Talk:American Institute of Homeopathy

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 13 January 2014 by reviewer Fauzan (talk · contribs).

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Comments

Question about Edits

Can someone help me understand the reason for the edits made on Jan 18, 2014? 41% of the text of this article was deleted on that day. Most of the text was from the History section and appropriate references were given for all statements. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how things work. Thank you for your help.Cfshahnemann (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked this question directly on the User Talk page of the person who deleted the text, so no need to respond to this inquiry. I understand the rationale for the deletions.Cfshahnemann (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right to self-description as the "oldest, extant national physician's organization in the United States"

Our description of our organization as "the oldest, extant national physician's organization in the United States" must be qualified by "describes itself as..." because we have not provided independent verification from "the mainstream." The following citation verifies the date of our founding (April 10, 1844): Coulter, Harris (1973). Divided Legacy: The Conflict between Homeopathy and the American Medical Association. Berkeley: North Atlantic. pp. 124-25. A second citation verifies that the American Institute of Homeopathy is the "first national physician's organization": Winston, Julian (1999). The Faces of Homeopathy. Tawa, Wellington, New Zealand: Great Auk Publishing. p. 49. But because these are not mainstream sources, they are not acceptable. While I can give these two citations, no citations at all are given on the following Wikipedia pages and yet they are all able to describe themselves "as the oldest..." without the "describes itself" qualifier. This decision seems to me to be biased and to indicate a double standard. If we need verification, why don't the other organizations need verification? The AMA was founded in 1847. Can anyone give me the name of an extant national physician's organization older than the AIH? If you can provide some verification of the founding of such an organization, we will acquiesce. I ask for your help in resolving this matter. Thank you.

"the ADA is the world's largest and oldest national dental association and promotes good oral health to the public while representing the dental profession." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dental_Association

The National Medical Association (NMA) is the largest and oldest national organization representing African American physicians and their patients in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Medical_Association

"The Student National Medical Association (SNMA) is the nation's[where?] oldest and largest independent, student-run organization focused on the needs and concerns of black medical students." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_National_Medical_Association

"The Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) is the oldest continuously-operating state medical society in the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Medical_Society

"The Royal Medical Society (RMS) is the oldest medical society in the United Kingdom (although this claim is also made by the earlier London-based Society of Apothecaries (1617) which is permitted to award medical degrees).[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Medical_Society

IreneSebastian (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:COI; as a member of this society, you should not be the one editing this article. --Rs chen 7754 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I read the COI article, and it's not clear to me that my editing has in any way represented a COI. To clarify: I am a volunteer for a non-profit medical association. I have been completely transparent regarding my role in the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH). I receive no remuneration for my work for AIH. I do receive reimbursement for airfare in order to attend Board meetings twice per year. If needed (which is rare), I receive remuneration for hotel fees when attending a Board meeting. While the topic of homeopathic medicine is controversial, I have never contributed to these discussions on Wikipedia (and given what I have read on the Homeopathy Talk page, I have no desire to join the discussion). The AIH page is a fact-based page regarding AIH. All statements on this page have citations. I have disagreed with some of the deletions of text (all of which had citations) but understand and accept the reason for the deletions. The COI article says "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have done nothing to advance the interests of AIH at the expense of the aims of Wikipedia. I want the article on AIH to be accurate. I provided citations (as indicated above) and have simply asked that others consider the whole picture -- ie, Wikipedia asserts that they want verification for all assertions, yet I have demonstrated that none of the above organizations have provided verification of their claims to be the "oldest" organization in their category, while I have provided some verification for the comparable claim made by my organization, yet AIH is the only organization required to include the qualifier "describes itself as...." Sounds like a double standard.

In summary: 1) I would appreciate hearing other opinions about whether it is or is not acceptable for me to edit this page -- I will abide by the general consensus. (In fact, I have hardly edited this page at all.) 2) I would appreciate hearing some justification for why other organizations do not need verification for the "oldest" claim but AIH does need verification. Thank you for taking the time to clarify this situation. Please keep in mind that I am a new user and don't know all the rules of Wikipedia. IreneSebastian (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the above note: I would like to add that the conversation about whether or not I should edit this page seems unnecessary to me. Other than making a change to the page because of a Bylaws change rendering some of the article inaccurate, I have no intention to add anything to this page. My only editing has been to fix the external link (so that it points to our Home page rather than the Journal page) and to delete the "describes itself as" qualifier (which was undone). So the question of whether or not I should edit the page was simply my response to the person who said that I should not edit.IreneSebastian (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the above: Since no one has responded to my comments, I edited the page because of a Bylaws change which took effect today. All editing related to the inclusion of naturopathic physicians as eligible members. That's all for me.Cfshahnemann (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]