Talk:Alternative medicine

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Alternative medicine is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

 As a result of an Arbitration Committee ruling in this case, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
About archives

Contents

Merging CAM, alt. med, and comp. med into one article

I'm seeing a lot of overlap in these articles, and I think that it would be best if we focused on the CAM article. Today, these therapies are largely bunched together, whether other people like it or not. As we continue research, we can branch off into alternative medicine and comp. medicine, keeping the articles more short and focused. There is a discussion about this over at the CAM article (Talk:Complementary_and_alternative_medicine#Boldly_merged_where_no_merge_has_gone_before). II | (t - c) 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support a merge. Overlap and duplication! It makes for a very confusing situation. All three articles are about the use of alternative medicine methods. The only difference is context, not the actual methods used, so I (still) support a merge, leaving
The CAM article is an umbrella term, not an isolated entity unto itself, and thus only deserves to be a disambiguation stub with an appropriate explanation and links. The existing lead might do fine. The comp. med. article should just explain the context in which alternative medicine methods are used in conjunction with mainstream methods. It could still be a short (maybe long?) article, since there is quite a bit of stuff from RS about the phenomenon. It should be a very different article than this one, so we wouldn't have all the duplication. Especially controversial stuff about individual methods (homeopathy, chiropractic, etc.) could be mentioned very briefly, but should primarily be dealt with in depth in their individual articles. -- Fyslee / talk 03:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportThat is probably a very good idea. Then the CAM page can be a portal gateway (formal or no) and relegate any discussion of relative merits to the appropriate article. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I agree with II's merge proposal and with Fyslee's suggestions (1) and (2). I had previously merged CAM and CompMed as a first step, back in January after posting discussion and not getting a response, but someone reverted it and I didn't feel like arguing so I dropped the idea. But those two fork-articles have continued to bother me. The terms "CAM" and "Complementary Medicine" are practical categories for legal and financial classification, possibly for purposes of insurance and government research funding, but they do not define different types or modalities of medicine; the only differences being whether a practice is used with or instead of conventional medicine. Since various types of altmed are used in both ways, the division into "C" or "A" parts of "CAM" is artificial and does not illuminate the topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It's a confusing situation, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of objective distinction between "complementary" and "alternative" medicine. CAM is commonly used as the umbrella term in the UK, but I think Alternative is more universally applicable. Jefffire (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merger (still). I kinda thought that we had had a consensus on this some months ago that just petered out due to lack of anyone wanting to sort through all the aforementioned overlap. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • support for the many good reasons given. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I'm willing to put out the effort to do this if there is there is consensus. the only thing that worries me is that a merger will prompt a new round of edit squabbles over 'POV' issues. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the policy talk-page for fringe theories. I think I may have found a solution we could apply in practice to build a consensus that could keep the POV issue under control. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ludwigs2, you will cut down on such a risk by being an inclusionist, IOW don't delete anything but duplication. Attempt to include everything and you won't offend anyone. Keep in mind the existing content has been arrived at by hard work, edit wars, compromises, and consensus, and thus it should be preserved as much as possible. You can start by working in your own workspace - User:Ludwigs2/Alternative medicine_merge. When you feel you've done all you can, invite us over and we'll all work together to make sure it encompasses the subject and includes all the existing information. That wil ensure it gets off to a good start. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree with Fyslee in encouraging editors to proceed with the merge, I do not see any need for creating a preliminary draft in userspace. I recommend that the merge proceed in mainspace; any concerns can be easily addressed with collaborative edits and/or talk page discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't have to be done in user space. That was just a suggestion. Better in talkspace though than in cyberspace. -- Fyslee / talk 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I tent to agree with Jack, but I think I have a decent compromise. let me do the merge offline, and then I'll just put it up in a single post on one of the pages (say the CAM page). that way we can take a couple of days to look at it, and revert back easily if the attempt looks flawed. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • P.s. to hatless - I looked over what you posted on the fringe talk page, and it makes an amount of sense to me. if fact, I even envisioned an infobox which would give a concise presentation of the status of the research. I think some of your cases need tweaking though... I'll post a note over there later today or tomorrow on that. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: what should we title our comprehensive main article?

I have a feeling that most sources that we get on this topic will be referencing "CAM". Should we be titling this "Alternative medicine", or "Complementary and alternative medicine?" I dislike unwieldy titles, but to match up with most sources and produce the most comprehensive article I believe we should stick with the latter title, "CAM". From there we can diverge off into alt. medicine and complementary medicine sections and if necessary articles. II | (t - c) 19:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

CAM is a somewhat contrived term. I believe it was invented by NCCAM as a way to address concerns of healthcare providers and insurance companies by categorizing modalities according to who uses them. My recommendation is as follows:
  • Alternative medicine: main article
  • CAM: short article about the NCCAM classification scheme
  • Complementary medicine: redirect to CAM
In addition to CAM and "complementary medicine" being recently constructed terms, "alternative medicine" on the other hand has been used to describe this topic for a long time; there are many more sources using that term. That said, I don't see this as a big obstacle; if it ends up being CAM, that's OK too, as long as the differentiation of the terms is made clear in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Alternative medicine is the original term. It has been used the longest, widest, and by far the most. All the others are only short descriptions of how alternative medicine is used. They all came much later. They are all about it. It's like "cheese". Other articles would describe how cheese is used in different situations, but none of them would have a basis for existence without the "cheese"! They all center around cheese, just like all these various articles center around alternative medicine.
The Complementary medicine article doesn't need much done. The Complementary and alternative medicine article can be shortened and some content moved to the Alternative medicine article. It should basically be a disambiguation page with a short explanation and appropriate links to the other articles.
In short there is no need for any new articles. We already have them. It's just a matter of moving ("merging") some information. That way we avoid duplication.
We ended up in this morass because a now banned editor tried to own and control all these articles and force them into his own OR version of how he thought the world of alt med should look. He really messed things up. He was headed straight for finally getting alternative medicine looking like it was all mainstream and accepted, when that's not the case. The articles were getting twisted in that direction using lots of OR and very odd uses of various sources, not all of them very reliable. The ownership issues ended up in him getting banned for the umpteenth time. It isn't called "alternative" for nothing. We need to stick to RS, not sources that try to twist reality to reflect the wishful thinking of certain proponents and practitioners. -- Fyslee / talk 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see sources on that. The 1998 systematic review by Edzard Ernst that I put in the lead references CAM, so it was common 10 years ago. Besides that, nearly all the references include the word CAM, and the Thomson ISI category is "Integrative and Complementary Medicine". We need to stick with what the professionals are using. It would also be nice to trace the etymology/history of this movement. II | (t - c) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I checked NCCAM, you're right, they're too recent to have coined the term. I've seen something on the origin of the CAM term but can't find it at the moment. I'll post that info if/when I locate it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need more input on this question than just Fyslee's opinion. If we're going to write an article about CAM, it ought to be called CAM. Since most of the references are about CAM, titling this "alternative medicine" will be highly confusing to the reader. II | (t - c) 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

merge complete

I've gone ahead and merged the three articles here - User:Ludwigs2/sandbox. the version there is neither perfect nor complete, having the following limitations:

  1. it lacks any changes made to the articles in the last few days
  2. there are probably still duplicate citations which I'll weed out over teh next couple of days
  3. in the process of merging, I had to restructure some, and I while I tried to do it as neutrally as possible, I can't swear that I completely succeeded
  4. there are a few random passages that I just couldn't figure out what to do with, and so I hid them.

Other than that, this version should contain everything in the previous three articles. feel free to check it out and comment on its talk page, but let's not get into an editing free-for-all on it until we decide whether this merged version meets the basic requirements. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fyslee alerted me (thanks) and, though pushed for time right at the moment I would just like to say I very much welcome the move to merge these articles (so long as the terms alternative and complementary are defined early on) and hope this will extend to tidy up the categories. I have a lot of faith in Ludwigs2 to do the job also. Will be glad to help with tidying up etc, but just wanted to say it's a great idea. Redheylin (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually did a little copyediting of it. I think we should just focus on this merged version for a little while, because it will be easiest to just copy and paste it in. If we do that, work continuing on this page will be lost. II | (t - c) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll add a template to the three pages pointing to the sandboxed version. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The parent article has to be CAM - this recognised internationally as the most appropriate term. Merge CM and AM into the CAM page as it is currently illogical.Davwillev (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why no criticism?

Why is there not a proper criticism section? Most articles have one. Surely there must be enough criticism to warrant more than a few external links at the bottom of the page. Every time I note the lack of a well-developed criticism section, I know I'm looking at an article that is under tight control by some POV group. Is there nobody with enough influence to override the article lock down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no criticism section because alternative medicine in and of itself is not amenable to criticism per wp:undue. Specifically, "Alternative Medicine" is an umbrella term capturing a significant number of different medical disciplines, ranging from snake oil and patent medicine, some of which were outright frauds, to massage therapy and chiropractic which are widely recognized and used by mainstream medicine. Any "criticism" of altmed as a whole runs into two logical problems. 1) Any particular discipline with altmed may or may not be subject to a particular criticism, and 2) when a particular discipline becomes scientifically accepted, does that make it no longer altmed and move into mainstream medicine? HatlessAtless (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
To our anon IP: Yes, this article is indeed "under tight control by some POV group." You are quite correct that the absence of a criticism section or of criticism is a big red flag. That indicates that NPOV is being grossly violated by that POV group. They are more interested in protecting their pet idea than in building this uniquely NPOV encyclopedia. That's been a problem here and on most alt med articles for a long time. Put those editors on your watchlist.
To HatlessAtless: There are plenty of very notable references in the articles (CAM, alt med & comp med) that directly criticize alt med in general, including criticisms of the very existence and misleading meaning of the term and concept itself. They are criticisms from some of the most notable personalities in mainstream medicine and scientific skepticism. Read those sources. That doesn't violate UNDUE at all. On the contrary, alt med is defined by (and the term only exists because of) its controversial nature, and thus UNDUE and NPOV would dictate that a large portion of the article should cover that fact. I definitely agree with you that specific criticisms, especially regarding very pseudoscientific and quackish practices, should only be in the specific articles. Especially the pseudoscience category should be used very carefully. That has nothing to do with mention, references, and See also wikilinks, which can expressly be used in all articles where there is even a tangential relationship, as mentioned in the policy wikilink Levine2112 provided:
  • "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." - (Emphasis added.)
We need to reinstate the primacy of NPOV, WEIGHT, and UNDUE here, even though the POV group who is violating those policies by keeping all criticism out won't be happy. Fortunately some of the most egregious players have been blocked and banned, but others here are experts at playing the "civility" card, wikilawyering, stonewalling, and generally making sure that discussions run in endless, repetitive circles, which ensures that they get their way - mainstream skeptical (IOW, scientific POV) criticism fails to be included, in violation of the named policies. Yes, the lack of criticism is a big redflag, and that needs to be fixed.
Your other point: Yes, when a particular discipline becomes scientifically accepted, it does indeed cease to be altmed and moves into mainstream medicine. When that conclusively happens, and no more controversy surrounds it for its continued inclusion of pseudoscientific & metaphysical ideas or quackish practices, then the altmed category should be removed from the bottom of the article page, and its mention in altmed articles can be removed, except for historical mention. -- Fyslee / talk 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That is a valid viewpoint, however, based on the structure of the article as I understood it, I did not think that was the case. Chiropractic medicine should then be removed from the main article, as it has become part of mainstream medicine. If we are going to separate Altmed, Compmed, and perhaps other stuff, we might need to seriously consider at least moving articles to more specific articles to make the title and intent clearer. I am concerned as to the static categorization of the various medical disciplines; they will be fluid as some are disproven and some move to mainstream medicine, but that is not an insurmountable problem. *chuckles ruefully* I'll be more careful next time about jumping strong into a debate where I'm fresh. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the humor ;-) Such changes need to be done according to well-established and reliable sources. Any change of categories here must be done carefully and reflect an obvious and undisputed change of categories in the real world. The existence of any significant continued debate in the real world about such changes should prevent us from making any changes of category here. So far the NCCAM categories seem to be fine. Chiropractic as a profession has definitely not become mainstream and is still the subject of much debate as long as it is based on a metaphysical idea (vertebral subluxation) and continues to include many pseudoscientific and quackish practices. It has a long way to go before becoming fully mainstream. When it is freed from those problems it will become sanitized enough to become mainstream. Some improvement is being made, but most of the schools, leaders, and association presidents are still old school. It is only spinal manipulation (which is freed from the metaphysical and pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo commonly associated with chiropractic spinal adjustments, and is a treatment method that predates chiropractic and that has always been used to some degree by other mainsteam professions) that has gained more acceptance. Even that acceptance is partial and questioned, and its proven usefulness is pretty much limited to low back pain, and not to the myriad conditions for which it is commonly used and claimed within chiropractic. -- Fyslee / talk 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do people have to cram hokey stuff into otherwise perfectly legitimate schools of medical thought? The idea of making sure bones and connective tissue are in proper alignment can make a lot of problems a whole lot better, and when working with physical therapy I have even seen chiropractors working in partnership with mainstream hospitals. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have an instinctive dislike of "Criticism" sections; as a reader, I find they're a huge red flag that an article is going to suck. That said, there should certainly be well-sourced info here on alternative medicine's relationship to the "mainstream" medical and scientific communities, insofar as one can generalize about it. Some of that will be critical, and some will be integrative/complementary, chiropractic being an example of, well, both. I think the brief section on "Alternative vs. evidence-based medicine" is a good example of integrating "criticism" of alternative medicine in an effective, readable, relevant way. MastCell Talk 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
MC, I agree. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that concern and I have no special desire for a separate criticism section, as long as well-sourced and notable critical opinion is included. It exists and NPOV requires that it be included as part of the whole picture. -- Fyslee / talk 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right. Most of the notable critical reception to the idea of alternative medicine is best treated in comparison to medicine, which this article does to an extent. Stylistically, I think a specific Criticism section tends to break the flow of the article, especially on such a broad topic as this. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My take on Criticism sections is completely different from MastCell: I find them handy, esp. when you're researching dirty politicians. They can sometimes be titled better, e.g. "Scandals and ethics", but "Criticism" or "Controversy" is not really bad, nor did Jimbo really say they were, although I had to fix his quote to show thatmy fix[2]. I imagine that we could actually have a "Quackery" section in this article, or something like it. A straight Evidence section also covers these things. Gonna also agree with HatLess here: alt. medicine is not defined by its evidence base, regardless of what some experts would like. If some broad category of medicine is classified as alt. med. by reliable sources, then it is alt. medicine. In the near future we will be seeing quite a few alt. medicines establishing an evidence base (or not -- we'll see). That doesn't mean they will not be alt. medicines. In fact an evidence base for some alt. med. therapies has already been built up -- Quackwatch-types who maintain that alt. med. is "all quackery" just prefer to plug their ears if you bring it up, or claim biased articles. Herbal medicines are heavily prescribed by doctors in Germany. Does that mean they're not alt. med.? The evidence is strong to decent for some, e.g. kava kava, St. John's Wort, Huperzine A, ginsengs, ect. Biofeedback has evidence; some nutritional approaches in naturopathy are solid; hypnosis#Research seems to work; even Ernst E will admit that acunpuncture seems to work in some cases. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of chiropractic for acute lower back pain, although I've only done it twice. But, eh, probably shouldn't keep rehashing this argument... II | (t - c) 09:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this party, so I'll just add that critiques of alt. med. and links to them should be provided in this article. I see no reason for a blanket omission. I think MCs views are good, though I think a criticisms section can sometimes be justified, per Fyslee/Eldreft. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)

This article is about a controverisal term that has multiple meanings, with poor agreement as to which meaning is the best. This article is not a single philosophy, product, belief or medical intervention. What's to criticize, except the uselesness of the term itself? You might as well add a criticism section to language, confusion or prayer. If you have a beef with a specific CAM like homeopathy, then there is always room for more criticism on that page. But the chances of the 'alternative medicine' that you would like to criticize being the same as the 'alternative medicine' that someone else would like to defend are slim to none. Naturstud (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

pseudoscience "see also"

[re-edited my comment; I had noted it as a "category" edit, but it actually was a "see also"; I'll leave my comment for reference, but no action is needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)]

I've reverted the addition of the pseudoscience category once, and it needs to be reverted again, but I'm not going to edit-war, so I request comments for consensus on the question.

While alternative medicine is mostly unproven, it does not meet the criteria of pseudoscience. There are many forms of altmed, some of which have been accepted as complementary for use with conventional medicine, as we've been discussing, and other forms that are unproven but currently undergoing research.

There may be some forms that are pseudoscience, and if they are then their individual articles can be linked to pseudoscience that way. This page though addresses the larger field, that includes many non-pseudoscience modalities (even seemingly simple ones, like yoga or relaxation techniques that have proven basic health benefits).

The use of that very charged word "pesudoscience" will not be effective for making progress on this article, so I ask that editors from all sides of the debate bring agreement here that we will leave that word out of it so we can make good-faith progress.

Considering the level of contentiousness on this article in the past, I've been impressed by the collaborative spirit shown here recently and I hope we can continue in that way to make a really great Wikipedia article on a difficult topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is very good, and when I went to find out what was going on I found that your description is very inaccurate, which changes everything. If it were the Ps category, then fine, but it's a wikilink in the See also section, which is quite appropriate, even by your reasoning above. Many forms of alt med are definitely pseudoscientific and quackery, so wikilinks to those subjects would be fine. On another note, some of the wikilinks are inappropriate in that section since they are wikilinked in the article itself multiple times. The See also section is for further help with related subjects that might not have gotten much attention in the article. I have restored the link. I didn't look, but if the Quackery article isn't linked there, it should be. -- Fyslee / talk 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for your good-faith response. I had noticed that it was a see-also and not a category, so was re-editing my comment at the same time as you replied. As a "see also", it's a bit less polarizing than as a category, though I still don't think it belongs. Regarding duplicate links, yes those should be removed. Regarding quackery, that is a much more serious issue and does not belong here. Quackery implies deceit; some altmed may simply be wrong, but that is very different than willful misleading of gullible customers. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really. You are thinking of health fraud, which always involves deceit. Most quacks are true believers and not deceivers. What they say may be untrue, but it's not a "lie", since they really believe it. Quackery has some objective criteria that have nothing to do with deliberate deception. -- Fyslee / talk 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The relevance of Pseudoscience is not immediately apparent. Removing per WP:ALSO. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As a "See also" link it's relevance is quite apparent. Some forms of alternative medicine are indeed pseudoscientific, and the link provides readers the option to get further information. Anyone who denies the connection needs to open their eyes and stop whitewashing Wikpedia. Your source above isn't helpful to your argument: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." So even if you don't see the great correlation between many alt med practices and pseudoscience, at least they are "peripherally related" and the link should be restored. -- Fyslee / talk 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The relevance isn't apparent. Some forms of alt med are indeed scientific. Does that mean we should link to science here as well so we may provide readers the option to get further information? If you are accusing me of whitewashing, then also please consider that perhaps a push to include pseudoscience here may be POV driven. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Pot. Alternative medicine is by definition basically unscientific, with few exceptions. Weight would dictate that we favor that fact, and simple wikilinks to Pseudoscience and Quackery shouldn't be controversial except to those who wish to deny that fact. There are plenty of RS in the articles about its basic unscientific or lack of scientific nature. The few alt med practices that ever get scientifically proven then become mainstream EBM and are accepted, no longer being considered alt med. That's the way it works and you need to get used to it. That's not just "my" POV. Read the sources. -- Fyslee / talk 06:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
First, "Pot"? What does that mean? (Do you have some? Are you selling? ;-) Second, per the ArbCom, we cannot capriciously apply the term "pseudoscience" to anything on Wikipedia. Saying that alt med is "basically unscientific" is not enough. It has to be a clear and obvious pseudoscience for us to throw that term around. You even acknowledge above that there are exceptions, meaning that there are scientific practices, methodologies, professions and treatments in Alt Med. By labeling the entire term, we are effectively labeling everything within the term (and thus mislabeling all of these scientific practices, methodologies, etc.). Please reconsider. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:POT was referring to your comments and edit summaries, which were POV-ish deletionism, to use your own terminology. Deletionism is especially egregious as it tears down, rather than builds, the encyclopedia.
The rest of your arguments miss the point. We are not dealing with a Category. Your arguments and the ArbCom decision apply to Categories, and I agree with that. But here we are only supplying added help for readers. We aren't labelling all of alt med, but since so much of it would be appropriately labelled using those terms, supplying wikilinks for them is helpful. It seems that you see it as your mission to make sure those two words are never connected with any form of alt med here at Wikipedia. At least your track record is pretty consistent whenever those two words ever appear anywhere. Try this time to allow a bit of leeway and AGF. No one is labelling all of alt med, nor is this a category issue. Your own wikilink above expressly supplies the reasoning why such links are helpful. -- Fyslee / talk 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that alternative medicine is an artificial umbrella term covering all sorts of different types of medical practice means that we cannot apply the pseudoscience label to th umbrella term. We have articles on patent medicine and quackery for the most fraudulent cases of pseudoscience, and we have articles on each discipline of altmed for a reason. Claiming altmed is pseudoscientific pew WP:NPOV since it is perjorative and colors both the accepted and proven alternative disciplines and those that are openly pseudoscientific. It violates WP:undue because it presents one side of an argument or debate that is highly subjective and subject to logical fallacy while itself not being amenable to presenting counter arguments in a way that avoids logical fallacy. Finally, it violates WP:NOR. There are no articles that criticize "alternative medicine" as a whole, only claims that test its sub-disciplines. While I agree that 90% of the reports I have read about the effectiveness of herbal preparations claim they are bunk (though I can walk you through in detail why I think the methodology in many of the reports is flawed), generalizing that claim from specific cases to the umbrella term is an original statement, and therefore violates wikipedia policy. I left quackery in because it is a related subject but not as pejorative (in my view) to the umbrella term, and discusses pseudoscience effectively.HatlessAtless (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hatless and Jack, here. Labeling the entirety of alternative medicine as pseudoscience can't possibly be appropriate (particularly if you're a fan of Evidence-Based Medicine, which explicitly refrains from judging until scientific evidence arrives). Pseudoscience should be reserved for those theories and practices that make claims to being properly scientific (in western scientists' sense of the word) but do so on false or erroneous grounds. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No one is proposing that we "Label the entirety of alternative medicine as pseudoscience." That's a straw man argument. We're only discussing what should be an innocuous and uncontroversial inclusion of two wikilinks in the See also section. That it has been disputed so strongly reveals the emotional revulsion which members of the POV group who controls these articles feels when those words are even mentioned. They simply are willing to violate every policy here in an attempt to wikilawyer their way out of seeing those words. -- Fyslee / talk 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"innocuous and uncontroversial"? By the hornet's nest the inclusion has stirred up, its pretty clear the inclusion is neither of those. However, AltMed is often based on belief systems other than science. Without commenting on my own low opinion of many of those belief systems, are you really surprised that people will happily defend a nonscientific set of beliefs even in the face of scientific rationale? My main issue with pseudoscience is its connotation of bad faith (which I dispute for enough AltMed disciplines and practitioners). Besides, I think including too many negatively-connoted "see also" articles would create an implied lack of neutrality. Personally, though I think we need to rescope the AltMed and CompMed articles to help avoid this debate in its entirety. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Like I said, "what should be an innocuous and uncontroversial inclusion" gets such a reaction, which proves my point, even to the point of someone who was not named including themselves in a POV group and improperly tampering with another user's (mine) comment. Interesting. I think that user and some others need to do some self-reflection about whether they are here to write an NPOV encyclopedia, or to protect their own interests and belief systems. I see that you at least are doing something constructive (your inclusion of actual sourced edits) and I applaud you for it. It's just a shame that this type of edit warring (mostly discussion here), all over something that wouldn't cause a true respecter of NPOV to lift an eyebrow, keeps us from following standard practice and having a helpful See also section. Such a compromise to keep the peace is indeed another victory for protectors of fringe POV. A sad day. I'll "vote" below. -- Fyslee / talk 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I see a distinct difference between something that is nonscientific and pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is a disingenuous attempt to mislead using the terminology and ramient of science to inspire confidence in the results. This is a separate discussion from traditional or folk medicines which are not based on science at all, and no attempt is being made to deceive. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the "testing for Efficacy" section to include the assertion that misuse or misrepresentation of research is Pseudoscience. Since this is in an appropriate section for the article, but shouldn't be readable as asserting that all AltMed is pseudoscience, I think this may obviate the debate. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Note from an uninvolved admin) This edit-warring over the "see also" section is disappointing. My recommendation is to just work the desired terms into the text of the article. If they're in the text, they shouldn't be in the "See also" section. If the editors here can't agree on what links should or shouldn't be in that section, then just delete the entire section. --Elonka 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The relevance of Quackery is not immediately apparent. I think it should be removed. It seems to be serving as some kind of pejorative label, which I believe is inappropriate and violates WP:NPOV. That said, I think the way that "pseudoscience" was worked into the article is fine; though I would like to see a reference for the statement. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The opening section of pseudoscience obviates a need for a reference, IMO. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand. This is the unreferenced statement: Willful misrepresentation of the research status of an alternative remedy or therapy qualifies as pseudoscience, which is why several countries including the USA have strict laws on the claims that alternative therapies can make. Why do you think no reference is needed? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Levine, I looked at it again and I see where you're coming from. I decoupled the two clauses, removed the expository "why" and sourced the regs. That should clear up the concerns. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source which links the terms "quackery" and "alternative medicine"? --Elonka 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My guess - and I may be wrong - is that all we will find are opinion pieces from various Alt Med critics, but nothing substantial. As with "pseudoscience", I think we need to be careful with the use of "quackery" on articles. Perhaps even more so with "quackery" because the term almost always implies "fraud". -- Levine2112 discuss 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(Note from another uninvolved admin) I just checked a newspaper archive and found dozens of articles that link the terms "quackery" and "alternative medicine". If it'd help I can post some. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Please do post them here. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete "see also" section. Elonka wrote, 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC): "If the editors here can't agree on what links should or shouldn't be in that section, then just delete the entire section." - I concur with this suggestion, it's a good idea. I recommend we delete the "see also" section and keep to wikilinking only within the article, based on reliably sourced connections. If a link is relevant, it can fit within the text. This can help us move on to improving the content of the article with less distraction. Please comment on this proposal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. or at least hide it until we reach some consensus as to what ought to go on there. --Ludwigs2 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems reasonable. I think "See also" sections tend to get abused. Just look at what is happening at the article Pseudoscience where the "See also" section is thought of as a categorization tool. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a shameful compromise, but at least HatlessAtlas is doing something constructive. I can only hope that the obstructionism that motivated all this debacle doesn't continue in the article, but history has shown that the same POV warriors will make their presence felt and seek to keep criticisms out or at least dilute them. -- Fyslee / talk 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly gone and found justifiable places for all of the references in the "see also" section, included them in the body text, and removed the see also section. Let me know what you think. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are an honorable editor. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll need it.HatlessAtless (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would have allowed the pseudoscience link in the See also, but it is much better in the article with a discussion and references to specific practices. Placing "pseudoscience" in See also, and then fighting to keep it, is the approach that really bothers me among these so-called "quackbusters". It's a rhetorical strategy that doesn't work -- "hey, here's my hint: alt. med. is pseudoscience cause I put it in see also section". One does not convince, or inform, anyone with such antics. (Not trying to target Fyslee for defending its inclusion -- like I said, I don't mind putting it in See also -- lots of alt. med. is pseudoscience, I'll admit.) Discussion on the longstanding relationship between "quackery" and alt. medicine will be a good part of an etymological/history section, which I plan to try and write sometime. II | (t - c) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Three new sections, rationale and suggestions:

I've added three new sections that I think will add some real value to the article, and give a place for mainstream science in the article without throwing around too much emotionally charged materiel. My comments included below:

Relationship with public policy

My main experience is with the debates in the US, and I know it doesn't cover Asia, Africa, or South America at all. Someone who is better at finding good refs will need to seriously expand this section. I think that here we can talk about the debates over "alternative medicine" especially in terms of freedom vs state interest debates without getting too much into the scientific content of specific therapies, I've added a section later on.

Notable cases of adoption

Also, let's try to keep the content here to the most clear-cut cases where treatments (as adapted from their traditional form) have been soundly integrated into mainstream medicine. I think that any claims with the word "may", such as "this substance may help with X" are probably not historically "proven" sufficiently to discuss here, since I think we can do this without sparking an edit war.

Notable failures

This section's title is a kluge. I know it, please help. I want to balance the adoption cases with clear cut cases of quackery but I don't want to make the section sound like an indictment of AltMed, I think we can discuss clear-cut quackery, poisons or drugs sold as medicine and such without offending any of the hot-button people who contribute here (read: sparking an edit war). Also, let's try to keep the content here to the most egregious cases where treatments have been soundly condemned by history. That should balance the drugs and therapies that have been discovered while not inciting much debate.

HatlessAtless (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable situations where alternative therapies have been misused or classical therapies have petered out

This section is suspect. The only sentence which was referenced (weakly at that) I had to remove because it had nothing to do with Alt Med but rather a study of mainstream vitamins/supplements such as Centrum and Flintstones. The rest of the section is unreferenced. The paragraph about mandrake and mushrooms reads more akin to a commentary on Traditional medicine rather that Alternative medicine. I'm leaning towards just removing this section wholesale. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I too have a concern with this section, and with the contrapuntal section Notable cases where alternative therapies are adopted by mainstream medicine. These could easily become coatracks. One important concern is the referencing of any included modalities as AltMed; as one example of the kind of questions that could arise, as Levine2112 noted, not all traditional medicines are AltMed.
On the other hand, these sections could be useful, with the understanding that the referencing is especially important and that no examples should be added without reliable sources; ie, nothing that might need a fact tag.
Here's a proposal for modified headings:
  • Studies regarding forms of alternative medicine
  • Proven ineffective or harmful
  • Proven safe & adopted as complementary medicine
  • Undergoing continued research
??? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
hmmmm... this whole enterprise strikes me as suspect. what would one debunked practice (or approved practice) really say about altmed as a whole. do the problems with mandrake say anything about the worthiness of traditional chinese medicine; does the development of atropine reflect at all on the capacities of bodywork? these just seem like stalking horses. I could see the notable successes bit being incorporated into the EBM commentary, but the other section seems to have no real value. --Ludwigs2 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point; I think you're right. It would be hard to avoid synthesis with that kind of section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I too agree and imagine it is un-salvageable. Anyone opposed to just removing this section? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel the same way about "Notable cases where alternative therapies are adopted by mainstream medicine". WP:COATRACK - perhaps. But it is also unreferenced and seems to be talking about Traditional Medicine and not "alternative therapies". I think we should delete this section too (or move it to a more appropriate article). -- Levine2112 discuss 05:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove these sections from the current and the merged version (though I may try to incorporate some of the 'adopted' elements into the EBM section, since that seems like appropriate description there). --Ludwigs2 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, even though I didn't like the sections that you removed, I don't think your edit summary is accurate. Per discussion with three individuals, a small part of the editing corps, probably isn't accurate. Again, I would have agreed with the deletion, but it hardly qualifies as "per discussion." OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
my apologies. I'd only meant that it had been discussed and that people curious about the change should look here. what would have been a better way to phrase it? --Ludwigs2 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You were being bold which is fine. But you could have said "reverting per WP:TRIVIA" or something. Then see discussion. You implied that the discussion endorsed your change, when there wasn't very much of a discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
that's a good point. I'll keep that in mind for the future. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, when I created those two subsections I created them as stubs in the hope that they'd provoke discussion and probably be improved. The idea was that it might be useful to illustrate some cases of both how formerly alternative therapies have gone mainstream, or how others have not, to give some concrete illustration to altmed's relationship with mainstream medicine. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the first point is not a half bad idea, actually, but the second one is a loose cannon, and the dichotomy tends to favor the EBM model more than I'm really comfortable with. and really, it makes an assertion about 'AltMed' as a positive category, when really AltMed is little more than an overarching (negational) theme. for a silly example, it would be like creating a category 'all people who aren't Wikipedia Editors', and then discussing prominent APWAWEs who are serial killers. either that's a bad implication (that all APWAWEs are probably serial killers) or it's trivia (some APWAWEs are serial killers, and we're only mentioning them because it happens to be cool), and either way it divides the world into APWAWEs and WEs, which is just an odd way to divide the world. :-) --Ludwigs2 02:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

[3] "In the US, many medical insurers and some hospitals integrate chiropractic and massage therapy as adjuncts to mainstream medical care."citation needed

Suggest replacing with below, it gives a more generalized example than specific as above so I am posting it here first.

In the US, by the end of the 1990's, major health care institutions started integrating CAM therapies, "for which there is evidence of safety and efficacy," as adjuncts to mainstream medical care, and small, but increasing numbers of medical insurers are offering limited CAM treatment reimbursement.[4][1]

Ward20 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I tagged my own edit because I knew it was imperfect, and that is essentially what I would have said had I had the source handy. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The present section where it appears may be going away (agree), and I am not happy with the section in quotes as it could be mis-interpreted to call attention to safety and efficacy of Cam. But the intent in the article was to say that only Cam that has some positive evidence base is being incorporated. It was late and I could not come up with a NPOV way to restate this part so I quoted it. I would rework it for use later if there is a section in which it would be pertinent. Perhaps it could be of use in the third paragraph of Contemporary use of alternative medicine. Ward20 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Finalizing merge

ok, I think the merge on User:Ludwigs2/sandbox is about as merged as it's going to get. I'm ready to take the next stage and copy it in at Alternative medicine, and then stubify or redirect the CAM and complementary medicine pages. do we have a consensus on the best way to handle that? I can finish over the weekend if we do. --Ludwigs2 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do it! Fyslee wants stubs - but I have not yet heard what he wants to say in them. I myself think redirects are fine, so far, I am open to arguments. I suggest convert now at first to redirects - and of course put tags to extinct talk pages on the new talk page. It has to be called "Alternative and Complementary Medicine" I believe, unwieldy though you may think it. It just is. We can discuss on the "new" talk page whether extinct pages ought to be stubs rather than redirects and why. That's all. isn't it? Please go ahead, let's get some clarity and economy going in this neck of the woods. And thanks. Redheylin (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This merge discussion has unfortunately gotten split up. That should never have happened. The agreement was to use the Alternative Medicine article as the main article, since the others exist only because of it, and refer to it. CAM is only an umbrella term, with no real content of its own. Any other solution and the whole merge deal is off and will be disputed and reverted. We can't go and change the agreed upon terms for the merge without a new discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:207.112.125.217

I've reverted this editor's edits three-times. They are POV, which is subjective, but the editor is not giving us the benefit of a user summary or a discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted IP once also and warned. Don't revert again though please, OM, I'd hate to see you caught in some bastardized technicality. I'll block the IP if he/she adds it again at this point, if more IPs magically appear, I'll semi-protect the article for a time. Keeper ǀ 76 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I won't. But it's hard to edit-war with someone who won't discuss their edits! It's more like hitting my head against the wall. Ouch!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a heavily watchlisted article. (actually, I'm not even sure how it's in my watchlist, I don't think I've ever edited it before...)Let others help revert. No need for headbanging, unless there's good music on. If it gets extreme, or extremely annoying/pervasive/persistent, I'll add protection. Keeper ǀ 76 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm too old for head-banging music. It appears that someone else has decided to join in the edit-war. Sigh. I'll bet you're watching this article because you enjoy jumping into all kinds of controversies, because, you know, it's soooooo dull around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Now is the time to raise your points as to why you think the edit is unacceptable (and now you know how I feel when I'm editing with people like ScienceApologist, Jefffire, and QuackGuru). The edit diff) doesn't appear highly POV to me. Did you even read the diff, Keeper? It doesn't have references, but the current version appears much more POV than the one that anon is trying to put in (and also lacks references). The one that anon is trying to put in could be backed up by references such as the Institute of Medicine's definition of alt. med[5], which calls the current definition the "normative" (i.e. highly POV) one. The IOM (currently the premier medical research body in the United States) makes the exact same point that I did above, that Cochrane reviews show many conventional medical techniques are unproven:

According to Kopelman, normative definitions (e.g., untested or unscientific) also fail to distinguish CAM from conventional medicine. For example, Angell and Kassier (1998) write “there is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not.” However such a definition does not distinguish between conventional medicine and CAM because many conventional treatments have not been supported by rigorous testing. For example, a review of 160 Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of conventional biomedical procedures found that 20 percent showed no effect, whereas insufficient evidence was available for another 21 percent (Ezzo et al., 2001). Furthermore, “some CAM manufacturers adopt higher standards than are currently required in the United States and rigorously test their CAM products” (Kopelman, 2002).

That's 41 percent of mainstream medicine without an evidence base. It says nothing about how effective the treatments which exhibited more than "no effect" were, either. Therefore, distinguishing on the basis of evidence excludes much of conventional medicine; it is an unacceptable definition. II | (t - c) 21:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ImpInf, add a sentence here on the talk page, with at least one reliable reference, without POV, without baseless accusations against me or any other editor, and I'll add it myself. There was nothing wrong with the language of the particular part of the article that IP207 (and IP72) was attempting to change sans references. Give me one. Work with other editors. If you are the IP, than you should know better than to simply change the wording of a highly contentious article without a reference to back up your language choices in the article. Keeper ǀ 76 21:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Err, Keeper67, do you see the quotation? That is a reference to the IOM. Click on the link and read their discussion. I'm not the IP, but calling the edit "vandalism" (as OrangeMarlin did several times) is pure inflammatory rhetoric without basis, and then going on the talk page to justify his edit war with a simple "it is a POV edit" adds flame to the fire. Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with replacing an unreferenced badly written, POV section with an unreferenced, but improved version. I'm not going to change the page because I'm waiting until the merged page is in to start editing. I'm disappointed that OrangeMarlin has feels it necessary engage in POV edit-warring at every possible occasion. He did it less than a week ago with Ludwigs2 over the adding a tag. Now he's stonewalling the anon IP from improving the article. Please take a step back, read the diffs, read my paragraph again, and try to take a neutral perspective. I also don't see why wikilinking the naturopathic schools is unacceptable. These need justification. II | (t - c) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
<ec>Ah, that's not very nice. I called the edit vandalism precisely once, because if you're going to revert an edit without discussion, it's quacking quite loudly. Please, accusing me of POV edit-warring is hardly civil, but since you seem to be a good guy, I'll just assume you're having a bad day. I really do appreciate your conversing here rather than randomly reverting without discussion. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)