text:
First Amendment (disambiguation)

The First Amendment or Amendment One/1 may refer to the:

 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and right to petition
 * Australian Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Act, 1906, the first amendment to the Australian constitution
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of India, which amended several of the Fundamental Rights in India
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, passed during World War II, concerning the declaration of a national emergency
 * First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, which accounted for the secession of Bangladesh
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa, which made three technical changes
 * North Carolina Amendment 1, making marriage between one man and one woman the only domestic legal union

title: First Amendment (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:First Amendment (disambiguation)

titles
Given that amendments are common to documents of all sorts, we may want to keep article titles to things like "US Constitution: First Amendment" or "First Amendment to the US Constitution." Bill of Rights had to be split up, similarly, I notice. -- April

Moved from article: Should this be an article like this, or just a redirect?

 * I believe there's justification for a separate article, despite my quibble over the title. It's been very important throughout US politics, and touches on any number of other issues. A discussion of those issues, along with some famous First Amendment court cases, certainly deserves an article, I think.  Not that you'd want a separate article for every Amendment to the US Constitution, but this one is cited so very often that perhaps it deserves detailed discussion. -- April

I'm glad you agree on the need for the article. Every parent is pleased when their offspring is praised.

My admiration for the First Amendment comes from its usefulness for promoting goodness. It forbids the government from censoring good ideas. They can't stop me from expressing an idea, just because they disagree with it; if they could, there's a great risk that some unscrupulous people would promote evil ideas in the name of the government and force everyone to agree with them, or keep quiet. This has happened, in countries where some of my friends came from.

Ironically, the same law that prevents the censorship of good ideas also permits the expression of evil ideas. But that's okay, because as long as the good ideas get a fair chance to circulate, they will inevitably win out over the evil ideas. I'm quite confident of that. -- User:Ed Poor

merge
We also have First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Shouldn't we merge this one with that one, and redirect this thataway? -- IHCOYC 00:21 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, done. Evercat 11:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WTF People?
I want the First Amendment to the USA Constitution --- duhhh! What is this other shit?

I don't care about the First Amendment in India's constitution. No one cares about that. It is probably about the proper way to skin a sheep or something. Why must Wiki always be so fucking PC about everything?-- --149.152.34.38 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done. Skomorokh  08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First Amendment → First Amendment (disambiguation) — Although the above IP's tone leaves much to be desired, their essential point appears to be correct. Some searching suggests that the US Constitutional amendment is indeed probably the primary topic for this term and "First Amendment" perhaps ought to be made a redirect. I'm not 100% sure though, so: thoughts? --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I personally think the US Constitution one is indeed far more known than any other (I would bet that millions of people who have never even been to the US know what it is due to how many TV shows and movies have mentioned it being the freedom of speech/press/religion, while I doubt any significant amount of people are aware of the other First Amendments). I'm not ready to fully support or oppose yet though because I would like to hear what others think.  TJ   Spyke   15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am British, and my first thought was "the first amendment of which of the very many things that have been amended down history?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think it would introduce too much US bias, but it is probably primary usage. Can some people outside of North America besides Anthony care to comment? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although by no means decisive, I would suggest looking at the Google Test results. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, take 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The question we should be asking here is whether First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the primary topic—i.e., whether it is substantially more likely than any other "First Amendment" to be the topic sought for when a reader searches for "First Amendment". We've had evidence here that this is, overwhelmingly, the case (cf. TJRC's tables). Those opposed to the move argue that having "First Amendment" redirect to the article most readers are evidently looking for would somehow further systemic bias, but such arguments seem to have no basis in policy or precedent; for example, we have White House and Boston similarly at their U.S. meanings. Ucucha 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

First Amendment → First Amendment (disambiguation) — First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the primary topic for the term "First Amendment" and the term should redirect there. Hits this month as of writing this:
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution: 47,175
 * All other "First Amendments" combined: 739 [= sum(159, 142, 126, 162, 149)]
 * For context: This disambiguation page: 5,890

Which makes the US Constitutional amendment 63 times as popular as the rest and this disambiguation page an unnecessary indirection and a (small) waste of most of our readers' time. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose per arguments from December. And if you delete all hits from the US, what do you get? (ie, when in the world outside the US, how many times does "First Amendment" refer to the US one? ) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only one of the !votes from the previous request was solidly negative (Anthony's); IMO, people mostly 'voted' "meh" last time. --Cyber cobra (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The US is not the whole of the world. There might possibly be a case for fifth amendment to point to Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but even then I'd say don't be so US-centric. The First Amendment while important is relatively obscure compared to the Fifth. Google is a bad test for this, as it's so skewed towards US users. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any concrete evidence to support your assertion that there's not a primary topic? I'm sorry, but it's hard to ignore a 63x difference. --Cyber cobra (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any web-based statistic is clearly not a good test in this case. It's not a matter of ignoring the result, just of seeing it in context. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're citing absolutely no evidence of any kind, just your personal opinion. --Cyber cobra (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, sort of. Opinions may not be the best evidence, but they are all we really have to go on so far. The evidence you have cited is, in my opinion, no better, as it is misleading, for the reasons I have given. Others may disagree. Ultimately, our whole concept of consensus is opinion-based. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it is educational and view-broadening to learn that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't the only one.  --Tesscass (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that that's the objective of an encyclopedia. When an encyclopedia user is trying to research a topic, the encyclopedia should support finding that topic most easily.  It's not the encyclopedia's role to try to "broaden" the reader's view that there are other topics unrelated to the one he is interested in that has a similar name.  The goal is to get the reader to the most likely requested topic in the quickest way, while still allowing other topics with similar names to be found for those minority of users that need them.  That's the policy behind the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline.  Furthermore, the redirect hatnote, which points to other uses, meets that objective, anyway, and it does so while keeping in line with Wikipedia guidelines and not inconveniencing the overwhelming number of readers looking for information on the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While it would be similarly educational and view-broadening to move Paris (disambiguation) to Paris (to show that the French city is not the only one), it would not be helpful for our readers, most of which will be looking for the French city. The same applies here. This is exactly why we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC instead of just redirecting every ambiguous title to a dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Strong support. Objectively and overwhelmingly, more references to the "First Amendment" are to the U.S. constitutional amendment than to all the other references combined.  This is not a matter of US-centricity.  This is simply realizing that the US-centered topic is indeed the primary topic.  Any neutral consideration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would reach the conclusion that  First Amendment should redirect to First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with a redirect hatnote that points back to  First Amendment (disambiguation).

 * Some numbers:

 * What Links Here analysis (as of 2010-04-14)
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! article ! no. links ! percentage ! source
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 1479
 * 88%
 *
 * Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution)
 * 120
 * 7%
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 * 38
 * 2%
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of India
 * 18
 * 1%
 *
 * First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan
 * 15
 * <1%
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa
 * 10
 * <1%
 *
 * Total
 * 1680
 * }
 * 10
 * <1%
 *
 * Total
 * 1680
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

 * Article traffic statistics (for most recent full month, 2010-03)
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! article ! views ! percentage ! rank ! source ! 98.7% !  0.3% !  0.2% !  0.3% !  0.2% !  0.2%
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 186,173
 * 186,173
 * 1593
 *
 * Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution)
 * 569
 * 569
 * too low to rank
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 * 422
 * 422
 * too low to rank
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of India
 * 541
 * 541
 * too low to rank
 *
 * First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan
 * 412
 * 412
 * too low to rank
 *
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa
 * 456
 * 456
 * too low to rank
 *
 * Total
 * 188,573
 * }
 * Analysis of existing links to DAB page (, as of 2010-04-14)
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"
 * }
 * Analysis of existing links to DAB page (, as of 2010-04-14)
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! apparently intended article ! number of links ! percentage ! 100% !  0% !  0% !  0% !  0% !  0%
 * First Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 19
 * 19
 * Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution)
 * 0
 * 0
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
 * 0
 * 0
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of India
 * 0
 * 0
 * First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan
 * 0
 * 0
 * First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa
 * 0
 * 0
 * Total
 * 19
 * }
 * }
 * }

 * By any of these measures, First Amendment to the United States Constitution is clearly the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose, at least based on the facts presented so far, because of concerns of systemic bias. Yes, the U.S. amendment is the most frequently viewed topic, but is that because most of the views are coming from U.S. readers?  Is the term "First Amendment" widely known or used outside the United States?  If there were evidence that people outside the U.S. frequently use this term to refer to the U.S. constitutional amendment, that would be a different story.
 * To comment on a few of the remarks above: "The First Amendment while important is relatively obscure compared to the Fifth." (Andrewa)  I disagree.  Although I haven't done any research on this, my suspicion is that if you took a poll, more people in the U.S. would be able to tell you what the First Amendment is than any other amendment, with the possible exception of the Fifth.
 * "I think it is educational and view-broadening to learn that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't the only one." (Tesscass) That's a valid point. There is more than one way to use a paper encyclopedia.  You can look up a particular article and ignore everything else around it, or you can scan through the pages and see what interesting facts you come across.  There can be more than one way of using Wikipedia as well.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To plead the fifth is a figure of speech I hear occasionally even in Australian English, which leads me to believe it's in the public mind somewhere. On the other hand, many I've spoken to who are actively involved in the creation science debate and therefore speak knowledgeably about US law on the subject have no idea that separation of church and state wasn't in the original US Constitution, so the First Ammendment isn't the subject of similar awareness. Or that's my experience. Very interested in other views. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, the First Amendment is a far more significant than the Fifth. But I don't think its more important than those of the other countries to their people.  --Tesscass (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but that's not the issue. The queston is, in everyday English, does first amendent refer primarily to the US Constitution, or is it ambiguous? My belief remains that even fifth amendment is ambiguous, and first amendment even more so. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is not whether it is ambiguous. The ambiguity is a given; that's why this DAB page exists.  The issue is whether, given the ambiguity, there is a primary topic to which "First Amendment" refers.  A mere ambiguity is not a reason to have "First Amendment" point to a disambiguation page.  That's what we do when there is an ambiguity and no primary topic. TJRC (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument is that it ignores the question of context. There are certainly contexts in which the phrase is unambiguous, and others in which it is. The question is, does this ambiguity occur in contexts of everyday English? I maintain that it does, and that therefore, there's no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Primary topic. WP:BIAS concerns article content; the ambiguous articles in question are not biased. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns facilitating the readership's usage; of the ambiguous articles in question, one is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, my dear J. WP:BIAS starts with the sentence "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups."  Note that it says "the Wikipedia project," not "Wikipedia articles."  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the surprising thing is how well we deal with this bias overall. We really do try to be an international encyclopedia, and have for example rejected long ago the easy way out of splitting British English off into its own project, see WP:ENGVAR. But there are some hiccups from time to time, and we don't win them all. Andrewa (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the selection of primary topic (or no primary topic) does not change the coverage of any of the ambiguous topics. Each still has the same coverage it had in the article space. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's quite right. It just changes the relative prominence given to related topics. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment - Just so we're clear, WP:BIAS is not a policy or a guideline; it's just an essay: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of $one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." It's certainly okay to refer to it, but it's just as okay to disregard it.  An editor citing WP:BIAS (either directly or as piped to other text as in "systemic bias"), or any other essay, should be understood to be citing it as a viewpoint that he or she agrees with; not as an authority that supports his or her position. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per systemic bias (as explained by TJRC). CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to admit, my first reaction was First Amendment of what, for God's sake?  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per stats. If 9,500 Americans use X to mean one thing, and 500 Europeans use X to mean something else, naming the primary topic to be the one that 95% of people are looking for is not bias, it's common-sense facilitation of navigation. Propaniac (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear case of primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems this requires further explanation. The point of primary topic is directing the readers to the article they're most likely looking for. The statistics show that in a large majority of cases, readers are looking for the first amendment of the US constitution. Searches for the other first amendment articles, such as those of the constitutions of India, Ireland and so forth, are much more rare. This was determined with three different methods, all of which very clearly point to the same conclusion. While statistics are indeed not determining factors by themselves and should be used with common sense, no objective evidence to the contrary seems to have been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am British, and my first thought was "the first amendment of which of the very many things that have been amended down history?" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We need a section break because this section is too long

 * Very strong support: Obviously primary topic. Has 7x everything else combined.  If it's biased to believe in cold, hard facts, so be it.   Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To a USA citizen, obviously primary topic. Not necessarily so in other countries overseas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparantly, people who live overseas don't really look up this topic, or else some other First Amendment would be getting more hits. Why should overseas countries be given undue sway relative to the number of hits they produce on a given topic? I believe that primary topic should be done solely on hits, not some "wah, this is US-centric" bunk  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if non-Americans don't think there's a "the First Amendment", then they'd be rather unlikely to search for "First Amendment" anyway, so why do we need to weigh such opinion so heavily? --Cyber cobra (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Just as some Americans obviously assume the term to mean the amendments they learned in school, so some Indian citizens would know and even want to know only of their own constitution. This may not be very commendable, but that's not the issue. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the primary topic should be done solely on hits, then maybe raise an RfC so this proposed policy change can be discussed. You'll have some support I'm sure! But to me this amounts to setting up a US English Wikipedia, and I think that would be a shame. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests three ways to help determine the primary topic. Page view statistics are one of them, and the others are incoming links from Special:WhatLinksHere and search engine tests (eg. Google Web). Feel free to check yourself. All of those tests actually support the view that the first amendment of the US constitution is the primary topic here, don't they? Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also explicitly says that these three are Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors,... (partly their emphasis, partly mine). Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion, neither of them is helpful in this particular case to determine the primary topic? Or did I misinetrpret your response? What method would you suggest for objectively determining which meaning is the most prominent in this case, then? Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion none of the three is helpful in determining whether or not there is a primary topic. That's the issue. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you determine the primary topic? I think we both agree that just counting how many people say "support, I'm American" or "oppose, I'm European" isn't going to result in an objective decision. Jafeluv (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the issue. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I should have qualified this by saying in this case none of them is useful for determining whether or not there is a primary meaning, for reasons I have given above. In other cases, they are extremely useful. I thought when I wrote the last-but-one response that this point was so obvious that saying it wasn't necessary, but I now think it's better spelled out, just in case. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. However, I still don't see what you suggest would be the right way to determine the primary topic in this case. Jafeluv (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this assumes that there is a primary topic to determine, and that begs the main question. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant determining wheather there is a primary topic. Sorry for not making it clear, but I thought that's what we've been discussing the whole time. Jafeluv (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start the very fact that this discussion is occurring strongly suggests to me that there's no primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary topic is defined as the topic that's "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term".[1] The mere fact that we're discussing it tells nothing about what readers are more likely to be looking for, does it? Jafeluv (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've participated in these discussions before. Usually it comes to hits or Google Scholar (usually by the Americans) vs. "Oppose because I don't think that way" and "This is supposed to be a global encyclopedia" (usually non-American).  You have no emperical evidence to show that the American Amendment isn't the primary topic for this Wikipedia, whereas I have article traffic, and apparantly the other two ways as well, to determine that First Amendment is the primary topic.  Just sayin'  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 06:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a well worn track, and we go around in the same circles. But since you again claim to have emperical evidence, I think I should again point out that this evidence is fatally skewed. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Don't forget people that we are dealing with a page that is clearly a disambiguation page, and the title should reflect that. However, I think that first amendment should redirect here. --WikiDonn (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This would certainly be preferable to the proposal to regard the American topic as the primary meaning. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that would go against WP:DABNAME. We only add "(disambiguation)" to the title if there is a primary topic for the term. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True. It doesn't explicitly ban such practice, but it clearly doesn't authorise or intend it either. But an application of WP:IAR might be justified here if it brought this discussion to a consensus, which I think means making some sort of concession to US readers. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, except moving this page to "(disambiguation)" and redirecting the plain title there wouldn't really help any US readers, would it? :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, got to say it seems pointless to rename the page but still have "First Amendment" redirect here; I don't see the justification to go against policy. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be frank, at the risk of alienating you both and others. You see I don't understand at all why so many US readers react the way they do. Not those like you who are rational and respectful of others, nor the sad and rare case who posted the comment above about skinning sheep, but the vast majority who allow it to go without comment. Wikipedia is basically an American gift to the world, and a priceless opportunity. Yet it is tainted by ridiculous decisions such as the redirection of State University. If you were a student of Sumy State University, what would that tell you about America? (:-(
 * It's hard to put yourself in another's place, but I think if I were American I'd be arguing on the same side I am, and far, far more forcefully. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your view of Americans is amazingly idealistic; I'm more pessimistic about my fellow Americans. I guess the propaganda works :-) --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would it be a violation of WP:DABNAME? It says that a disambiguation page should have (disambiguation) in the title. If you actually go to the article itself, it has a disambiguation tag at the bottom. This isn't about helping Americans, its is more of a technical issue we are fixing. We are not even changing the signifacance of any article, this will make it work the same way as any other vague term entered into Wikipedia. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it says: "If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation).". If, as implied by your position, there isn't a primary topic, then: "The title of a disambiguation page is [just] the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term.' --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jupiter goes to the planet because that is the primary topic, I get that part. Since First Amendment is ambiguous, and for neutrality purposes there is no primary topic, it should redirect to a page that has disambiguation in the title. In my Wikipedia surfing experience, that is how most articles work, and personally that just makes more sense to me. If that goes against a guideline, then most of Wikipedia does to. I have seen 2 articles that work the way you describe and I've gone through hundreds of articles. Not only does it make sense, but it would also be easier to add disambiguation to the titles of disambiguation pages that don't have them (because there are less of them), than removing them from pages you don't think deserve them. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiDonn, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. If you take a look at Category:Disambiguation pages, you'll see that most disambiguation pages have no "(disambiguation)" in the title. For those that do, the plain name should always be a primary topic article, not a redirect to the dab page (and if you find a page where it redirects to the dab page, it should be fixed). Hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jafeluv, I don't see a number anywhere on that page or in its links. What were you going by, the fact that the ones without disambiguation in the title get their own page for each letter? The A-K list for the ones that do was so long it crashed my browser, twice. Unless you can come up with an actual number, let's leave that alone for now. If you want to go with the old primary topic argument, I know what you mean now. But a note of caution: remember what I said about only seeing 2 articles that are disambiguation pages but don't have it in the title? And combined with what you said about their being more of those pages, well then maybe those pages are less important. Do you want to convey the message that The First Amendment of constitutions is an unimportant topic? What do you think about my theory? Try following the links to a few of your non-titled disambiguation pages, then see how major they are, and get back to me. --WikiDonn (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, a disambiguation page is never named "X (disambiguation)" if X itself points to the disambiguation page. The importance of the topic X has nothing to do with it. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well fine then, if my convenient solution to solve this dispute somehow interferes with policy, then screw it. I will change my opinion to support the page move as described. Nope, that other rule about not letting policy get in the way of having a good article totally doesn't apply, nope, not at all. And another thing, that is not one of Wikipedia's better formatting rules, and if it is everywhere, I understand that here is not the place for my arguments, so I will take them to the disambiguation guidelines page later. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move it back
This is totally stupid. It doesn't matter how many readers are looking for information on the US amendment, or whether "First Amendment" used unqualified on the internet tends to refer to the US one, this is no excuse for Wikipedia to pretend that the US is the most important country in the world and redirect "First Amendment", which should obviously be a disambig listing all the constitutions of the world's first amendments, to the US one. There are no doubt plenty of insular, half-witted American readers who expect that if they look up supreme court, declaration of independence or bill of rights they ought to find their country's versions of these documents prioritized over all others, but we don't indulge their idiocy. Grow up and move this one back and stop making this global encyclopedia look like an American nationalistic joke. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not take a pro-internationalist, politically-correct view; it doesn't take an insular, close-minded, pro-nationalist view either; instead, it strives for a neutral one, and in the case of navigation, a bit of a utilitarian one. And per above-cited policy/guidelines, prevalence of use is a quite relevant criterion. I honestly agreed with your position originally, but after reading the rules and doing the research, I reversed my opinion and hence proposed the move. I suggest reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and related rules, and finding some objective metric(s) to support your view. WP:Requested moves is the mechanism by which another page move would occur. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with Cybercobra. The data in the discussion leading to the move clearly shows that the U.S. constitutional amendment is overwhelmingly the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:First Amendment (disambiguation)


text:
List of IOC country codes

This is a list of International Olympic Committee (IOC) country codes.

Current NOCs
There are 206 current NOCs (National Olympic Committees) within the Olympic Movement. The following tables show the currently used code for each NOC and any different codes used in past Games, per the official reports from those Games. Some of the past code usage is further explained in the following sections. Codes used specifically for a Summer Games only or a Winter Games only, within the same year, are indicated by "S" and "W" respectively.

Current NPCs
Most National Paralympic Committees (NPC) cover a territory with an active NOC. In these cases the NPC codes matches the IOC codes shown above. The two current NPCs without a corresponding NOC use the following NPC codes.

Codes still in use
Fourteen historical NOCs or teams have codes that are still used in the IOC results database to refer to past medal winners from these teams.

Obsolete codes
Unlike the previous list, these codes no longer appear in the IOC results database. When a past athlete from one of these teams has won a medal, the new code is shown next to them instead.

Two other significant code changes have occurred, both because of a change in the nation's designation as used by the IOC:
 * HOL was changed to NED for the Netherlands for the 1992 Games, reflecting the change in designation from Holland.
 * IRN was changed to IRI for Iran for the 1992 Games, reflecting the change in designation to Islamic Republic of Iran.

Special codes for World Games
The World Games are a multi-sport event comprising sports and sporting disciplines that are not contested in the Olympic Games. The World Games are governed by the International World Games Association, under the patronage of the International Olympic Committee.

title: List of IOC country codes


text:
Acupressure

Acupressure is an alternative medicine technique often used in conjunction with acupuncture or reflexology. It is based on the concept of life energy (qi), which purportedly flows through "meridians" in the body. In treatment, physical pressure is applied to acupuncture points, or ashi trigger points, with the aim of clearing blockages in these meridians. Pressure may be applied by hand, by elbow, or with various devices. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of acupuncture points, meridians, or qi.

Although some medical studies have suggested that acupressure may be effective at helping manage nausea and vomiting, insomnia, low back pain, migraines, and constipation, among other things, such studies have been found to have a high likelihood of bias. There is no reliable evidence for the effectiveness of acupressure.

History and origin
There are different theories as to the origin of acupressure. One theory posits that it originated in India and then was brought to China. Another theory posits that it originated in China.

India theory
Acupressure therapy was prevalent in India. After the spread of Buddhism to China, the acupressure therapy was also integrated into common medical practice in China and it came to be known as acupuncture. Scholars note these similarities because the major points of Indian acupressure and Chinese acupuncture are similar to each other.

China theory
The Huangdi Neijing is perhaps the oldest known medical textbook in the world. The Lingshu Jing section mentions acupressure and acupuncture. A case described in the book is the healing of an abscess with a stone needle.

Background
Acupoints used in treatment may or may not be in the same area of the body as the targeted symptom. The traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) theory for the selection of such points and their effectiveness is that they work by stimulating the meridian system to bring about relief by rebalancing yin, yang and qi (also spelled "chi").

Many East Asian martial arts also make extensive study and use of acupressure for self-defense and health purposes, (chin na, tui na). The points or combinations of points are said to be used to manipulate or incapacitate an opponent. Some martial artists regularly massage their own acupressure points in routines to remove supposed blockages from their own meridians, claiming to thereby enhance their circulation and flexibility and keeping the points "soft" or less vulnerable to an attack.

Effectiveness
A 2011 systematic review of 43 studies of acupressure's effectiveness at treating symptoms found that the nature of these 43 studies "indicated a significant likelihood of bias." Thirty-five of the 43 studies had concluded that acupressure was effective at treating certain symptoms. The authors of this systematic review concluded that this "review of clinical trials from the past decade did not provide rigorous support for the efficacy of acupressure for symptom management. Well-designed, randomized controlled studies are needed to determine the utility and efficacy of acupressure to manage a variety of symptoms in a number of patient populations."

A 2011 Cochrane review of four trials using acupuncture and nine studies using acupressure to control pain in childbirth concluded that "acupuncture or acupressure may help relieve pain during labour, but more research is needed". Another Cochrane Collaboration review found that massage provided some long-term benefit for low back pain, and stated: "It seems that acupressure or pressure point massage techniques provide more relief than classic (Swedish) massage, although more research is needed to confirm this."

An acupressure wristband that is claimed to relieve the symptoms of motion sickness and other forms of nausea provides pressure to the P6 acupuncture point, a point that has been extensively investigated. The Cochrane Collaboration reviewed the use of P6 for nausea and vomiting, and found it to be effective for reducing post-operative nausea, but not vomiting. The Cochrane review included various means of stimulating P6, including acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, acustimulation device and acupressure; it did not comment on whether one or more forms of stimulation were more effective; it found low-quality evidence supporting stimulation of P6 compared with sham, with 2 out of 59 trials having low risk of bias. EBM reviewer Bandolier said that P6 in two studies showed 52% of patients with control having a success, compared with 75% with P6.

Quackwatch includes acupressure in a list of methods which have no "rational place" as massage therapy and states that practitioners "may also use irrational diagnostic methods to reach diagnoses that do not correspond to scientific concepts of health and disease."

Clinical use of acupressure frequently relies on the conceptual framework of traditional Chinese medicine. There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. Proponents reply that TCM is a prescientific system that continues to have practical relevance. Acupuncturists tend to perceive TCM concepts in functional rather than structural terms (e.g., as being useful in guiding evaluation and care of patients). Trials using placebo have not demonstrated any statistically significant effect but concluded that acupressure is safe to use along with conventional treatment.

Instruments
There are several different instruments for applying nonspecific pressure by rubbing, rolling, or applying pressure on the reflex zones of the body. The acuball is a small ball made of rubber with protuberances that is heatable. It is used to apply pressure and relieve muscle and joint pain. The energy roller is a small cylinder with protuberances. It is held between the hands and rolled back and forth to apply acupressure. The foot roller (also "krupa chakra") is a round, cylindrical roller with protuberances. It is placed on the floor and the foot is rolled back and forth over it. The power mat (also pyramid mat) is a mat with small pyramid-shaped bumps that you walk on. The spine roller is a bumpy roller containing magnets that is rolled up and down the spine. The Teishein is one of the original nine classical acupuncture needles described in the original texts of acupuncture. Even though it is described as an acupuncture needle it did not pierce the skin. It is used to apply rapid percussion pressure to the points being treated.

title: Acupressure


text:
Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8

Tone
Section headers need to be made phrases (descriptive), not sentences (didactic).

That anecdotal evidence (the newspaper quote) looks desperate. Is there anything better as a 'for' argument? - David Gerard 11:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, you David are the only one looking desperate, here. Keep it up, and I will remove the Dawkins quote since if anything is desperate, that bunch of garbage from Dawkins surely is. Is there anything better as an 'against' argument? -- John Gohde 14:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * David is suggesting that a tabloid quote be replaced by a better supporting quote. You are suggesting that if he looks for a better one you will delete a perfectly good quote by a well respected scientist. How is that going to improve the article? How would that be NPOV. What would you hope to achieve anyway, you know someone will just reinsert it. This agressive attitude of yours MNH is making the article worse. This is a cooperarive project. You need to start cooperating and starting to work for the good of the article. theresa knott 20:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Surely you cannot be serious? Your pointblank bias is more than showing. It is starting to get disgusting. Please STOP your trolling activities.  I remind you once again that talk is not a newsgroup. -- John Gohde 21:20, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not trolling, I'm completely serious. You need yo concentrate on the quality of the article instead of trying to score points. theresa knott 01:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * But you are trolling! We know you! We have a whole file of your medical "contributions". Do you want proof? If so, in how many more kilobytes? And you need to concentrate on serious Wiki contributions, or leave the place for more competent and willing and less obstructionist editors than you. Please STOP your trolling activities! - irismeister 21:50, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Arbitration
I've put a request concerning User:Mr-Natural-Health on Requests for arbitration. - David Gerard 09:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It may also be described as...
I'm aware of varius alt med regulation authorites. In every case I am aware of there are groups that do not sighn up to these authorites. As such the defintion holdsGeni 18:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I happen to agree with Heidimo. You are totally out of order.  And, please stop creating new articles on alternative medicial subjects for the express purposes of trashing them.  At the very least you could make sure that they are not about professional wrestling.  Why did it take you 3 edits to figure something so obvious out? -- John Gohde 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You have not adreesed my points. As for what you have commented I am of course free to create whatever articles I chose. If you view them as POV you are free to edit them. AS for the edit the wiki kept crassing on me and you were reverting it so I couldn't see itGeni 20:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Implying that all alternative medicine is practiced by unlicensed practitioners is simply not true,

 * I really don't see how it describes all alternative medicine as being practiced by unlicensed practitioners. In fact, it explicitly doesn't say that: "although practitioners are frequently so licensed." Note that the intro says that the methods are what do not require licensing, which is the case and is pretty much the definition of "alternative" medicine - that is, an alternative to the licensed stuff - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * and posting deliberately false information is called vandalism. Wiki policy is to revert all vandalism, and report it.  The sentence you so insistently keep replacing is not saying what your statement above is saying.  So, say what you mean, and quit the vandalism.

 * This is a content dispute, not vandalism. - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * If you want to say what you're saying above, it does not belong in the definition. Wiki policy is a one-sentence definition.  You are violating policies.  A discussion of licensure would need to take place in a paragraph below.  Follow policy or get reported.  heidimo  22:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Who do you plan to report this content dispute to? - David Gerard 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We need something on the history of the classification "Alternative medicine"
The following was posted to my talk page by User:68.236.3.21. I'm posting it here for discussion. I don't personally agree with the idea of giving Mr-Natural-Health apoplexy, by the way. But I do agree we need something on the history of the term "alternative medicine." - David Gerard 10:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It may also be described as "diagnosis, treatment, or therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat illness" — although practitioners are frequently so licensed.

I offer you a fuller explication of the point to use as you see fit:

Much of alternative medicine might accurately be described as medicine practiced by persons not licensed to practice medicine. Most states and legal jurisdictions provide licensure of those legally permitted to practice medicine, usually defined as the diagnosis and treatment of disease, usually by prescribing drugs or performing surgery. The laws were originally enacted to prevent inadequately trained practitioners or those using theories and ideas considered of no value from holding themselves out as physicians. In the US, before licensure laws, homeopaths, naturopaths, and many other practitioners of what would now be considered "alternative medicine" held themselves out to the public as physicians. To some extent this legal distinction still provides a valid perspective on the whole field, at least partly explaining a number of phenomena. Here are two examples of phenomena that arise at least in part from the licensing laws or their history:

1. If you look at the websites, books, advertising literature, and products sold by many if not most alt med practitioners, you will find notices to the effect that their device, advice, product, or treatment “is not intended for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.” Much chiropractic literature for much of the last few decades explicitly claimed to be treating subluxations, not disease, to avoid being prosecuted for “practicing medicine without a license.” It simply illustrates my point that the disavowal is usually is contradicted by the explicit or implicit claims made by the same practitioner or product.

2. The same phenomena perhaps tainted some treatment methods for real physicians: “if someone else could do it without a license, it can’t be worth as much to the patient as something only I can do.” This is obviously an exaggeration, but I suspect had and has some validity as an explanation for some of the resistance to the less outre’ alt med ideas. In other words, I was trying to make the point that much of what defines and characterizes alt med and especially the hostility between the alt med practitioners and real physicians arises from these social and legal constraints. I think it is a fairly important aspect of the whole topic.

3. A related point, which we didn’t even get to, and will really give MNH apoplexy, is the definition of “natural.” If you watch the alt med claims and advertising you slowly realize that the only thing that all the treatments described as “natural” have in common is that they can be administered, sold, or advocated without a license to practice medicine. There is no other sense of the word as broadly applicable to all the bizarre, loony, artificial, and often synthetic or factory-made alt med products and practices that are claimed to be “natural.”

When MNH first denied the original sentence, which is fairly objectively supportable, I thought he was doing so on the basis that “medicine” shouldn’t be defined as narrowly as the licensure laws do. However, he quickly demonstrated that his opposition was far less intelligible, defensible, or discussable. I don’t know if heidimo understands that this was the original point of the sentence, or would concede it if she did. I suspect she might, unless she is simply too invested in opposing it. I have to agree with her that when MNH appended “although practitioners are frequently so licensed” it rendered the sentence confused if not nonsensical without further clarification. Does the clause refer to licensed physicians prescribing alt med treatments or does it claim that a naturopath or massage or chiropractic license is the same as a license to practice medicine, or did he mean something I can’t even guess?

You may repaint this with HMS and sail it as you wish, and perhaps even remove it from this harbor, as I wish to remain a noncombatant if not neutral in sympathy. - User:68.236.3.21

 * I will note that the above is US-centric - in Australia, for instance, chiropractors are regulated health professionals and are called "Doctor." - David Gerard 10:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a difficulty in a number of systems (particulry the manipilative thearpies)in that they pratice different things from place to place. So in the US oseopathy is basicly part of conventional mecine while in the UK it is clearly alt med.Geni 11:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * yes, in US also, but what is scope of practice-- a general license to diagnose and treat disease (i.e., "practice medicine"? or limited to treatment of subluxations by manipulation? thats the point being made 159.14.249.235 11:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Good question. I'm not sure ... - David Gerard 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * 3. Note that this is not a claim that "natural" means something different to MNH-- just that his preferred meaning doesn't apply as accurately to the broad range of alt med products and practices which their sellers and practitioners claim are "natural".

 * I doubt user 68:wished to give MNH apoplexy, and refrained from posting it here directly because of a realization the chance of reasoned discourse was far smaller than the perception that it would be perceived as a deliberate provocation to outrage. Let's at least remove a couple of the more offensive phrases.159.14.249.235 11:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Putting your own words into someone's text as if they wrote them is generally a bad idea. I've separated your words out - David Gerard 14:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * In all honesty, your comments are totally beyond comprehension, David. At best, your are simply totally confused. At worst; I better not say.  You comments simply make no sense whatsoever, in my opinion.  And, I am being perfectly serious. -- John Gohde 17:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) (The new and improved (?) system changes keeps logging me off. Why do I have to log on 5 times a night?  Why are the servers still so bad?  When will they actually work?)

 * The above is likely User:Mr-Natural-Health - see, [ 2 ] - David Gerard 09:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from within function "Article::updateArticle". MySQL returned error "1205"
from within function "Article::updateArticle". MySQL returned error "1205

I was unable to edit this article due to the above. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 08:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cognitive Behavioural therapy isn't exactly Alternative Medicine
I've been looking at the Cognitive Therapy article, and someone pointed out that there is a link to this article. Now, Cognitive Behavioural therapy isn't exactly an alternative medicine, and if it were to be labelled so there are many other branches of psychology that I believe would be more "alternative" than Cbt. I say that the references to cbt do not belong in this article, as it is a main branch of psychology, not a fringe method, and to class it as alternative would require one to put all methods of psychology into this document. I shall wait a couple of days for comments, and then remove the reference in this article as well as in Cognitive Therapy- Xgkkp 16:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you pay attention to the controversial topic notice, above. It happens to mean something. This issue was already discussed in talk a long time ago.  Happy reading. Just because you are not familiar with the topic don't mean that it is wrong.  YOU are wrong.  The topic has alread been discussed.  Why do you think that we have all these archives for?  I have no duty to educate the uneducated. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 21:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh very frendly I must say! Way to welcome the newcomers John. theresa knott 21:25, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I bet TK looks uglier than than she talks. --John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 21:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm you are all of a sudden interested in what i look like? You're not having irismeister-like fantasies about me are you? theresa knott 21:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes - the archives are there for searching. Searching the archives will reveal only one or two references to the word "cognitive", and both are brief comments as part of a different discussion. Also, will you pay attention to the sign at the top of the page that says "Talk:" - this is a talk page, to discuss topics. I did not just edit the main page. And changing title headings seems overly inflammatory to me. You may not have a duty to educate the uneducated, but you should at least have one to respect the etiquette of wikipedia.
 * As to your point saying John Gohde said: Just because you are not familiar with the topic don't mean that it is wrong. YOU are wrong. - conversely, I am not wrong because you say I am wrong. - Xgkkp 21:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I say that all these trolls would never have let me put it in the article unless I was able to prove my case a long time ago. It has been in the article a long time. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 21:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * You are of course free to put in anything you like, just as anyone including Xgkkp is free to remove anything. Why don't you try to actually convince him by given actual reasons as to why CT is AM? theresa knott 21:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment from Xgkkp: You also aren't being very convincing, talking about trolls while changing discussion titles and throwing personal insults around. - Xgkkp 22:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems rather unhelpful that to support your argument (the argument being that you are right) you claim supporting evidence that seems to no longer be in existence. - Xgkkp 22:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * In the actual article, CBT is thrown in alongside biofeedback and hypnotherapy - both very different, and much more fringe branches of psychology than CBT itself, which seems to be one of the most used forms of psychotherapy. It just seems to be arbitrarily thrown in where it doesn't belong. Perhaps it's mention should be changed to a more fringe crange of psychology. I presume you would know better than I which one though, as you claim to be an expert. - Xgkkp 22:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, it's actually one of the more scientific branches of psychology isn't it? theresa knott 17:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No one ever said, certainly not I, that CBT was alternative medicine. The articles specifically states: Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 22:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Now where was I? Oh, yes .. Now I remember.

 * Hauser W, Lempa M. [Irritable bowel syndrome] Schmerz. 2004 Apr;18(2):130-5. German. Abstract
 * "Tricyclic antidepressant agents and psychotherapy (hypnosis, cognitive behavioral therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) are effective for treatment of IBS [irritable bowel syndrome] forms dominated by pain."

 * This recent study from April 2004 states point-blank that 'cognitive behavioral therapy is effective at treating a medical condition called irritable bowel syndrome. There are 100's of more studies.  All you have to do is look!  -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 22:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but in case you hadn't noticed this page is for Alternative medicine, so your statement is null because you quoted it as a treatment. If every treatment for every condition were to be listed, it certainly wouldn't be an alternative treatment page. Or do you believe that the only kind of effective 'treatment' (Cbt is certainly not a medicine) is an alternative treatment? in which case having it in there would be POV. - Xgkkp 23:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * What I have noticed is that you are totally confused. And, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.  I just proved that you are WRONG.  Just thought that you might want to know.  Now, on to my website where I can accomplish something intelligent for a change. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 23:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Right, so your defense is dismissal. And, please, Stop childishly changing the title of this discussion for your own means - Xgkkp 23:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Then in that case, that whole paragraph could potentially be chopped, as there seems no need to list "Alternatives to Alternative medicine" in an article about alternative medicine. In fact, looking from that angle, it seems that the paragraph seems generally out of place, as "Medicine" generally seems seperated from "Psychology" anyway. Is there a place for Psychological methods on this page? Perhaps instead of particular branches, there should be a link to some hub of psychological methods or something. - Xgkkp 22:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Totally confused people, such as yourself, should do more reading. You certainly do not get out much do you? -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 22:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * this is a pointlessly childish attempt to start an unnecessary flame war. and you changed the title again. Why? - Xgkkp 23:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Xgkkp, don't loose heart mate. I agree with you. Trust the arbitration process. I think at this stage you should simply make your edits. And John, you have got to stop insulting people. Mate - it's just not on. Erich 03:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hello, Bigot. How are all you bigots doing today? -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 08:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Please don't make personal attacks john. It's against our policies.theresa knott 08:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find it slightly ironic that someone goes around calling people Bigots and Trolls, while at the same instance exhibiting the exact behaviour that he is accusing other people of. This discussion has long since moved from serious discussion (though no counter-argument took place beyond personal insults) and so I shall consider making the discussed changes shortly. If anyone other than John Gohde has any useful counter-opinions on the matter, please, I welcome your comments. I shall also consider culling all the pointless personal insults and attempts to start flame wars into a seperate section in this document (for 'evidence' purposes) so that people don't have to read through the rubbish.- Xgkkp 09:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * No don't cull the insults just yet. The AC have a tough enough job to do as it is without making the evidence difficult for them to find. Once the AC has ruled on Gohde's behaviour we can just go through this page and delete all the personal attacks. theresa knott 10:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I wasn't going to just remove the insults, more move the relevant-ish points (or at least a copy of them) to a sub-section in front of the rest or something, so that people who want to discuss properly don't have to wade through the rest of the rubbish to see my points (and there was one, vague, attempt by john to argue, which 'I' believe was null, but it's not an attack or anything so that should be included). I was never thinking of removing all of the rest though. I'll leave it be for now though, it just seems annoying that if anyone does have something to contribute, they have to face this. - Xgkkp 11:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I propose removing the paragraph '' "Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. A relatively new field in psychology is health psychology." ''(In section Branches of alternative medicine), given it seems out of place with the lists, and also apart from Cognitive therapy (which the general consensus seems to agree doesn't belong) and health psychology (I don't know enough about this to decide if it is AM or not), are already listed in the previous block. So, I propose: - Xgkkp 17:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Add Health psychology to the 'Other branches' list below it
 * Remove the paragraph: "Psychologists provide alternative medical services when they use biofeedback, hypnotherapy, or cognitive behavior therapy to treat a medical condition. A relatively new field in psychology is health psychology."
 * With due respect, Xgkkp, I believe that John is correct, although he hasn't taken much trouble to explain. I read that paragraph to mean that cognitive behavior therapy is considered alternative medicine when it is used to treat a physical illness as opposed to its usual, noncontroversial use in treating psychological disorder. Isomorphic 01:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Right, good, someone actually making a proper argument against the idea. (and I believe 'hasn't taken much trouble' is an understatement!) - I read it to mean that Cognitive therapy was an alternative medicine. Perhaps it need re-phrasing, but in any case I think it seems out of place in between lists of alternative medicine treatments. And you must agree, at least, that biofeedback and hypnotherapy don't need to be there as they are in the list about 5 lines above too. perhaps something like Cognitive therapy can also be used as an alternative medicine when used to treat a physical injury instead of it's usual use in treating psychological disorders (and move it to the end of that section, out of the way of the lists?) - Xgkkp 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Since we now have a temp page to work on at Alternative medicine/temp, I made the changes [here]. Let me know what you think. - Xgkkp 15:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) (update - diff removed as it seems when theresa moved the page, all of the history was lost) - Xgkkp

Dispute needed to be resolved!
I want the support section added back to alternative medicine. See discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. As everyone knows, RK likes to vandalize alternative medicine. And, I want his vandalism removed from the support section. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 09:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * See, this is the problem, and the reason there is a dispute. Your idea of resolved seems to be "I get my own way", or pushing the blame onto other people, and unless that changes, I don't see this article being unprotected any time soon. The few times that you do engage in discussion on talk pages, it seems like you are more interested in throwing personal insults than serious discussion. If you can accept that perhaps your edits can be wrong sometimes (You do also make valuable contributions sometimes), then I'm sure things can be worked out without the AC having to take more serious action. Try and present an argument, rather than resorting to "quoting" hearsay, like: As everyone knows, RK likes to vandalize alternative medicine. - statements like that are never going to help anything. Abuse of edit summaries and calling his (and everyone elses) edits vandalism is also not going to help anything. - Xgkkp 10:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Ignoring MNHs unrequired emotive language The section of physicains claiming it works should be alowed to exist since it is such a popular argument amoung the alt med comunity. Sure it is a logical fallicy but so what.Geni 10:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I was going to ask RK to revert his edits and then put them back in one section at a time so that we could argue about the points one by one, when I noticed the page protection. If MNH can be brought on board, or if another person simpathetic to AM can be brought on board to see that the edits stay neutral then i think we should discuss the article section by section, reach a consensus then change the article. I am quite prepared to edit a protected article provided a consensus has been achieved in talk. (I don't think anyone is likely to call this abuse of admin powers, but if they do, I'll argue my case and take any consiquences). Forcing people to discuss edits here otherwise they don't go in may be a way of stopping the constant edit wars. What does everyone else think? theresa knott

 * It sounds like a good idea, but MNH seems unable to sensibly discuss a topic in the talk pages without resorting to personal insults. Personally, I'm not interested in the AM article except for the one paragraph I have been trying to discuss above. - I tried to discuss a change before making it and progress is taking place, but slowly, and no thanks to MNH.- Xgkkp 12:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know MNH is making things difficult. But consensus means "nearly everyone", so if he won't play ball then that's his problem. I do feel though that we need somone pro AM to put that side of the argument otherwise it will be difficult not to skew it unintentionally. i'm going to try approaching some people. In the meantime I've created Altenative Medicine/temp so make your changes there and we can all see what we think. theresa knott 13:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When it comes to objecting strongly to wholesale deletion of text, characterized by edits by User:RK, I will always object strongly. And, I will continue to proudly revert the next edit/vandalism done made by User:RK. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 04:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well you can't proudly revert a protected page! Have a look at the tempory page I created to see if we can come to a good compromise there. I'm happy to add changes you make to the temporary page back into the article if we can get a good consensus. (My comments above about consensus being nearly everyone apply to RK as well. He won't be able to delete stuff you add if everyone else agrees it should stay in). It's in your best interest, and it's certainly in the best interest of the article for us all to come to an agreement.

 * Nobody was stopping you from doing this before the mass deletion of text done by User:RK. For example, somebody was discussing CBT.  You had every opportunity to discuss every section of the support section.  Nobody was stopping you. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 16:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't do things before I think of them! (Sorry I'm not a timelord). I don't think you understand the situation here MNH. Let me spell it out to you. The article is currently protected on RK's version. If you want your support section back in, you have to stop arguing about things like when I could have created a temporary page and start actually making edits to that temporary page. If nearly everyone agrees that your edits are good then I will add them back into the article. I won't unprotect it, I'll edit a protected page. This means RK (or anyone) will not be able to revert. This is an unusual step, I don't think anyone has proposed this type of solution to an edit war before, and since admins can be desyopped for editing a protected page not without some personal risk. However I am quite prepared to do it, provided I get agreement. So you have a choice. Either you make the edits to the temp page, discuss them with all corncerned, get agreement, and get what you want back in the main article, or you don't make any edits, don't discuss the article and have the main article page stay at RK's version for as long as it takes. What's it going to be? theresa knott 18:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Editing a protected page has been done under circumstances like this, where a draft was used to replace the current version. As the protecting admin, I support the action you propose. →Raul654 18:43, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * OKAY, but only if we start out with my last version which has been hanging around here since I cam back from being banned the first time. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 18:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * in its present format is NOT acceptable. The only section that I am presently objecting to is, of course, support.  When  contains:
 * 3.2 Support
 * 3.2.1 Some conventional doctors support CAM
 * 3.2.2 Alternative medicine is not dangerous, if it is complementary
 * 3.2.3 Scientific research on alternative therapies
 * 3.2.4 Alternative medicine as an alternative for the public searching for complementary services
 * 3.2.5 The placebo effect
 * let me know, otherwise I am NOT going to go this route. Second, User:RK has to participate too.  We surely do not want to leave RK out!That is my offer, take it or leave it! -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 19:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * In other words, I think TK's offer is clearly another attempt to waste more of my valuable time. Ergo, I am not spending my time editing anything. You start with the version, existing immediately before RK's wholesale deleting of text.  Then RK has to argue paragraph by paragraph, sentence by by sentence what is wrong with it. Providing proof thereof, or please STOP wasting my valuable time.

 * If you do not respond soon, I plan on requesting alternative medicine to be unprotected within a few days regardless of the opinion of the protecting admin. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 19:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Why don't you argue paragraph by paragraph, sentence by by sentence about putting stuff back in, providing proof thereof, or  "Please stop wasting all of our valuable time" . What makes your opinions oand views instantly better than any of ours? - Xgkkp 19:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * In case you have not figured it out yet, you are just as much a victim of RK's vandalism as I am. The last time alternative medicine was protected it was protected against User:RK .  And, that protection lasted only a few days. RK's editing resulted in Requests for comment/RK as well as in a quickpoll on RK which was started by somebody other than me.  RK's behavior in the current situation is exactly the same, in my opnion. I did in fact post RK on User talk:RK which he ignored . This will be my last edit, for the day. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 20:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * <--- (dropping indent level as it's getting too high)
 * In the respect that I cannot edit, I agree that I am as much a victim of what you call rk's vandalism as you are. However, I am also not a victim, in the respect that from the beginning I have been prepared to discuss the changes I wanted before, not after making them. Perhaps on articles like this, if everyone worked through it with that method there would be less revert/edit wars, and the page needn't be protected, though the discussion needs to be serious, not just personal attacks and presenting 'proof' as a personal attack. Also note that changes can still be made by the admins, previewed through the temporary page . Several potentially valuable changes have already been made to the temp page, and I remain optimistic that they will be integrated into the main article in the future. - Xgkkp 20:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John I am going to ignore your condition that RK has to participate. I cannot force him to participate in this process if he doesn't want to. However if he chooses not to then he gets no say in how the article looks because it's protected. So it is in his interest too. As for the page being uprotected in a few days, I think that very unlikely. You'd have to find an admin willing to do that for you,(any admin worth their salt will read this page first). So let's get going on reaching a satisfactory compromise. Since it's the support section that you are objecting to most, I propose we start with that. I've copied the section from the article prior the RK's edit into the talk page of the temp article. I suggest you take a look and incorporate what you want back into the article. Everyone else, please take a look, if you happy say so on the talk page, or here. If your not happy make any changes you think are needed. I'll give it a couple of days, and assuming it's all settled I'll edit the real article.

One last note, I think it best if I do not edit the temp article myself at all. Just to protect myself from any accusations of wrong doing. theresa knott 21:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add - it is longstanding policy that anyone can request verification for any part of an article. John - it is not your place to tell RK to support his deletions, the onus is on you to show that they belong. →Raul654 21:49, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I most certainly do not have to defend every line of text currently existing in alternative medicine, if somebody from out of nowhere arbitrarily decides to delete large chunks of text. That is what reverts are for.  Reverts are made all the time.  There is a 3 revert rule a day you know.  Large deletions of text automatically calls for a revert, IMHO.

 * Nor, am I required to waste huge amounts of time talkimg with editors who are only capable of posting unsupported garbage to articles because they erroneously think that NPOV gives them a right to trash topics that they think is quackery. This is not a newsgroup.  The only parties to this dispute are John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] and User:RK.  I have followed through, while RK has yet to.  Everybody else on this thread is violating Wikipedia guidelines by treating this talk page as a newsgroup, IMHO.  That especially applies to TK who should kindly get lost and mind her own business.  I am here ready to discuss with RK, but he is not.  That is the only point that counts, here.

 * I am totally confident that page protection will be lifted in a few days. I am the victim here.  I also have the opinion that support section of any article should actually support, which it clearly does not. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health|Talk]] 06:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * You're actually wrong on that one - per NPOV, the support section should not provide support - it should list common arguments in support. With good references, if possible, indicating that they are in fact common. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary one - it is not to contain original research. - David Gerard 08:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * He is also wrong about himself and RK being the only parties to the dispute. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everyone gets to have a say. Plus the three revert rule is to prevent excessive revert wars, it is not there to say "it's ok to make three reverts a day" more like "it is certainly not ok to make more than three revers a day".As for wasting time, i would argue that discussing whether you will or not waste time actually takes longer than making the edits to the temp article. theresa knott 10:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done & Presenting the New Leaner Alternative Medicine
Perhaps RK in combination with TK have managed to bamboozle themselves, yet again? Click here for my version of alternative medicine with minimal text. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] 11:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The group version is better. But this page is overshadowed and degraded by the wonderment of which headbutter's head is harder in the end. It's not the collaborative project that it should be. Anyone who enters the fray does so at great risk. Pollinator 12:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a great shame, but hopefully a forthcoming AC ruling will make this place nicer for everyone.theresa knott 09:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, I feel the group version is much better. I'm tempted to do a revert (as per MNH's policy: "Large deletions of text automatically calls for a revert, IMHO."  (see above)) so that people can work on the page from before, but I won't. Instead, I "Vote" for the version from before MNH's recent edits. Though, on second thoughts, maybe it would be better to wipe the page and start again from scrath, as a collaborative group project. - Xgkkp 17:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, if it is all the same to you, if it is going to be a group effort then I might as well wait until the article is unprotected. Currently, I am working on a major addition to my website that will consist of a presentation of alternative medicine as history during 19th century Europe and America. You know stuff that is based on historical fact, rather than hot air. You guys should feel free to continue editing this article in a never ending spiral of circular editing.  Personally, I have better things to do than work on this nonsense. I mean really!  Changing the levels of indention so that support paragraphs wont actually appear to be support?  I find that a rather screwy waste of time. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] 17:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry you feel that way John but never the less I intend to press on. I'm starting a vote, when the vote gets to 80% one way or the other I'll copy the temp page over into the real article. theresa knott 07:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * And, one way or the other there will be an admin having her admin actions being reviewed. It is not Wikipedian to keep articles protected.  And,not only will I request that this page be unprotected I will have something new to complain about. RK trashed both althernative medicine and TCM exactly like he did the last time. RK has been in Talk:TCM, but not here to discuss his edit.  Therefore, this page will be unprotected.  That is the only thing that counts in the land of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] 09:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh I fully expected to be listed on review of admin actions. That's why I'm being so careful here. Careful but not intimidated. As for requesting the page to be unprotected you are free to request whatever you like; however to state "this page will be unprotected" seems a little premature. You have to find an admin willing to do it first. As for RK, like I said before I cannot force him to edit, just as i cannot force you. theresa knott 09:15, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes for MNH's version with minimal text

 * John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]]

Votes for the previous version

 * Pollinator
 * Xgkkp (I think you are still voting yes to this version? theresa knott)
 * Moriori. What's the point of an encyclopedia which DELIBERATELY censors information about a subect ?

Votes for neither version

 * The lean version is too lean - too many references to not enough text. But the previous version is thoroughly unbalanced between criticism and support. We shouldn't need to split it like that into pro and anti - we should be able to just present the facts as they exist, without the article being a recapitulation of the "I'm right" "No, I'm right" battles that are inevitable on the talk pages. --   ALargeElk | Talk 09:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you rewrite the article and put it on the temporary page please? So we can see what you have in mind. Cheers theresa knott 09:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I will do if I get a chance - I realise that "A plague on both your houses" is not the most helpful response.--   ALargeElk | Talk 09:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it doesn't have to be perfect, just make a rough start and people can edit it. I only started the vote above to see if the general opinion was - should we continue working on the old version or should we start again with MNH's cut down one. theresa knott 10:00, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8