Talk:Lorraine Day/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
One-sided and Incomplete
Seems a bit one sided against Ms Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.5.109 (talk) 06:26, November 12, 2006
- Please sign your comments with four tildes. If you know how to edit here, and you have well-referenced (by Wikipedia standards) sources of information that can be used to contribute to the article, then start editing. Seek to build the article, not destroy it. Be an inclusionist [1] rather than a deletionist. -- Fyslee 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Article on Lorraine Day grossly incomplete.
- It does not disclose sources for all information provided--especially information ragarding critics and their criticisms. Come on you contributors! You can do much better than this. Wikipedia is a great tool for providing valuable information, but often times incomplete, inaccurate, and downright misleading or false information is provided which needs to be corrected or weeded out as soon as possible. Many people now go to Wikipedia first to get information on whatever subject they're researching. It behooves all of us contributors to get our facts straight and provide adequate sources. This article on Ms. Day is obviously a work-in-progress in its early stages. 71.110.217.172 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC) John D. Anderson
Bad, inaccurate and article full of Cynicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.34.54 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That other reference by a Steven somebody quotes his own letter to a governing body, but never quotes the august body's actual response. It's just a complaint and heresay response. He gets his letter linked from this article. As a citation it's a joke. Kristinwt (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This Article seems positive to me
I didn't realize this page on Lorraine Day was 'negative' until I read the TALK discussions. The list of ten ways to combat cancer is right on. Further, by keeping only documented information, the Article will be acceptable. It may be negative on some aspects of AMA and 'traditional' medicine/treatments, but then that makes it 'positive' on the alternatives! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what happens? Someone removed what I liked, the list of ten health tips. Oh well. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's negative how some chew on her. The Philosphy as is sounds one sided against her. I, too, liked having the 10 steps right there as well. But, of course you wouldn't have that in someone's actual biography. It saved having to sort through her personal web page for the pertinent information. You can always go to the history of the page and save yourself a copy of that. Kristinwt (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. Also, I'll look for an external link (to list of 10) to include here in the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)