Talk:Alternative medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Alternative medicine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems theory.
 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.


Possible disruptive editing[edit]

Denial[edit]

See "Collaborative editing" and "Recent edits, future images" below, and in particular, see in the collapsed section below, "The attempt to attribute the mayhem quote as if Qexigator's is particularly interesting to anyone evaluating the problem. It shows an inability (on FloraWilde's part) to understand what was being said, or a deliberate attempt to mislead". For the record, the supposed "disruptive" edits have not been demonstrated to be so, the repeated use of that term by FloraWilde does not substantiate the supposition, and it is denied and rebutted by.... Qexigator (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor has both a past and recent history of disruptive editing, on this article and on others. Examples from the history in this examples are in the collapsed sections below. Some are left uncollapsed for discussion of restoration of deleted images and examples, done against consensus.

  • The editor has a past history of disruptive editing that led to an investigation concluding violation of WP:SP. The editor's final comment before being blocked was an admission of deliberate disruptive editing to create mayhem at Wikipedia[7] -

"We play experimental mayhem, medieval ballads and stones style mamma mia romps" - Qexigator

  • The editor makes edits that are misleading, not supported by sources, and against consensus, such as repeatedly putting in edits that homeopathy is described as "dilutions other than standard".[8]
  • The editor has a history of disruptive edits to the lede by deleting content and reliable sources.[9] and [10].
  • The editor removed images of alternative medicine practices, and replaced them with off-topic images such as an image or Queen Victoria and her family.[11] and [12]
  • The editor removed a very large number of very reliable sources.[13]
  • The editor made disruptive and self-contradictory edits regarding images.[15]
  • The editor made disruptive edits removing entire well sourced sections from the article.[16]
  • The editor then again ignored WP:SP, and disrupted my talk page.[17] This may' be a different editor, and just be a coincidence
  • The editor's history is part of a pattern of disruptive edits.[18]

The subsections below contain more examples and diffs. FloraWilde (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A sentence added by an editor is not appropriate[edit]

Possible disruptive deletion of RS and content[edit]

More possible disruptive deletion of RS, content, and entire sections[edit]

Possible disruptive image editing[edit]

Possible disruptive deletion of RS and consensus lead content[edit]

Possible disruptive pattern of editing[edit]

List of sources deleted by possible disruptive editing[edit]

Check on recent text edits[edit]

Comments above on possible disruptive edits call for examination. None of the recent edits were, in fact, disruptive, but editors may wish to consider whether or not any of them improve the article's encyclopedic content: Qexigator (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The above and the list were.... Qexigator (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

...In rebuttal of misguided supposition about "disruptive". Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The following list is from the article history page[47] and is collapsed for readability of this talk page. FloraWilde (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Collaborative editing[edit]

Most regular editors will be aware that when an article is being built up or revised by a number of editors over a period of time, changes in the revisions will be made and unmade or modified as the revision evolves, with moves until a structure is settled, and later on it may be found that tweaks and copyedits are necessary. To characterise that as disruptive shows a complete failure to understand the process. Such changes are discussed and accepted or not as the process continues, as should be happening now with questions about the presentation of the images, as well as changes to text. Our concern should be to improve the article as best we may, acknowledging when a change of direction happens, such as the introduction of images. Qexigator (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A valid point. Input from other editors with a history of working on this article would help. Apologies for my previous haste, note my prior comments have been amended. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
FloraWilde if you really think this pattern of editing has removed valid content and sources you can restore that content and those sources. I would suggest piece by piece with clear edit summaries and a note for each on this talk page. As Quexigator has pointed out these changes occurred over a period of time and there was likely some discussion. I would suggestion careful consideration for each change you wish to restore and an examination of the talk archives for the discussion. If you seriously believe there has been a pattern of disruptive editing you can bring it to ANI. I suspect it would be dismissed as a content dispute, brought by an editor not involved in discussion and editing at the time of the changes which happened over a fairly extended period. Barring a filing I would urge you to focus on content rather than allegations or editor behavior. Well written, well sourced changes to content supported by policy based rationale are generally what is seen as demonstrating a desire to improve the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore "Examples" subsections, with images, to top of article[edit]

Examples, with subsections having brief summaries and illustrative images, should be at the top of the article. This gives a reader an immediate understanding of what alternative medicine actually is. Otherwise, a reader has to read through a mass of verbiage about theoretical efforts to classify alt med, about academic and scientific criticism (which may be justified), and may still have no idea what alt med actually is.

(This section and subsections was once at the top by consensus. An editor then moved it down the article, in a series of possibly disruptive edits, then the subsections were deleted, all without consensus).

It is tricky to try to keep the decriptions in brief text blocks, and at the same time have illustrative images next to them, when the images may be greater in size than the brief text blocks. Here is a proposal at a first attempt at doing this, culled from the article history, and organized roughly by the NCCAM classification system (which I do not agree with, as stated elsewhere).[87]

Please feel free to make modifications to it. (Did I put it in a correct subpage sandbox for reworking?)FloraWilde (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Qexigator has pointed out these changes occurred over a period of time and there was likely some discussion" makes Qexigator's blanket assertion true. Qexigator did not respond to any of the specific diffs on misleading edit summaries, on self-contradictory and thereby disruptive edits, on editing against talk page consensus with cited talk page sections in which other editors pointed out the edits were against consensus, or on massive block deletions in single edits, all with diffs.

Moving forward - ["focus on content". A problem is that adding back in the entire section of examples, with subsections, cannot be done "piece by piece with clear edit summaries and a note for each on this talk page". Adding a section titled examples, with a single sentence of one example, would not improve the encyclopedia. I will instead try adding an example section with the deleted content, as minimally as possible. WP:Silence on my proposal indicates there may be no objection. FloraWilde (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It is because of the lack of response to the diffs provided I suggested starting to add back content. Perhaps piece by piece was not the right terminology. To rephrase in distinct edits with clear edit summaries and a related note on talk. The intent of my suggestion is that some changes may be supported by consensus while others not. Rather than having massive changes that would get reverted (with possible resulting EWing) performing changes in a series. Not sure how to break them into discrete individual edits, but I am not the one proposing the changes. If adding back an entire section is a specific proposal then let it proceed that way. I suspect there will be some contention and challenge so I would like the possibility of concise policy based argumentation of specific content. As above I support a return to the previous lead or something similar based on the sources provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I added it back in as a section. It is unlikely to be controversial, especially since no article content was deleted, NCCAM is used for structure (which I disagree with, but am compromising on), and the wording is mostly either from the corresponding Wiki articles, or previous wording that appeared to be uncontested at the time it was added. FloraWilde (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

WP:RTP section collecting sections on discussions of images. FloraWilde (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why images?[edit]

Two sets of images have recently been inserted in the article, the second set being used to exclude the first. The first set included a diagram Randomized controlled trial flowchart[88] in section "Efficacy", and in my view, of all the images in either set, that should be retained.

Apart from that, of the two sets, the first (as at 18:03, 28 July 2014[89]) is certainly preferable for the reasons given in the discussion, which was rushed into the Archive. For the time being, and subject to further discussion, let the images of both sets (except the Flowchart) be omitted. 09:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed in a section above. I restored to version by MrBill3 with image of chiropractic founder above paragraph where it is discussed. FloraWilde (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Why images?[edit]

For no reason that I know of, my name was not added when this was posted, but that may be due to inadvertent 5th tilde

Two sets of images have recently been inserted in the article, the second set being used to exclude the first. The first set included a diagram Randomized controlled trial flowchart[90] in section "Efficacy", and in my view, of all the images in either set, that should be retained.

Apart from that, of the two sets, the first (as at 18:03, 28 July 2014[91]) is certainly preferable for the reasons given in the discussion, which was rushed into the Archive. For the time being, and subject to further discussion, let the images of both sets (except the Flowchart) be omitted. 09:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in a section of this talk page above. Images of alternative medicine belong in this article. Images of Queen Victoria, the National Science Foundation building, Johns Hopkins University Medical School buildings, flow charts of scientific methods, etc., are not images of alternative medicine, so were deleted under WP:UNDUE. FloraWilde (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Under discussion[edit]

A related discussion is below, here. FloraWilde (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the image question as yet resolved. The main points which emerged in discussion at "Proposal to have any images or non-text media in article"[92](extracts):

Images do not necessarily improve an article, and may be no more than trivial clutter. In articles such as this, captions add no useful information, or tend to slant it either way. Images can be useful when showing such things as faces in articles about people, or buildings or artefacts, or copies of paintings. At most, an image for "Alternative medicine" generically may be acceptable. This article was improved when those non-informative images were removed. They can be seen at the pages linked to the specific articles, which is where the caption information belongs. Maybe something like the images at the following sites could add a graphic overview of the topic.

Qexigator (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ...

I think some of the images suggested by Qexigator warrant consideration. I tend to agree the images removed served little purpose. I think in general images improve articles but need careful consideration of encyclopedic nature and value. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

...I am still a proponent of inserting images for the sake of having images even if they only have narrow relevance and are not as good as non-free content. I have a lot of sympathy for encyclopedia users who need to see non-text media in articles to have a good experience, and even if the images above are not ideal, I take the position that some mediocre images are better than having no images. Captions can be cut or say anything. Others may disagree with me, but I expect that much of Wikipedia errs on the side of having some images in articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Experienced editors will be mindful that the focus and priority in this type of article is the communication of information about the topic, as reliably as can be, not inserting images for the sake of providing "a good experience" according some other irrelevant criteria. There are now two inset images, at least one of which could be seen as relevant to the actual topic (though neither is strictly needed), and links to others which are of a type that could usefully be added to the article if available at Commons.[93] --Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)....

Given that, for various reasons, the images so far put on this page for comment are not acceptable, and nothing else suitable has been found at Wikimedia Commons, we seem to be waiting for one of the linked images to become available from there, such as the Nature pictorial diagram for CAM domains and some of the most common examples[94] currently in the "External link" section, and/or the FDA notice about Ayurvedic products linked at the end of the the article's "Use and regulation" section, or something better than either of those, and in any case which is consistent with the written text and free from unsourced speculation. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The Nature image is copyrighted, but I have seen many images like it and one could be produced by an editor here if they so desire bearing in mind that original research guidelines are less strict for images(WP:OI). I would view similar diagrams for inspiration, and try to produce an original diagram for use in this article.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, SET ONE was added:

Images for "Terms...", "History...", "Examples", etc.

The version at 15:39, 7 July 2014[95] has an image supporting the text in "Terms and definitions", four more in "History – 19th century onwards", and one in "Examples". Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: now,[96] 1 in "Terms and definitions", 3 in "History – 19th century onwards", and 3 in "Classes and examples". Qexigator (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
+ 2 in "Regional definitions" - may need adjustment for size? Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
+ and 1 in "Efficacy".[97]. --Qexigator (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The score as at 22:16, 8 July 2014[98] Terms and definitions: 1. Regional definitions: 2. Institutions: 1. History: 4. Classes and examples: 3. Criticism: 1. Use and regulation: 1. Efficacy: 1. Appeal: 1. Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

+1 more in "Terms and definitions" with caption about comparative extent of use of "alternative medicine" in hospitals. Qexigator (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflection on pictures added

I am happy with the inclusion of pictures in this article as it is now. I understand that pictures are not necessarily an improvement for all people, but I advocate for an audience that wants health information and likes to see pictures even if they are only marginally relevant. I appreciate everyone who has responded to my request to include pictures in this article.

I only say that these pictures are good enough, and not that they are the best. If it in the future anyone wants to add or change pictures, then there can be discussion about whether that is an improvement. If I were to offer suggestions for improvement, I would wish for more diversity in what is depicted. Here are some things I wish that I could see here:

  • a graphic representing various kinds of alternative medicine, as in this copyrighted Nature illustration
  • pictures of women who contributed to alternative medicine
  • images showing alternative medicine outside a Western context
  • more depiction emphasizing complementary medicine, or the integration of alternative and conventional medicine
  • anything suggesting the narrative of how alternative medicine becomes conventional medicine as it is shown to be effective, or proving how this has happened in the past

Thanks again everyone. I think this article had a great reworking and I like this version. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the images are consistent with the fact that "One common feature of all definitions of alternative medicine is its designation as 'other than' conventional medicine." Can you identify any woman who has notably influenced the formation of what has come to be known as "western medicine" on a par with the influence of the men whose images now appear in the article? Or who has been founder of one of the main forms of alternative medicine in the same period? Your other points seem to confirm a previously expressed lack of reading the text of the article, but perhaps you now feel some further information should be reported in it, which can be properly sourced. We should not be treating this article if it were a commentary on a picture book. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Qexigator Thanks for proposing so many excellent illustrations in response to my asking. I am flattered by the enthusiasm you have shown in meeting my request because I know it took a lot of time to do what you did.
You fairly describe my position when you say, "treating this article as if it were a commentary on a picture book", as I am doing exactly that and openly acknowledge it and say that it is good to do so. If you choose to continue to engage with me, expect me to maintain that position. Please forgive me if my position does not please you, and thanks at least for finding compromise with me. I believe - acknowledging that many others might not - that including the most relevant pictures even if they are not highly relevant inherently makes Wikipedia more encyclopedic. I am happy with the pictures you added and am thinking of stepping away from the article for maybe a long while, to see if anyone else has comments.
"Alternative medicine" may be other than "conventional medicine" but "complementary and alternative medicine" may not be. Also there are times in history when the divisions between alternative and conventional medicine did not exist. There is room for talking about both, as when you suggested mentioning how nurses may administer both conventional and alternative medicine. Many or perhaps most people use both alternative and conventional medicine simultaneously without thinking of a difference, and I hope this article reflects whatever sources say about this.
Mary Baker Eddy comes to mind as a great and respectable woman in the field of alternative medicine who has had influence comparable to or exceeding the men pictured, as her work is still one of the world's most influential health texts. Mother Teresa also promoted spiritual healing in circumstances which she knew conflicted with conventional medicine, and Kolkata and wider India today still follow the recommendations she made. I know nothing about alternative medicine in China, India, Africa, Russia, South America, or other places outside Western culture. Maybe someday someone else could recommend other candidates; just one significant personality in either India or China would equal the influence of the entire Western world.
Sorry for any tension I may have created between us. You have done more than I should ever expect to accommodate me, and I appreciate that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Eddy (irrespective of her being a woman) is notable as having advocated a form of piety or religious devotion, conduct and behaviour which amounts to abstaining in principle from medical treatment of any kind, conventional or alternative. Qexigator (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ....
Note that the principle of her teaching is abstention from medical treatment of any description, and this article would not be improved by reporting or implying otherwise:...Qexigator (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)...

Noting that this page is "for discussing improvements to the Alternative medicine article", let it suffice to say that such merits and conduct as hers may excite in many respect or veneration, but that does not surmount the objection to her inclusion in the article. Qexigator (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Qexigator's image suggestions at the top of this section (or something similar) are informative so are very good.
Here are some other informative images available at Wikimedia Commons -
  • Energy fields for maximum health[99]
  • Chakras used in healing[100]
  • More chakras used in healing[101]

Modern Mid-Asian traditional doctor with tools

  • Historic photo of Ghana medicine man (possibly for history section)[102]
  • Philippines pyramid built for focusing healing energy[103]
  • Mid-Asian traditional healer with healing tools[104] FloraWilde (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fresh Images Discussion[edit]

I realize there are possibly (probably) relevant prior discussions. I'd like to try to work forward from where we are now. I think the image set at this time is fairly good. If someone wants to present an argument for specific images to be restored/added/removed (or captions changed) might I suggest doing so in this thread. I think Hahnemann and Palmer could be argued for. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of actual alternative medicine as practiced are informative to the Wikipedia user, and greatly add to the user's understanding of what alternative medicine is. A historic photograph of alt med being practiced in the 1800's would be great for the history section, but images of Hahnemann and Palmer posing for a portrait should be in the specialized article - History of alternative medicine, by WP:UNDUE. By WP:UNDUE, additional of images should be of alternative medicine being practiced, or images that give actual information about alt med. An image of an important historical figure actually practicing the alt med would be very good in this article. FloraWilde (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As always in this kind of thing it's a question of (ecyclopedic) editorial judgment, npov, not pushing an agenda, and as far as possible, free from pet enthusiasms (rather dull, perhaps). I am not persuaded that the present set of images improves the article, and seeing them on the page confirms my reservations.
My present position remains as before: Images do not necessarily improve an article, and may be no more than trivial clutter. In articles such as this, captions may add no useful information, or may slant it either way. Images can be useful when showing such things as faces in articles about people, or buildings or artefacts, or copies of paintings.
This article was improved some time ago when certain non-informative images, like those now there, were removed. They can be seen at the pages linked to the specific articles, which is where the caption information belongs.
At most, an image for "Alternative medicine" generically may be acceptable. Maybe something like the images at the following sites could add a graphic overview of the topic,
Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
All of Qexigator's suggested images would be informative to a Wiki user. Are they copyright protected? FloraWilde (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless on Commons, how can we use them? That's why the connection is by link. Qexigator (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But, if not overlarge, the present set of images may help to show at a glance something of the wide range and variety encompassed by the general descriptive words "alternative medicine", which, unlike conventional/mainstream, is not a single unified entity: as the article says, there is "medicine", and there is everything else not regarded as such by the practitioners of "medicine". Qexigator (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Were the images for the selected examples of AM arranged in any particular order? It looks somewhat random. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I like some of the images at the links given but if not usable on WP...? I share some concern about the captions. I think the existing images might be more deliberately placed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
more deliberately placed... would that be by separating the ones now under the infobox and placing them against a piece of text in the sections? I feel that would loose something which I now see keeping them together gains (mentioned in Afterthought under "Better presentation of the images" below). There is also a possibility of putting them in a Gallery, as mentioned below, but that, too, though keeping them together, would loose what the present arrangement has. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I now see your comment of 8.32 below. Qexigator (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Better presentation of the images[edit]

Edits intended to improve the presentation of the information in the article, and in particular the images, should not be miscalled "damaging", and merely reverted. That is not helping to improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to delete or damage criticism material. Does that mean that the images are being put there as "criticism material"? Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: Having the "miracle cure" image at the top of the column of images seems a suitable presentation as a header for such of the images as represent use of preparations and doses of one kind or another, and those which use various forms of bodily contact, in ways which, if the patient's health recovers or improves or stabilises could, from a scientific point of view, loosely be called "miraculous". Could the images, then, be grouped as those which relate to products and the others which relate to contact? But, subject to other's comments, I would be inclined to let them stay in the order they have been given as now. Qexigator (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Screen size[edit]

When formatting images, it's helpful to remember that the page may appear differently to a reader, depending on screen width. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gallery?[edit]

A suggestion made in the earlier discussion, now archived, was that the images, such as those now ranged down the right margin of the page under the infobox, could be presented instead as a gallery. On balance, I favour the right margin as now, but others may prefer a gallery. Any comment? Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the right margin. I would like to see deliberate placement. A gallery as an addition might be OK but a EL to the commons probably takes care of that unless there is a specific set of images deemed very appropriate for the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also the white space alongside the TOC, which the column-wise arrangement (as now) uses. Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Right margin. Equal size. Order roughly according to prevalence of use among English language Wikipedia users. Criticism at the end as in lead section organization. FloraWilde (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject to others' comments, Right margin - agreed; Equal size - agreed; Order roughly according to prevalence of use among English language Wikipedia users - seems as good as any sequence; Criticism at the end as in lead section organization - perhaps. Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
What we have now seems like a right margin gallery. I would like to see images placed along side the content they apply to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The images were previously next to an example section at the top of the article.[105] I tried restoring the examples and aligning the images next to the content, but it is not working since the block of text for example section may be shorter or longer than the image, causing misalignment of all of the rest of the images. The text blocks can be expected to be in a constant state of flux, causing future alligment to be completely lost. Here is one attempt at restoring the examples (and sources), and then placement of images next to the text.[106] The current arrangement, with images in a right hand column from the top down, might be better than this attempt, since any aligment will likely be lost with future article edits. FloraWilde (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits, future images[edit]

Changes have recently made to the lead, and the position of the first sections "Background" and "History – 19th century onwards" which depart from the long-standing version as at as at 22:41, 31 July 2014.[107]

The lead, structure and text stabilised had been stablised, with some copyedits and tweaks thereafter, until 26 July [108], as a result of an earlier revision process (involving a number of editors) pretty much at the point when MrBill3's overhaul of the refs was getting under way in mid-September 2013[109], and goes as far as back as March 2013[110], if not before.

The ongoing process of editing to improve the article was affected by a misguided attempt to claim that certain edits were "disruptive", which demonstrably was in error.[111]

But the recent series of edits, made by one newly intervening editor, has turned the previously stable article, written and set out in an encyclopedic style and character, into something which tends to look more in the style and character of a soapboxish rant aimed, perhaps, at satisfying a section of the American readership.[112] Those edits were preceded by the flurry about banning "disruptive" editing introduced here[113], considered here[114] and here,[115] and continued here[116], here[117], here[118],[119], here[120] etc., and including a falsehood (maybe inadvertent) about the lead here[121]

That has been a needless and unwarranted distraction from the ongoing process of edits aimed at improving the article.[122][123] It was attended by a series of moves of content on this page, alteration of headings,such as here[124], or here,[125] insertions of Headings, such as [126], and collapses, such as [127][128] (and sometimes uncollapsing), which has interefered with the accurate presentation of the way the discussion has developed. Are we to suppose that was due simply to brash ignorance, or perhaps a tactical move with combative intent?

This can be seen as particularly significant, seeing that it was done in connection with an unfounded attack on the present contributor, none of whose edits or contributions can properly be described as disruptive, whether or not some have later been removed in the normal process of development, coupled with an attack on NCAAM for its political position under the title "Is NCCAM WP:RS on anthropological or sociology statements?", commenting: Without apparent anthropological or sociological expertise, NCCAM, a political body, invented a nonsense "classification" scheme for the anthropological and sociological phenomenon called alternative medicine, of which it is a part. It used this in getting funding for testing of things like manipulation of supernatural "energy fields" to "heal". The title has been changed to "Is NCCAM WP:RS on physics, anthropology, sociology, and theology?" and the content revised.

None of the other recent edits which were said to be disruptive were so in fact, nor were any of those cited from the past, as can be acknowledged by any one who was involved in the editing at that time, and can be seen by anyone prepared to look at the edits in sequence in the context of the ongoing edits and Talk page discussions. Reasoned and reasonable discussion on the Talk page in respect of any of such edit that was thought not to be an improvement would be the way to make progress, without yelling "disruptive".

In particular, the use of images in principle, and where images would be placed for the better information of inquiring readers, involve questions about which some discussion has started, but has not yet been sufficiently explored for anyone to claim a consensus has been reached in support of what any one person editing here may favour. When some calm and reason has been restored, it may be possible to resume the ongoing process of editing the article for its improvement in the normal way. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Images have information and are useful to encyclopedia users. As shown in diffs above, Qexigator massively removed on-topic images of examples, and replaced them with off-topic images, such as of the family of Queen Victoria. That is disruptive. Please stop. FloraWilde (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That comment, and others, seem to confirm that the maker of it has not yet sufficiently understood the process of collaborative npov editing and taking account of others' views in the course of discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
How is your deleting all of the images of alternative medicine practices, and replacing them with off-topic images, such as an image of Queen Victoria and her family, part of "the process of collaborative npov editing"? FloraWilde (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New section, editing process affecting the lead, and Background and History sections[edit]

Changes have recently made to the lead, and first sections "Background" and "History – 19th century onwards" which depart from the long-standing version as at as at 22:41, 31 July 2014.[129]

The lead, structure and text had been stablised, with some copyedits and tweaks thereafter, until 26 July [130], as a result of an earlier revision process (involving a number of editors) pretty much at the point when MrBill3's overhaul of the refs was getting under way in mid-September 2013[131], and goes back as far as back as March 2013[132], if not before.

The ongoing process of editing to improve the article was affected by a misguided attempt to claim that certain edits were "disruptive", which demonstrably was in error.[133]

But the recent series of edits, made by one newly intervening editor, has turned the previously stable article, written and set out in an encyclopedic style and character, into something which looks more in the style and character of a soapboxish rant aimed, perhaps, at satisfying a section of the American readership.[134] Those edits were preceded by the flurry about banning "disruptive" editing introduced here[135], considered here[136] and here,[137] and continued here[138], here[139], here[140],[141], here[142] etc., and including a falsehood (maybe inadvertent) about the lead here[143]

That has been a needless and unwarranted distraction from the ongoing process of edits aimed at improving the article.[144][145] It was attended by a series of moves of content on this page, alteration of Headings,such as here[146], or here,[147] insertions of Headings, such as [148], and collapses, such as [149][150] (and sometimes uncollapsing), which has interefered with the accurate presentation of the way the discussion has developed. Are we to suppose that was due simply to brash ignorance, or perhaps a tactical move with combative intent?

This can be seen as particularly significant, seeing that it was done in connection with an unfounded attack on the present contributor, none of whose edits or contributions can properly be described as disruptive, whether or not some have later been removed in the normal process of development, coupled with an attack on NCAAM for its political position under the title "Is NCCAM WP:RS on anthropological or sociology statements?", commenting: Without apparent anthropological or sociological expertise, NCCAM, a political body, invented a nonsense "classification" scheme for the anthropological and sociological phenomenon called alternative medicine, of which it is a part. It used this in getting funding for testing of things like manipulation of supernatural "energy fields" to "heal". The title has been changed to "Is NCCAM WP:RS on physics, anthropology, sociology, and theology?" and the content revised.

None of the other recent edits which were said to be disruptive were so in fact, nor were any of those cited from the past, as can be acknowledged by any one who was involved in the editing at that time, and can be seen by anyone prepared to look at the edits in sequence in the context of the ongoing edits and Talk page discussions. Reasoned and reasonable discussion on the Talk page in respect of any of such edit that was thought not to be an improvement would be the way to make progress, without yelling "disruptive". Qexigator (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples with images provides useful information to the user. As shown in the diffs above, User:Qexigator removed reliably sourced consensus content from the lead, and massively removed entire sections of examples and the very reliable sources for their content. That is disruptive. Please stop. FloraWilde (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of guidelines for editing alternative medicine sections in herb and plant articles[edit]

There is a discussion of guidelines for editing alternative medicine content in plant and herb articles here. [151]

Note that numerous editors participated, and there is unanimous consensus on editing Wikipedia articles about use of plants and herbs in alternative medicine. (The high editor participation, by editors who each have stellar content editing histories, and each of whom made thoughtful and detailed comments, indicates that the best place to put such on-point topic discussions might be on project talk pages of the area of science that bears on the particular area of alt med practice.) FloraWilde (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayurvedic Medicine does not advise Suppressing natural urges can be used to heal[edit]

Ayurvedic Medicine does not advise "suppressing natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse" to heal or as a treatment of illness.
On the contrary Ayurveda advise, not to suppress such natural urges and describe in detail in the text book of Ayurveda Charak Samhita, that such practice may lead to disease condition.
Further online reference can be found in online version of Charak Samhita at this link - http://www.charakasamhita.com/2010/10/18-harmful-effects-of-not-attending-to.html
Also note that a link to this online version of Charak Samhita is also given on Charak Samhita's wikipedia page.
Thus I had deleted the concern line in Ayurvedic Medicine section, but it was restored by user:FloraWilde.
On basis of above reference I am again removing the concern line "suppressing natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse" from Ayurvedic Medicine" section.
--Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Brahmacharya means abstinence from sexual intercourse, but perhaps a better phrasing would be "Controlling and moderating natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse". FloraWilde (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. this phrasing is reasonable to Ayurvedic principles. I know this is not forum of general discussion, but I would like point out that Brahmacharya is not advised anywhere in Ayurveda. In fact among eight branches (sections) of Ayurveda, the eighth branch is Vajikaran, which is about Virilification, Science of Aphrodisiac and Sexology. --Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Drjaydevbaroda appears to be correct. "Suppression" is the opposite of what the above cited source says, and other sources I foud online. An American promoter of alternative medicine wrote - "According to the Ayurvedic perspective, being 'healthy' is more than the absence of disease - it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food intake, sleep, sexual intercourse... "[152] The person who wrote this is not a reliable source for Wikipedia; but he is a notable promoter of alternative medicine. I will add in the content with the qualified wording "An American promoter wrote", but it would be much better to remove the qualification, and have a good secondary source (or even a primary source if no secondary source can be found). Do you know of a reliable source that supports what he wrote? FloraWilde (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all I would like to say sorry for my hasty edits. As I am new to wikipedia editing, I thought it would be as simple as editing wrong information in your own computer. After I get edit warning I learnt three-revert-rule and other guidelines.
  • The sentence (it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food..) is essence of one of the Ayurvedic principals. And it is very generalized sentence, so it is hard to find reference in most reliable source (Charak Samhita), as a line or a paragraph.
  • So I could not find other source which supports the sentence (it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food..) in a raw meaning.
  • However I found proper source which is reliable and fulfil the the essence of sentence in different phrase. http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine
  • Under subsection "What is the Ayurvedic perspective?"
Ayurveda is not a "one-size-fits-all" system. Instead, its regimens are tailored to each person's unique prakriti (Ayurvedic constitution), taking into account his or her needs for nutrition, exercise, personal hygiene, social interaction, and other lifestyle elements.
Daily routines, called Dinacharya, and seasonal regimens, called Ritucharya, are recommended. Following these individualized plans help users of Ayurveda attain robust physical health, as well as mental and spiritual harmony. --Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A potentially useful source with respect to the history of Ayurvedic medicine in the west is B. Sachs "On Hindoo Medicine" The_proceedings_of_the_Charaka_Club (1902) vol.1 p.1 OL25612826M LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Its certainly interesting, even if its usefulness might be lessened by more recent scholarly work on the topic. How did you find this? FloraWilde (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
While seeking references to improve the above mentioned Charaka Samhita article, I searched for Charaka on the open library, which is often good for older sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proceeding with the newly revised version[edit]

The present version, as newly revised, gives even greater prominence than before to anxiety about fraudulent health products in the USA, the homeland of the expression "snake oil" in this connection, said to stem from the days of the construction of the "Pacific Railroad" in the 1860s. In the context of the rest of the article as a whole, that may be considered acceptable. But the topic is not "Fraudulent health products in the USA"; it is "Alternative medicine", an expression that came into use about a century later, and it is misleading to construct the article as if there is some definite entity world-wide of which it could be said "alternative medicine actually is ". In the earlier version, this was scrupulously explained after the lead in "Background" section: Treatments considered alternative in one location may be considered conventional in another... Some definitions seek to specify alternative medicine in terms of its social and political marginality to mainstream healthcare. How the term "alternative medicine" came into use was explained in the next section "History", followed by "The NCCAM classification system", and "snake oil" was mentioned, with citations. We should consider putting the longstanding structure for the first two sections back in place. Qexigator (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as to snake oil. I removed the unsourced snake oil sentence and corresponding image. FloraWilde (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Why delete the link to article? What was "restored"?[153] Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I undid my error. FloraWilde (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the newer organization is better - I would say that a descriptive introductory section is better than one that prominently frames the topic as a definitional issue. That said, the related changes make the article seem much less professional, among other things, so it still needs to be cleaned up. Sunrise (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
May we take that as proposing to let the lead stay more or less as is (subject to minor improving tweaks), but with copyedits (+ moves?) elsewhere? You may recall an acceptable lead resulted from aiming at comprehensive brevity for content to be extended in the article's main body, letting the List of Contents serve readers as an outline synopsis, for them to go to what they are looking for at the time. The format and placing of images has introduced some further complications in relation to the text itself, but these are being sorted out. Cheers to you, Arc! Qexigator (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No. The images and examples are discussed in sections above. FloraWilde (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Try and resist, FloraWilde, this odd temptation to misattribute to another things that have not been and things which are not intended. It does not promote confidence in your editing. Maybe Sunrise can be allowed to answer for him- her-self. Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I wasn't making any comment on the lead, only on the ordering of the first two sections (currently "Examples of alternative medicine practices" and "Background"). Did I misread the subject of this talk section? On the lead, I agree with some of the changes, although I think that the previous arrangement for the first paragraph was better. More generally, a lot of the changes are similar or the same as those which were previously endorsed on this page by a banned editor, and have the same issues as before. Sunrise (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, Sunrise, we seem to agree about the lead, but I remain uncertain whether you are saying that "Background" is better before or after "Examples", which is indeed the subject which started this Talk section. Does "banned editor" refer to the socking IP? Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(Inserting my response here since this section has two conversations going on at once.) I meant that I think the section currently named "Examples" is better first, because it is better to open with describing the topic rather than describing definitional disputes, unless the definition section is extremely short. Given the complexity of the topic, describing different types of alternative medicine seems like a reasonable way to start off, although I'm sure there are other possibilities. I would also say that both of the sections should have better titles, e.g. maybe "Types of alternative medicine" and "Definitions." The editor I was thinking of is this one - having checked the account, I see it was a block rather than a ban, but IP socking was involved. Sunrise (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can follow that reasoning. There were good enough reasons at the time of the previous revisions for what then resulted, but, as the heading to this section indicates, there is no need to trail back through the archives for that, and we are now proceeding with the newly revised version, noting that the lead and other parts have lately had a further series of copyedits and tweaks:[154], [155], [156], [157],[158]. Subject to comments from others, these seem to be acceptable. Yes, I recall the difficult period editors endured before the one you mention was blocked. Thanks for clarifying. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Examples with images should be at the top so readers immediately get an understanding of what alternative medicine is. Otherwise the examples will gradually be buried in a mass of technical words as discussed in sections above. This leave readers with no understanding of what alternative medicine is. Placement of the examples section and images is discussed in sections above. Qexigator did not respond above as to why he/she moved the examples sections to the bottom, then deleted these sections entirely, and the sources. Instead, Qexigator keeps starting new sections on multiple topics already being discussed by others. Please stop. FloraWilde (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for putting your position. You have been making some good edits here and elsewhere, and you seem to be heavily committed to your point of view. Now, try and understand that others may see some matters in a different way, but not necessarily opposite or antagonistically. None has a right to claim a monopoly of editorial skill and judgment. Try and accept that you alone are not necessarily always and in every way right about this or anything else, and do not persist in attempting to rubbish others, or, for that matter assume you know what is best for readers of this article. There has been more than enough of that already. That is not helpful for the process of editing Wikipedia. In particular, when another editor starts a fresh discussion, do not seek to claim it as a continuation of something else. Others may have a wider perspective. If you do not wish to participate in the discussion in this section, stay away: it's quite simple. Now, you should also stop moving sections about. What are you really up to? Qexigator (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Qexigator. Starting new sections on topics that are already being discussed on this page, rather than responding in those sections, fragments the discussions. It makes it difficult to see comments by multiple editors on the same topics. It is helpful not to keep starting new sections on the same topics. FloraWilde (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise. The previous arrangement of the first paragraph was better, as you commented. It states that alt med is medicine is medicine that is not based on science, then that there are a wide range of practices not based on science, and cites examples of the wide range. It is returned to that, with the other content moved down the lead. FloraWilde (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Child abuse exemption content moved out of examples into regulation section[edit]

I moved this content out of examples section into the regulation section,[159] because it does not really exemplify the practice. If there is a better section for it than regulation, please move it to that section.

In the United States, the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) required states to grant religious exemptions to child neglect and abuse laws in order to receive federal money.[1] Thirty-one states have child-abuse religious exemptions.[2]

FloraWilde (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with this article. Perhaps it was pasted into the wrong article entirely when it was originally added? If it does somehow belong here, the text should be edited to explain how it relates. --Karinpower (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be about regulating the alternative medicine practice called "spiritual healing", where kids are denied access to medications such as antibiotics on religious freedom grounds. The first source is "Spiritual healing, sick kids and the law: inequities in the American healthcare system." - Am J Law Med. 2003;29(2-3):269-99. The article requires payment to read. Perhaps an editor with access can quote from the source on this talk page. Here is a sampling of exemptions in the second source -

A religious healing practitioner is not required to report as neglect of a child the failure to provide medical attention to the child if the child is provided treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the tenets and

practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by an accredited practitioner of the church or denomination

In any case in which a child is alleged to be dependent on the basis that he or she is in need of medical care, the court, in making that finding, shall give consideration to any treatment being provided to the child by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by an accredited practitioner thereof

No child who, in lieu of medical treatment, is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with a recognized method of religious healing shall, for that reason only, be considered neglected.

No child who in good faith is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the practices

of a recognized church or religious denomination shall for that reason alone be considered neglected.

A child shall not be considered abused or neglected if... The child’s parent relies on spiritual means through prayer for the treatment of disease.

A child shall not be considered to be abused or neglected, in jeopardy of health or welfare, or in danger of serious harm

solely because treatment is by spiritual means by an accredited practitioner of a recognized religious organization.

Our article fails to inform the reader as to how one gets one's religious practitioners accredited in the US, and which religions are recognized by the US or state governments, and which are not. Perhaps an editor with expertise on established state religions in the US can find sources and add content on this. FloraWilde (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FloraWilde, thanks for clarifying. I now see the connection, though it seems fairly tangential to the article. Do you think it belongs? If it is to stay, I think it needs to be rewritten or at least a sentence added before it, to explain (very briefly) what you just said above.
It seems that this article attempts to include a wide number of fairly diverse practices.... "Traditional" healing methods which seem strange to other cultures (ex. children arriving at school with bruising from skin "scraping" used for colds and other conditions in Asian cultures) and Amish families deciding not to vaccinate would both seem to have relevance to this legislation. But it seems pretty disconnected from the semi-mainstream practice of common modalities of alternative medicine. I'm not sure how it should be handled differently in this article, but currently it's a bit of a mess. --Karinpower (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing from this article - alternative psychiatry/psychology[edit]

Missing from this article is information on the huge fields of alternative psychology and alternative psychiatry, e.g., work of Wilhelm Reich, spiritual psychology, and Psychosynthesis, to name just a few out of hundreds or more. this good faith edit by User:Katecodrington is an example of one of hundreds of such "branches" of alternative medicine of the subcategory alternative psychology or psychiatry. I deleted that edit under WP:Undue, because of its specificity about a single person's "branch", without a source as to it meeting WP:UNDUE for inclusion. But edits like it need to be generalized and put in our article, with reliable secondary sources as to WP:Undue as to which to include and which not. FloraWilde (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Flora, thanks for dealing with that. I have tagged her article submission and notified her of her COI and not to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this article needs to branch out into Alternative Mental Health, but you might find this template helpful:
Mind–body interventions - edit
Stylized methods
NCCAM classifications
  1. Alternative Medical Systems
  2. Mind-Body Interventions
  3. Biologically Based Therapy
  4. Manipulative Methods
  5. Energy Therapy
See also

I would say that these topics have been covered elsewhere nicely. --Karinpower (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe just a couple sentences, with a link to the template/category? Just a thought. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with just a couple of sentences is... (I have no source at hand on this, but) all alternative medicines are essentially "psychological". None is based on physical reality. Sitting a person down in a Wilhelm Reich orgone box to treat depression is "alternative psychiatry", because Reich purported to be a psychiatrist. But this has no difference in physical reality from a Reiki hand waver fixing some Chakra misalignment causing the depression, sticking an acupuncture needle at the right point to treat it, aligning a spine for it, or going to church and getting hands laid on, all to the same end of treating the depression problem. But our article puts the former in a different category, (as does NCCAM, but with same the ultimate end of getting funding for "research" or generating insurance billing codes). FloraWilde (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
FloraWilde, I disagree. Your comment uses brush strokes that are too broad. Alt med is a very diverse category, and the modalities within have varying levels of scientific groundedness - from not-plausible to sure-makes-sense-but-scientific-testing-needed-to-prove-it. And they vary quite a bit in whether they are attempting to affect psychology (the mind and the emotions) while some goals that you mentioned about would be more accurately described as "spiritual" or "metaphysical" goals rather than psychological. --Karinpower (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make is that this article should be broad, and written in broad brush strokes, with links to more specific info. Classifying claims to heal using orgone energy as being psychology, vs. qi, vital energy, Chakras, etc. as physical medicine, makes no sense in objective reality. It should all be touched on in this article. This article is lacking a big chunk of alt med only because NCCAM didn't put much of it on its own list, and this article appears to be mostly written from the NCCAM page. ("Sure-makes-sense-but-scientific-testing-needed-to-prove-it" is called a medical hypothesis waiting to be tested, not alternative medicine.) FloraWilde (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Medscape articles[edit]

Here are a couple new articles from Medscape dealing with AM/CAM:

  • Citation template: <ref name=Stern>{{Citation |last=Stern |first=Victoria |date=02 September 2014 |title=Mythbusters: Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830552_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>
  • Citation template: <ref name=Miller>{{Citation |last=Miller |first=Gabriel |date=02 September 2014 |title=Asking the Experts: Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830553_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>

Registration is easy and free. Medscape is a good RS, sometimes as a MEDRS, and other times for expert opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Real Medicine and Alternative Medicine[edit]

I have not noticed any section that says that some modern day treatments (like salicylic acid) are derived from herbal medicine. We should properly note that some well-studied treatments have been discovered to be false, and some to be shown helpful. For starters, the Pacific Yew berries were eaten in North America by natives, and have now been shown to be potential chemotherapic drugs. :) just a though. Qwed117 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Merrick, Janna (June 2003). "Spiritual Healing, Sick Kids and the Law: Inequities in the American Healthcare System". American Journal of Law & Medicine 29 (2): 269–299. 
  2. ^ "Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect". Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2007. Retrieved 2009-02-27.  [dead link]