Talk:The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

CHNC[edit]

I have made some edits to the comments about the FIH's support for the CNHC. The comments were out of date and bear no relation to the situation as it actually is.
Goswell (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goswell, your comments were'nt neutral, verified or indeed accurate so I have deleted them. (As of early September 2009, the CNHC has 1,000 members.)

~~felixholt~~

felixholt: My comments were perfectly accurate but anyway I have now brought them further up to date, incorporating your comment. If you disagree with what I have written I suggest you correct the statements rather than merely deleting them. Goswell (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top paid employees[edit]

Looking at the 2007 accounts for the article I saw that the four top paid employees got about £390k of emoluments+pension, out of the charity's £1,208k income! I was gravely tempted to add that to the article, but I think it would be OR. The other 10 employess were paid abour £310k, less than the 4 executives. Rwendland (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College of Medicine[edit]

I've removed the allegation that the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health has turned into the College of Medicine. It's based on opinion on a blog, and allegations being made in a highly politicised situation. It is not a neutral comment, borne out by evidence or viewed by the Charities Commission in that way. Very happy to have a Wikipedia moderator intervene on this if necessary, but facts please, not politiking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenorthship (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northship, I have reverted your blanking of this section and provided more than adequate sources for believing that this "College" is simply Charles Windsor's replacement for his failed Foundation. David Colquhoun's blog postings base their "opinion" on the College's own promotional material, that show clear links with the Prince. The make-up of the new organisation speaks for itself, and commentators in reliable sources such as the British Medical Journal and The Guardian hold the same opinion as Colquhoun (and myself). I hope this information is presented in a neutral fashion (if not, please NPOV it for me, but don't blank it). Famousdog (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ links adequately make the (perfectly reasonable) point and is a balanced source and should remain. But a blogger who is strongly opinionated on a particular side is not though an adequate reference for Wikipedia. Best to stick to the Guardian and BMJ. I've removed Colquhoun, therefore and think that seems a reasonable balance. Thenorthship (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.252.183 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding blogs, WP:V states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." David Colquhoun, is a pharmacologist who has written extensively in peer-reviewed third-party publications on the topic of alternative medicine, and therefore fulfills all of these criteria. Famousdog (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo[edit]

My impression is that WP:Logos policy might permit the use of the main FIH logos (1, 2), even if they are non-free images, but I'm not too sure. Alternatively, there is another logo of the foundation (here) that is likely permitted under points 2 and 3 of the policy on copyright-free logos, as it contains only a sequence of letters and a simple geometric shape. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]