Talk:History of alternative medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I disagree with this article's assertion that the term modern only encompasses the last 30 years. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ 20:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The history of alternative medicine in the West reads as if there was a conspiracy to suppress it, perpetrated by the Catholic Church and professional physicians. I very much doubt that this is the case. Although I am not terribly familiar medical history, I would think that alternative medicine declined in the face of professional medicine, because professional medicine tended to move in sync with scientific advancement. Alternative medicine was simply labelled superstitious (with good reason), the more science learned about the human body. -- 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the above is far from true. The folk healers were the psychics and witches, and they healed with the magical and psychic properties of the herbs; the efforts of the catholic church to stamp them out are well documented. Science also rejects a priori the perceptions of the healers and shamans. Aniksker (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV problems[edit]

1. Except for the last section, this article has NO references! That needs fixing. It is unsourced assertion and all but the last section could be deleted, but let's see if anyone will source it.

2. The article is written in an unencyclopedic style with many fluff words.

3. The last section reads like a copyvio, but I'm not sure about its history here, and I can't find a copy. If it's a copyvio, maybe someone else can find it. If this was written by one or more editors here, kudos for providing sources. If that's the case, then it's not a copyvio and apologies to the author(s).

The article needs tags. I'll add some, and if someone finds more suitable ones, then just use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs an enema FiachraByrne (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"enema"? Maybe, but could be better said of Alternative medicine, if not something more drastic per "Regain focus"[1]]. I have revised History article to make a link to List of branches of alternative medicine instead, but please would any previous editor revert if not acceptable. Editors will know that the List links to Glossary of alternative medicine which in turn links to Alternative medicine.Qexigator (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No this article was then far worse than the Alternative Medicine article is currently [2]. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and now all the better for the further edits after 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC), but the Ayurvedic medicine section is still labelled problematic. Could that not be hived off to another article, as for Chinese culture, where it need not vex those who seem to be so anxious to protect the USA population and professional bodies and healthcare program from all that? Qexigator (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine are relevant to the History of alternative medicine. The current content is unsourced and inadequate but I'd like to keep it there as a placeholder until I get the opportunity to fix it. It's tagged for neutrality and lack of sources which is fine by me. Same with the material about CAM in the UK (although this is sourced). I've another article to finish before then so it might be a few weeks before I get the opportunity to get down to it and there are quite a few other sections in the article- currently hidden - that I'd like to do first (medical botany, hydropathy, etc). As regards those sections vexing any editors – or even why that should be a concern in the absence of sources and arguments – there's no evidence of that here at the moment so it appears to be a non-issue. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from 1784 Commission[edit]

Just stashing this here:FiachraByrne (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Commissioners have found that the magnetic fluid is not detectable with any other senses; that this fluid has no action, either on the Commissioners or on the patients subjected to it ... they have demonstrated by decisive experiments that imagination, apart from magnetism, produces convulsions, and that magnetism without imagination produces nothing

Conclusion of the 1784 royal appointed commission of inquiry into mesmerism.[1]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).