time as they do so. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably should update the URL to https://nccih.nih.gov at some point. The center's web pages have been updated. 96.241.31.30 ( talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I added an additional study result to this table. I may add more, unless there is a legitimate objection. The only examples in this table appeared to be cherry-picked mostly from a Skeptical Inquirer article seeking to debunk alternative medicine funding. Gives the false impression that 100% of the studies produce no positive results. It makes sense to include some positive results, too. Happy to discuss. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:FLAT WP:FRINGE WP:ORIGINAL WP:BITE
and finally, WP:YWAB
-- Akrasia25 ( talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The NCCIH was not formed until 2014 so the 2009 reference was not criticizing the current Center. Many of the sources in this article are old. I would think the article would be more useful if the historical order went from current to older. What NCCIH is today should be the focus.
About the deleted paragraph with with the addition
I don't understand Hipal's objection “rv SOAP, LINKSPAM, change in POV based upon ABOUTSELF refs/links" Bbachrac ( talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. If you intended them to be references, follow WP:CITE and the format being used in this article.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing
Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts
What NCCIH is today should be the focusThat would be soapboxing and WP:RECENTISM. The focus should be on what the best independent references have to say, ideally references that provide broad historical context. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)