Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

New terminology/definition

Looks good to me. Well-referenced, good language, NPOV tone. Good work. DVMt (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The revision for "Complementary medicine"[2] reads better, and agreed that the wording replaced not supported by those sources. Moreover, the body as now revised gives a much better account, with sources, than before of the way in which these terms have come into public discussion and are currently being used. Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Qexigator, it's much appreciated. Incidentally, I think the IP editor additions of the past few months need to be reviewed very carefully. I've come across a few where the cited references in no way support the article text (one about lead in TCM products & another about most practitioners regarding homeopathy as quackery - both statements may well be true but the sources were completely misused). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine – FiachraByrne (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant policy According to WP:COMMONNAME, the choice of article title should reflect the name most frequently used in reliable sources and in determining this it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, media outlets, quality encyclopedias, major scientific bodies and notable scientific journals. Search engine returns are contained in the Table 1 below.

According to the guideline, Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term" (See MedMos:Naming conventions).

Wiki Article Traffic statistics (last item Table 1) are relevant per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which states: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

Table 2 contains data to weigh the relative influence by citation metrics of scholarly publications using either of the two terms

This name change is controversial as the article title is significant for proponents and opponents of alternative medicine/complementary and alternative medicine. However, policy directs that the choice of name should not reflect one's preferred moral or political perspective.

Table 1: Search results for "Complementary and alternative medicine" versus "Alternative medicine"

Database	Term	Date range	Results	Url
PubMed (article titles)	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	1915	URL
	Alternative medicine		1056	URL
	Complementary and alternative medicine	2003–2013	1594	URL
	Alternative medicine		253	URL
Scopus (article titles)	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	1,402	None
	Alternative medicine		812	None
	Complementary and alternative medicine	2003-2013	1,202	None
	Alternative medicine		265	None
Web of Science (article titles)	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	1913	None
	Alternative medicine		1,144	None
	Complementary and alternative medicine	2003-2013	1590	None
	Alternative medicine		366	None
Google Scholar (article titles)	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	4,430	[3]
	Alternative medicine		2,950	[4]
	Complementary and alternative medicine	2003–2013	3,400	[5]
	Alternative medicine		871	[6]
Google Books	Complementary and alternative medicine	2003-2013	98,400	[7]
	Alternative medicine		192,000	[8]
Google News	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	396	[9]
	Alternative medicine		11,800	[10]
Google Web	Complementary and alternative medicine	All years	3,370,000	[11]
	Alternative medicine		53,200,000	[12]
Wiki Article Traffic Stats	Complementary and alternative medicine	March 2013	443	[13]
	Alternative medicine		9,562	[14]

Search terms

PubMed urls

Notes

Table 2: Harzing's Publish or Perish search results for "Alternative medicine" versus "Complementary and alternative medicine" in the titles of sources (2003-13) (analysis of top 1000 most cited papers from Google Scholar using either term in article title)

Query	Papers	Citations	Years	Cites/Year	Cites/Paper	Cites/Author	Papers/Author	Authors/Paper	h-index	g-index	hc-index	hI-index	hI-norm	QueryDate
Complementary and alternative medicine from 2003 to 2013: all	1000	27564	11	2505.82	27.56	10246.87	438.64	3.04	67	110	40	19.18	35	06/03/2013
Alternative medicine, NOT Complementary from 2003 to 2013: all	1000	3435	11	312.27	3.44	1888.49	756.94	1.77	28	47	20	10.89	21	06/03/2013

• A 2005 study which sampled 102 alternative medicine/complementary and alternative medicine articles from 5 leading medical journals (1965-1999) concluded:

  Medical practices outside the orthodoxy can be referred to and defined in a number of ways. While some still call them “quackery” (Barrett and Jarvis 1993; Dawkins 2003) or, less derisively, “unorthodox” or “unconventional” therapies, the current custom among researchers is to refer to treatments such as acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and herbal remedies collectively as “complementary and alternative medicine” or CAM. The term CAM acknowledges both their disjuncture or lack of “conformity with the standards of the medical community” (Eisenberg et al. 1993:246), and the simultaneous growth of public acceptance and their integration into conventional treatment regimens.[15]

• Almost all official bodies prefer "Complementary and alternative medicine" or its acronym "CAM" to "Alternative medicine". This includes the WHO, the FDA, the European Union, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services (NIH & NCCAM), the US National Library of Medicine, the NHS, the Mayo Clinic and many, many others.

I've changed the way the data is presented. I hope no-one objects but the original move request template wouldn't let me use tables and I think they present the information in a clearer fashion. Please feel to revert if you think that these amendments are problematic. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Following IRWolife's comments below, I've added the search results from Scopus and Web of Science which should be considered more reliable than Google Scholar (but are not accessible to all, unfortunately). For Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar only the article titles have been included in the search. This should eliminate problems with returning accurate results for these databases at least. For Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, I've included searches for all available years and searches within a date range (2003-2013). I think this indicates the decline in usage of alternative medicine as a stand alone term since the emergence of the term "complmentary and alternative medicine" in reliable sources (1996). FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Added quote from and link to the MedMos article section on naming conventions; it seemed relevant to many of the arguments below. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• A related talk happened in 2007 also - see Talk:Complementary_medicine#Merge_2. It seems that in that case, Alternative medicine and Complementary medicine became separate articles, but then the sources used to develop complementary medicine were criticized and the article never developed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice table Fiachra. I learned tons of new stuff too (h-index, g-index, etc). This might be on these rare moments that, despite the scientific data clearly leaning in one direction, the populace might reject it because it doesn't understand or realize that a shift had occurred. Regardless, by far the best ever wiki proposal I've seen. Bravo, Lord Fiachra Byrne! DVMt (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strong support. As an encyclopaedia, we prefer scholarly sources which is mandatory with medicine related article. This is already the most common term (CAM) and the distinction between alt-med, complementary med and integrative med are significant and should be taken into strong consideration. Thus, based on 1) prevalence, 2) commonality and 3) spirit I support the move. Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose.

1. The "evidence against an article name change" presented above weighs very strongly. AM is by far the mostly commonly known term with the public, including the medical public. All know what it is. We do not tailor articles to a particular class but to all readers.
2. Regardless of the setting (CM, IM), it is AM methods which are used. The methods do not change. To understand this, I'll use an analogy: The methods are the "car." Regardless of which parking spot one chooses (a private garage or a public parking building), the car remains the same. Even when the drivers change, the car remains the same. The CAR is the subject, and only incidentally is it of interest to mention the different types of possible parking situations, or different types of drivers. That would only use about one page in the drivers handbook, which contains about 783 pages.
3. This subject is, by its nature, not a scientific subject, but a fringe subject that infringes on the scientific and medical domain, but still pushed by unscientific, non-medical, or fringe medical people, hence it is often ignored by scholarly sources. It is more of a polarizing popularity thing, hence all the controversy. It has always been opposed to mainstream medicine, attacks mainstream medicine and medical doctors in the strongest possible terms, seeks to alienate the public from mainstream medicine by doing so, is often anti-science, and there is a real battle going on, with science on one side, and marketing on the other, hence its close association with quackery, fraud and scams. It is a sociological and legal phenomenon, and only a medical and scientific one because it is a sociological phenomenon that intrudes into the medical arena. Because it relates to health and medicine, sociologists are poorly qualified to really understand or comment on it, and are therefore usually not the best sources, except for certain sociological aspects. As far as the scientific or medical part, they invariably get it wrong and choose the wrong side.
4. The "C" in CAM stands for "Complementary," referring to the use of AM methods together with mainstream methods, which is very common. "C" is not an independent entity or method (a "car"), but a "setting" (a garage and/or driver), and we have already explained that in the article. It takes no more than a couple sentences to explain it, and is not enough for a separate article, which is why a clear majority favored merging the "Complementary medicine" stub article into this one.
5. I have still not seen any new arguments that justify a name change, but I'm open. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
6. It's called "alternative medicine". "CAM" is still running on the euphemism treadmill; the new hotness is "integrative medicine" - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Concur with Brangifer/BullRangifer's reasoning. Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose I do not think that the name "alternative medicine" should be made more specific because that would be making the term more technical. Already the terms "Alternative medicine", "Complementary medicine", and "Alternative and complementary medicine" are very difficult to define. These things exist in every culture and are defined differently everywhere, and there are no recognized international authorities in this field. What is alternative medicine in one culture may be accepted in another as standard, and the word "complementary" as applied to medicine may mean healthcare that is alternative or not. I support keeping "Alternative medicine" as its own article without further qualifying the title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Could find a bunch of references to "cars and trucks," wouldn't mean Truck should be moved to Cars and trucks. LCS check (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support though it's not a big issue as long as we clearly define / describe the different terms (CAM,traditional,integrative) early on. CAM is the obvious choice, since it's the preferred term of major bodies, academics, practitioners, users and even critics. It may well be a deceptive euphemism but ironically this adds support for change since medics (nice bunch that they are) will generally stop using a term when it develops negative connotations (Geriatrics,Mongel,Cretins etc...). The higher number of google results seems to be the only real reason for sticking with the status quo. I think Common names is there to stop pendents hijacking titles and confusing everybody by changing salt to sodium chloride. This is clearly not the case here.Aspheric (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose here based on above reasoning. — raekyt 02:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support because WP:COMMONNAME says that the title for an article is usually determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources; as this article falls within medicine and pseudoscience categories, policy and convention indicate that the most reliable sources are scholarly sources. A search of Pubmed and Google Scholar both indicate that "Complementary & Alternative Medicine" is more common than "Alternative Medicine". Moreover, almost all official bodies use "Complementary and alternative medicine" (Eg: the WHO, the FDA, the European Union, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services (NIH & NCCAM), the US National Library of Medicine, the NHS,etc.). Puhlaa (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that the search is flawed. It excludes all articles which mention both "alternative medicine" and "complementary and alternative medicine" when counting for AM, but when counting for C&AM, it includes those (I'm also a little surprised at the low volume of PubMed articles for both terms!). I was wondering why only articles from 2003 to 2012 were used, then I checked and removing the dates evens the numbers up a lot http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28%22Alternative+medicine%22[Title]%29+NOT+%28%22Complementary+and+alternative+medicine%22[Title]%29+NOT+%28%22Complementary+alternative+medicine%22[Title]%29], http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28%28%22Complementary+and+alternative+medicine%22[Title]%29%29. Because of WP:GOOGLEHITS type reasoning, we can't determine the quality of the bulk of these sources, so it doesn't really add a lot. The current name "alternative" is all inclusive as it is anyway, so I don't see the point of the change. It seems it is an issue of a euphemism treadmill so I agree with David Gerard, I also agree with much of Brangifer's reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem (exclusion of all articles which mention both "alternative medicine" and "complementary and alternative medicine" when counting for AM, but their inclusion when counting for C&AM) but I'm not sure, and would be genuinely interested in hearing, what search terms you'd propose instead to resolve it. Given what is excluded from the AM searches ("complementary and alternative medicine"), however, I would think that that would mostly be a problem for in-text rather than article title searches. For Pubmed the search is limited to article titles so I assume the results should be fairly representative. Likewise, I've now limited the Google scholar results to the article/source titles which again should pretty much resolve the problem. I can't do the same for Google Books (there's some kind of malfunction) but the results, as with those for the remaining search engines are pretty unambiguous anyway. The date is limited to the last 10 years to attempt to capture current research norms - I don't see any justification for not limiting the date range. I'll add the pubmed results with the unrestricted date range in any case. In your reference to WP:GOOGLEHITS I'm not sure if you're dismissing all the Google results, including the specialist searches (Scholar, Books, News), or just the Google Web search. If the latter, I'd agree although, again, the difference is so massively in favour of AM that it's hardly relevant. I would disagree if you're dismissing the former, however, and especially Google Scholar (indeed even WP:GOOGLEHITS indicates that it's more reliable than the straight web search - which, as it's an estimate rather than a count, wouldn't be hard). It's inferior to Web of Science & Scopus and does return more inadequate sources but it performs pretty well for medical and scientific literature, and gives a reasonable indication, I think, where the difference in results is not marginal. I'll add a Scopus search when I have a chance. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Added results from Scopus and Web of Science search results (limited to article titles). Included date restricted and non-date restricted results for PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (all these searches limited to article titles). I think this indicates pretty clearly the decline in usage of "alternative medicine" relative to "complementary and alternative medicine" as a stand-alone term in this literature. I should also add that for in-text searches it was impossible to meaningfully search for CAM which is a frequently used acronym for complementary and alt med. Anyway, I've addressed your comments as best I can. If you have any suggestions for any improvements to the search parameters I'd be delighted to hear them. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The title and organization are called Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Both terms 'complementary' and 'alternative' link to this article, which is a correct naming. Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Even a casual acquaintance with the dictionary definitions of the words "alternative" and "complementary" is enough to show that these two words are not at all related. Similarly, therefore, the ideologies of the respective proponents of these two approaches are very different. All of our previous polls on this issue have recognized this fact in coming to the conclusion that the two articles should remain separate. To me, no new arguments have been presented here that in any way change the conclusions we arrived at previously. Vitaminman (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

But people use both terms interchangeably for these practices by and large. Alternative medicine was the first used term and CAM came into use later. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the CAM acronym came later in recognition of a newer application of alternative medicine methods - as a "complement" to standard care. This is done in some alternative friendly practices and centers where non-SBM doctors don't mind blending things. The acronym does not denote the use of different methods (they are still unproven and/or disproven), but a new setting for their use. AM practitioners and spokespersons of the more scammish and vitriolic type do not favor CAM, since they viciously attack mainstream medicine. They still want their methods used "instead" of mainstream medicine. They want their victims as far away from MDs as possible. Sensible people don't buy that, but many are brainwashed. They are the ones in real danger when they get cancer and serious illnesses. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is pure conjecture Brangifer. They want their methods used instead of? No reference for this statement despite evidence to the contrary that the majority of practitioners and patients use it to complement rather than replace their care. Then special pleading invoking cancer? We understand you're ideologically opposed to CAM. But please don't try to confuse readers when the data says the opposite to which you claim. Also, another unsourced claim of vitriolic attacks of CAM on mainstream med when the opposite has been proven? (see Committee on Chiropractic/ Quackery 1963). The current era is one of collaboration, Brangifer, not one a generation ago when they supposedly were battling each other. There's a good reason why there's integration occurring and it's because there is good evidence for certain therapies (acupuncture, manipulation). I fully agree that some CAM has no evidence (see homeopathy et al.) but we should be able to distinguish amongst the interventions themselves, not just their 'umbrella'. DVMt (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again. Note this: "AM practitioners and spokespersons of the more scammish and vitriolic type..." We're talking about two different groups of people. I am often in contact with these types, more so than those who endorse the "complementary" use of AM in the "CAM" setting. The ones I'm referring to are represented by the likes of Bolen, Mercola, Trudeau, etc.. They are vehemently critical of mainstream medicine, and advocate many nonsensical and dangerous methods. The ones I'm referring to often use phrases like "slash, burn, and poison" when referring to cancer treatments and they are anti-vaccination, advocate zappers, homeopathy, chelation therapy, lifetime spinal adjustments, ear candling, faith healing, iridology, naturopathy, etc.. We're talking about two different groups of people, so your criticism is misplaced. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the relevant point I think. "CAM", since its introduction into the medical and medical humanities literature in 1996 (ish), has displaced "alternative medicine" and - even if people think CAM incoherent or poorly conceived - is now used to refer to the same object as alternative medicine in that literature. It's a composite, and a muddled one at that, but dictionary consultation is not informative of how these terms are used in the literature. Personally, I think the strongest point against the move is not founded on any objections to the term itself (people object; so what? the article title should normally reflect the scholarly literature and it's not for editors to determine that the topic title favoured by the relevant field(s) is wrong) but in Wiki Traffic Statistics which clearly indicate that most readers search for alternative medicine. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiachra, you analyze the situation perfectly. Scientists and researchers publish, while practitioners of AM don't do research and don't publish, hence the paucity of mentions in scholarly sources. That doesn't mean that AM is practiced any less. On the contrary. The mentions of AM continue unabated in other sources, including RS which we quote, and the public reads them; they don't read research. IF the Wiki Traffic Statistics were close to the stats for the scholarly sources, I'd probably be favorable to the move, but since they totally drown the numbers from scholarly sources, and the public searches for AM far more than for CAM, I still oppose the proposed change of title. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep it broad and simple. II | (t - c) 08:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Prefer the original term as it is in greater common usage even though both mean the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support I support a change because 1) Although we use the term "Alternative medicine" (alt med), modern sources such as Cochrane, etc., only offer definitions for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" (CAM)--we shouldn't have to make up our own definition because the other sources have all moved forward and now use the more correct and appropriate term CAM. 2) Almost all of our studies are for CAM rather than alt med. One can see from the research done by FiachraByrne that PubMed, for instance, has moved forward to the more accurate term in the last 10 years. 3) Only a very small percentage of people use these substances/practices in place of mainstream meds/practices--they use them to complement mainstream meds and tx. 4) Roughly 1/3 of hospitals now offer CAM. 5) It has been argued that we must use the word that people are more accustomed to. Perhaps, but I'm glad that we don't have a "heart attack" article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That could be better said in support of renaming the article "Mainstream and complementary medicine" (or Complementary and mainstream medicine), and then reorganizing the article to subordinate "alternative" as something currently not regarded as complementary with mainstream". This would require a redirect for "alternative".Wouldn't that make better sense? Qexigator (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. My point is that we have had to torture and twist a definition that fits our outdated article title. It is different than any of the other definitions used by any of our sources. One would never get away with this with almost any other article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. The most common term nowadays is definitely CAM, and the research bears this out. The article does seem "special" as there is a lot of leeway given here. I think, in all honesty, that WP:IAR applies here (and would agree with the evidence presented by Fiachra) DVMt (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Break all rules! Gosh, I'm arguing that we need to follow the rules! Where do you see a rule that we need to break? Gandydancer (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandy: The lead is for this article not a lexicography. Try not to get too fixed an idea due to using the word definition. The opening sentence neither applauds nor deplores the use of any kind of medicine, "Flexner" type or any other. A reader (like some editors) may bring to the article some prejudice, rational or emotive, of his/her own but the purpose of the article is to inform free from POV and prejudice one way or the other. "CAM" can explain nothing at all on its own, but only as a derivative of the distinction which some would prefer to blur or obliterate between mainstream and other. Qexigator (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Gandy. I know, I know... but in the rare case where WP doesn't "work" (i.e. renaming this article, for example despite the evidence to the contrary) one can invoke IAR. That rule is out there for a reason, but I'm not going to use it here, but if there's a good use for it, it would be here. DVMt (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: Qexigator, I agree with Gandydancer that the lead must be re-worked. Fiachra can help us with this, if he choose, but I don't doubt his ability to navigate these waters and produce the same brilliance that is the new terminology section. DVMt (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the standard name recognized by the general public. Those of us who spend a lot of time reading about this sort of thing are familiar with the other terms, but unless the term 'alternative medicine' is replaced in the common lexicon, I see no reason to rename. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is the common name for the current article topic. The statistics that indicate otherwise are heavily biased because there's a strong POV that is well represented on the web favouring alternative as opposed to conventional medicine, and the term complementary medicine was invented by this faction to promote their cause. So it's exactly the sort of terminology we should avoid. And according to the current lead [16], alternative medicine includes complementary medicine anyway. Andrewa (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It would help me, as a layman (UK) with practically no prior information or involvement beyond starting to edit here about 4 months ago, what is the evidence for saying 'the term complementary medicine was invented by this faction to promote their cause'. Qexigator (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable request, and if the argument depended on this evidence, or if I were proposing to add this factoid to the article, then I'd take the time to look for it. But it doesn't, and I'm not. And the existence of this POV is I think common knowledge.

But more important, the scope of the article is according to the current lead (which is I think accurate on this point) quite adequately covered by alternative medicine, so complicating the article title as proposed serves no purpose, and is therefore contrary to guidelines. Happy to provide evidence supporting these claims if you like. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Have already opposed for such reasons, so no need for evidence of that kind. My impression is that there may be factions on all sides but that not all who support or promote the use of the term complementary are merely factious, or even misguided. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Any significant evidence for or against a move that should be added to the proposal? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Aside from any amendments to the proposal above based on other editors comments, I'm just going to post this at the relevant Wikiprojects and then do a Pontius Pilate.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work! Gandydancer (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ta - but this isn't in support of any POV barring the preponderance of the sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Notified relevant wikiprojects: [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21] FiachraByrne (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in bringing the other projects to comment. This will ensure a good consensus across WP which is, IMO, the right way intelligently discuss/debate controversial subjects. This is the most thorough requests move I'm come across. Sensible, well-balanced, objective and in depth scientific analysis. Good work Fiachra! Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

'Tis true, I'm more god than man. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You deserve a pint, Lord Byrne. DVMt (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Notified all major article pro- and anti- POV pushers contributors. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FiachraByrne, for a diligent effort. Have you read wp:GOOGLETEST? It provides much useful guidance in such cases. I'm not sure, though, how the above frequency comparison of "A and B" versus "B" in any way implies that "A" is part of "B", yet that is precisely what such a page move would imply: that "complementary" is a subtopic of "alternative". They are clearly not intended to mean the same thing, or else the term "complementary and alternative medicine" would be very rare and "complementary or alternative medicine" would be seen far more often, as would "alternative or complementary". We must conclude that "complementary" is conceptually distinct from "alternative", despite having many features in common. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean you favour two distinct articles (CM, AM?) Or do you think they should fit under the umbrella (Complementary/alternative medicine). There is a proposal here to merge Integrative medicine into this article so we might as well get these issues out of the way so we can work towards a GA status. Regards, DVMt (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely they're distinct concepts - or points on a spectrum - in what is loosely conceived as a single field basically defined by its distance or proximity to whatever is considered to be the medical orthodoxy. The further onto professionalisation & (subordinate) incorporation into the medical mainstream a given "CAM" (sbharris's much detested "gemish") is the more complementary (or, indeed, "integrated") it is; likewise the further from this goal the more "alternative" it is. I'm not arguing that the term is necessarily coherent or apt just that it is what is used in reliable sources and by official bodies. I think I can finesse the Google Scholar search through Harzing's Publish or Perish. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with DVMt that your argument may imply two articles (please god no). I'm blocked from doing any more automated searches by Google Scholar using Publish or Perish (through which I can limit the search to article titles and get some kind of measurement of influence of term in the field) so it'll be a few hours before I can do that. We could go into WEB of Science and Scopus. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for link to WP:GOOGLETEST - very useful. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd suggest that Pubmed offers the most impartial search tools for this sort of work, except that they have a well known pro-evidence bias :-) If there is a strong consensus to cover CAM and AM in a single article, the obvious choice would be to make AM a section of CAM. There might also be an argument for Integrative medicine or Fringe sections, though that would likely be a harder consensus to find. One difficulty is that adherents of each particular school tend to see their favorite nearer to the complementary than the alternative end of the credibility spectrum, generally with scads of low-quality sources to back up their positions. Another difficulty is that some schools (e.g. Naturopathy) encompass many of these methods, spanning from the purest placebos (ultramolecular homeopathy) to very credible forms of physiotherapy (TENS). We have to have authoritative evidence-based sources that compare the credibility of these methods, not make such comparisons ourselves. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The pubmed results are the first ones posted above. I would have put all the search results in a table but the bloody template wouldn't let me and it's difficult to read the info as a result. I may do so now if I get a free moment. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Fiachra for good preparatory work here. It gets the ball rolling in a proper manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling the (ecumenical) love. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that, in terms of evidence, being labelled 'alt-med' is pejorative when an intervention displays evidence of effectiveness and safety. This was brought to my attention in an earlier discussion, much like how physicians dislike the term 'allopathic' medicine, which allegedly infers quackery. DVMt (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that editors can just vote and not provide their own reasoning. Hopefully we can get actual reasons by the majority of responders and not simply parroting other people's words. DVMt (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Further reason for opposing: The word "alternative" is in itself an accurate descriptor, which has been in use in public discussion and academic papers from about the beginning of the 1970's, as described in the article. It is neutral. Giving preference to using it inaccurately by coupling it analphabetically with "complementary", instead of on its own, is POV-ish, except where the coupling is a contraction of convenience intended accurately (and without emotive import) to mean: "alternative medicine and complementary medicine and neither of those two exclusive of the other". In its everyday use, it simply means "practices that fall outside the scope of conventional medicine" as in Glossary of alternative medicine: "This is a glossary for terms and concepts being used in Alternative Medicine, a large category of practices that fall outside the scope of conventional medicine". By "complementary medicine" is usually meant "conventional medicine used with some other sort of medicine not commonly regarded on its own as conventional". What specifically is meant above by saying "official bodies prefer 'Complementary and alternative medicine' "? Is that a preference, or a proper use for the partcular context, meaning "alternative medicine and complementary medicine and neither of those two exclusive of the other"? Qexigator (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The gist of it is skeptics do not want the word complementary mentioned because proves that some CAM is safe and effective. To scientists, at least, there is consensus that, presently, CAM is the most common term, used by the most productive scholars in the highest impact of journals. Skeptics are supposed to stand by science, not just merely be ideologues. That's dogma, not skepticism, IMO. DVMt (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. No "skeptic" cares if CAM turns out to be "safe and effective" in a test where the controls are done so we know which part of the "effectiveness" is due to the orthodox procedure alone, which part to the alternative alone, and which part (if any) is due to some synergistic effect of the two (if so, happy day). That is how the scientific method works. It's how Withering discovered the effect of digitalis, for example.

Speaking for us practitioners, what I don't like is stone soup, where you toss in the kitchen sink and any success gets shared out equally. For example, you get badly bitten by a dog with tissue flaps and evulsions and I spend an hour suturing you up and for a week you get antibiotics and careful wound care. But you also add homeopathics and candomble on your own, and when you get better, you figure they all should get praise. Well, try it without the AM, is all I can say. Then, next time, treat your bad animal bite with homeopathics and Brazilian native woo, without seeing a Western physician. Bonne chance. Experience is a hard teacher but a fool will have no other. It's sort of the same experiment where a woman who has had several children under standard types of analgesia wants to try it "naturally" or using some alternative pain control techniques. A few are indeed thrilled. Nearly all, however, only try that once. SBHarris 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I'll have to agree with Sbharris. If I had been drinking coffee, I'd have had to clean my keyboard. BS is the word. I can think of no reason why anyone, especially skeptics, would not want to use the word Complementary. DVMt, please give me one reason, since you seem to understand the skeptic mind so well. I'll be expecting an answer immediately under this comment, right after my signature.

The word "complementary" hasn't a shred to do with effectiveness. It only describes a setting. It means that AM methods are being used in "complement" (together with) with mainstream methods, which many patients do, and some alternative-friendly MDs do. The closest it comes to "effectiveness" is the hope of the practitioner, but there is no evidence that it improves objective outcomes, although some things, like meditation, might improve the subjective experience, and that might have its place as long as deception isn't involved (like claiming that homeopathy or Bach flower remedies will better the prognosis.) It's a noun meaning: supplement - addition - adjunct. It's used "in addition to." That's all it means. The methods are still AM methods on the one hand, and mainstream methods on the other. The AM methods are "practices, and products that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine," (NCCAM) and "have not been proven effective using scientific methods." (NSF)

DVMt, please explain yourself. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy reading SBHarris's comments, I think s/he means they're speaking for a practioner, rather than us practitioners, since medicine is a broad church. It's also a mistake to think that we have to compare like for like. If we assume we're using the antibiotic appropriately and not as a dangerous placebo (e.g. otitis media), then the reason to add the homeopathy is to make yourself feel better about getting bit by the dog in the first place (i.e complementary). That's not to say its all placebo. Sterilised talc for pleurodesis, tea bags for blepharitis and cabbage leaves for mastitis/inflammation are all cheaper and generally better than their steripacked counterparts. Even the most cynical medic will admit there's a role for alt med to complement medicine to use common sense, to develop new ideas, to reassure the worried well and to provide counselling without calling it as such. Hence the acronym TEETH (tried everything else, try homeopathy) you sometimes see in medical notes, often applied to GROLIES (Guardian readers of limited intelligence in ethnic skirts) with NAD (no abnormality discovered). I don't think you have to worry about losing the credit since most people will have the sense to call an ambulance not a homeopath if they're having a heart attack. The biggest concern is to be sure that alt practitioners know their limits. In some senses you pay your money and you take your choice, though choice can be limited in countries without universal healthcare provision.

That's part of the reason the article is so long and convuluted, the issues are complex and cannot be boiled down to "a scientist said...so it must be all rubbish". I don't know if it's reasurring or depressing that these idiotic arguments are going on at the highest levels and not just on wikipedia [[22]]. I think we should just make sure all the relevant terms direct to the same article (whatever its called) and are described clearly before we worry about listing the pros and cons for each.Aspheric (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather than watch this deteriorate into name calling, I'll simply point to "What Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine?" at the NCCAM. They certainly do distinguish CAM from AM from IM. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent source that clearly differentiates the types of CAM. A good source to use for the definitions/terminology as well as the lead. DVMt (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited. They actually muddy the waters. They use CAM as a synonym for AM sometimes, which really confuses things. The section "Defining CAM" is really bad. Let's analyze it, and I'll strike the improper words and substitute the correct word in parentheses() so it makes sense, because it doesn't the way it's written:

• ""Complementary medicine" refers to use of CAM (alternative medicine) together with conventional medicine, such as using acupuncture in addition to usual care to help lessen pain. Most use of CAM (alternative medicine) by Americans is complementary. "Alternative medicine" refers to use of CAM (AM=unconventional practices) in place of conventional medicine."

They really screwed up that paragraph. Other sources do it much better. It doesn't help much that we use a definition of IM that is identical to Complementary Medicine, and even use a letter from a general practitioner as the source! That needs to be fixed. We're not allowed to do that. It's this one (currently #9): James May (12 July 2011). "College of Medicine: What is integrative health?". British Medical Journal 343: d4372. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4372. PMID 21750063.

MedicineNet.com gets it almost right:

• "Complementary medicine: A group of diagnostic and therapeutic disciplines that are used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using acupuncture in addition to usual care to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.
  "Complementary medicine is different from alternative medicine. Whereas complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine." [23]

The last sentence could be greatly improved with this simple fix:

• "Whereas complementary medicine is used (uses alternative medical methods) together with conventional medicine, alternative medicine is used (uses them) in place of conventional medicine."

I hope that clears it up. We simply can't depend on one source for an accurate definition. By using several RS we can word our own definition (standard practice in a lede) that is better than anywhere else, because we base it on several RS. That is acceptable synthesis, because it is based on RS and does not create anything really "new," just clearer. Here's a try:

• Alternative medicine is a group of diagnostic methods and treatment practices that are used instead of conventional medical practice. They are diagnostic methods and "treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods." (NSF)

• Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it increases the effectiveness, or "complements", the treatment. (This part is verbatim from our lede, and is pretty well-written.)

Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That looks acceptable: use "diagnostic methods" as the distinguishing feature in place of Flexner type etc (per my earlier edits). Why has this not come up before (or has it)? Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If we move this to "CAM", what will happen to the new stub (previously a redirect to here) at Complementary medicine? It qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyvio, if we need to get rid of it, but I don't mind having an article specifically about the use of non-conventional treatments in conjunction with conventional ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the stub because 1. People are most likely looking for the alternative medicine article 2. The stub didn't link to the alternative medicine article 3. The alternative medicine article has more details about the same topic. I would suggest writing a section here (or compiling from the existing text) about non-conventional techniques alongside conventional ones and then forking that off. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both. The stub is unnecessary given a proper section be given to evidence-based conventional +unconventional. DVMt (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misuse of sources and reverting with respect to the lead

There is another attempt to misuse sources, this time in the lead. The sources are mainly commentary from Edzard Ernst, and are used to change the definition of complementary medicine by adding the words "not supported by scientific evidence". This is a white-washing of the definition, and the source is from 1996. Seasoned editors can surely see the problem with synthesis here. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You really need to stop this WP:TE. At least find one non-spa who agrees with you before you make controversial changes. The descriptions you give your edits are very counter-productive as well, you aren't fooling anyone. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DVMt, your edit summaries are often incomplete and sometimes appear to be outright deceptive. I hope that's not the case, but it's a pattern and we see it repeated again and again across multiple articles, so it's at the least a systemic bias that's influencing your editing. Because of this you're going to end up finding that any and all of your edits of more than a few words will get reverted on sight. We don't have confidence in your competency or ability to edit objectively. That English seems to be your second language explains many of the grammatical and spelling errors, but other changes can't be explained that way.

Right above you are misusing the word "white-washing." You probably mean "smear" or something like that. What you are doing is the "white-washing" by removing whatever you believe paints alternative medicine in a negative light, even when it comes from very RS, like the NSF. You even remove the sources themselves!

You also make it confusing when you repeatedly use words that are not in the text. You've stated several times "not supported by science" (in your edit summaries), when the wording in the text is actually "not proven by using scientific methods." Try to quote exactly. Whether that is an improper paraphrasing of the sources is something we can discuss here without edit warring. So, let's discuss it. Here is the relevant wording of that paragraph:

• Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it increases the effectiveness, or "complements", the treatment.

Maybe by moving each ref to exactly the right spot it will be easier to make it clear which words are supported by which reference. Grouping them all at the end of a sentence does create confusion.

One sentence that I'd like to see analyzed is this one:

• Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it increases the effectiveness, or "complements", the treatment.

There are two phrases to examine, and I'll number them so that we can refer to the number later in this thread:

1. "...not proven by using scientific methods,..."
2. "...that it increases the effectiveness,..."

So, let's hash this out here and stop the edit warring. We just need to create a collaboratively created consensus version we can all support. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Explanatory notes

Footnotes

Diffs

DVMt edit: [24]

Status quo: [25]

FiachraByrne (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Current text from the body of the article reads:

"Complementary medicine" refers to use of alternative medicine alongside conventional science based medicine, in the belief that it increases the effectiveness. In Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, chapter 7 of a report Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, 2002, issued by a United States government agency (The National Science Foundation), it was stated that the term "alternative medicine" was there being used to refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using scientific methods (NSF of SRS, of NSB, 2002).

FiachraByrne (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry BullRangifer, I moved this up here as it was messing up the comments section; feel free to remove but I couldn't think of a better solution. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Which references (and exact wording in them) are used to supported 1 and 2? I think 1 is backed up by the NSF reference, but what about 2? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to look at re-writing the definition of complementary medicine in the body of the text so, from my self-interested point of view, this is unfortunate. I haven't looked at the sources in detail yet (both those cited here and other sources that could be cited), but my instinct is that the status quo definition should be broken up into two sentences (1. Comp med is alt med used in conjunction with conventional med; 2. Lacks an solid evidence base). I'd probably eliminate any mention of "belief" unless there was very strong support for this from the sources (getting at motives is very nebulous - I'd imagine a lot of the "belief" governing the availability of complementary practices in conventional biomedical settings is that consumer demand dictates that it should be offered rather than a belief in its effectiveness). Alternatively, the lead could just say that comp med refers to the use of med in conjunction with conventional med and say elsewhere in the lead that alt med (mostly, entirely, substantially, whatever) lacks strong evidence of efficacy (or words to that effect). Although I have no very strong objections, I guess I'd be a bit worried that the current definition might be a bit of a synthesis but I'd need to look at broader selection of sources to come to that conclusion. Whatever the preferred wording, the lead should contain a statement about the general scientific status of alt med drawn from the body of the text.

Ernst does not propose a usable definition of complementary medicine (in the abstract there is a definition of alt med). His/her article attempts to query some assumptions about complementary medicine, which is a different thing, and tends to elide any qualitative difference between conventional and alt med. It seems kind of atypical of definitions of comp med in current sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A reasoned proposal

Concur with Brangifer's reasoning (yet again). Propose: Let the Ernst and other citations be omitted from the lead, for copyedit reason (not reason given by DVMt). To consider dispassionately, first the text, then the supporting sources:

1_Text

• per DVMt: Complementary medicine refers to use of alternative medicine alongside conventional science based medicine, in the belief that it increases the effectiveness. CAM is the abbreviation for Complementary and alternative medicine.
• per revert: Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it increases the effectiveness, or "complements", the treatment.

--Comment: Practically same wording except DVMt omits 'not proven by using scientific methods'. Irrespective of sources cited here, that is to be found in the body and so not out of place in the lead. Further, all "complementary" is "alternative", in that it is and claims to be other than "conventional" western etc., and the information available and cited in the article as a whole supports the words DVMt proposes to omit, which some editors see as needed here. Other editors may consider unnnecessary, and would be willing to omit to use as few words as possible.

2_Sources

• per DVMt: 1-NCCAM; 2-NCI Borkan
• per revert: The sources, irrespective of Ernst, support "not proven by using scientific methods".

Final Report (2002) of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy states: The Commissioners...our response should be to hold all systems of health and healing, including conventional and CAM, to the same rigorous standards of good science and health services research. Although the Commissioners support the provision of the most accurate information about the state of the science of all CAM modalities, they believe that it is premature to advocate the wide implementation and reimbursement of CAM modalities that are yet unproven.

" "National Science Foundation" alternative medicine refers to all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding Science Fiction and Pseudoscience - Belief in Alternative Medicine. "

--Comment First, there could be some opposing comment in the body about those two citations, but they do fairly represent the current preponderance of opinion so far as has been ascertained, unless any source can be cited otherwise. Secondly, there is no need to add here further citations from Ernst or other sources, which would be better placed in the body instead of overloading the lead. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this (but see comments above) that there's no basis to omit a statement about the scientific status of alt med. I definitely agree that, so far as is practical, citations should be eliminated from the lead. To offset article instability that might result from the removal of cites from the lead, I'd favour the insertion of a hidden comment like: <!---This article is under discretionary sanctions from the arbitration committee. Please obtain community consensus on the article talk page before making any changes to the lead. The lead should summarize the essential points from the article. The lead should not be used to introduce new arguments, perspectives or references about the article topic that are not contained within the body of the article--->, or words to that effect. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the term belief alone seems more elegant. Proponents cite faith or belief as their justification while opponents accept this belief (and it's own therapeutic effect) but deride it as placebo. Adding in 'not proven by science' seems clumsy and controversial, especially since science is a occasionally a hostage to fashion and debate.

As a compromise I would suggest, the following: Alternative medicines often have a poor scientific basis. Complementary medicine describes the use of alternative medicine in combination with conventional medicine, in a belief that it complements the proven treatments, increasing their effectiveness. Any good ? Aspheric (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

*Sock puppet investigation of DVMt. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

She is my wife. And she has created her own account. Given that this is irrelevant to the discussion here, I'd ask that you please strike your comments. DVMt (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and, if not a sock, recruiting people in this way is meat puppetry (the alternate account already has a warning for edit warring in chiropractic topic. Frankly, I've extended as much good faith as I can muster and I've no cause but to believe that I was misguided in that. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see the relevance here at alt-med. What ever happened to commenting on the content, not the contributor? Regardless, I'm done discussing the issue. The 2002 White House report is being used to undermine the 2005 NCCAM source. DVMt (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Look at the content, not the contributor" was the phrase the sock used, just before the article became protected. Being consistently reasonable and straight forward makes it easier for everyone to accept you're editing in good faith. I don't know enough about how this place works to lecture but from what i've seen the conventions are here to prevent pointless arguments and to keep us honest. Bending the rules is counter productive cos it gets peoples back up even if you get away with it. I agree that "not supported by science" is a poor reflection of the source and a travesty to elegant to prose but like picking at a scab you're doing more harm than good and should resist the tempatation, even if it's just to avoid alienating constructive editors (on any side). I've deleted the phrase but don't know if it'll be reinserted and doubt it's a point worth fighting over. We all have to decide if we want to write with vision or as a pedantic proof reader. The article has major problems but is evolving and there are some good writers here. Help lead the change (not the argument) Aspheric (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the term "not proven by using scientific methods". It is a phrase no decent scientist would use when talking about anything, especially a belief. The Nature immunology article starts as follows; Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) consists of diverse clinical interventions that are popular yet not embraced by conventional medicine because there is insufficient proof that they are safe and effective. Complementary interventions are used together with conventional treatments, whereas alternative interventions are used instead of them

If the definitions are in the cross hairs, then it doesn't really matter but Rien ne dure comme le provisoire and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Right, i'm off to insert not proven by using scientific methods in to articles on Renaissance poetry.Aspheric (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly a sobering comment, and deserves a considered reply. 'Rien ne dure...'[26]: no contest. // ' ...a phrase no decent scientist would use..': there's too much of that around, and 'not proven by using scientific methods' is but a minnow among bigger fish.// It may well be conjectured that someone able to appreciate renaissance poetry would, if asked, consider that the passage quoted from 'The Nature immunology article'[27] (hidden by payscreen) would have no place in a properly edited encyclopedia for educational use except as an example typifying the useless verbiage which the topic attracts.// Progress is being made in checking out some of the sources which have been dumped here in the past. If it is experiential reality that one person's "science" is another's "anti-science", or one's certainty another's fallacy, then some of that has its influence upon the Wikipedia project. (I continue in the belief, not as yet wholly proven to my satisfaction, that the various editing policies have been devised to mitigate the problem.) But that apart, the following is not meaningless (but may be right or wrong and inelegantly expressed): Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief that it increases the effectiveness, or "complements", the treatment. Instead of then simply inserting the clause not proven by using scientific methods, would it be better (copyedit-wise) to expand with a new sentence:

• That is to say, the alternative treatment has not been proven by scientific methods, such as those which validate conventional medicine, either when used on its own or when used together with a conventional treatment.

If the latter is preferred for clarity (not necessarily as correct), would any source support it? Actually, the sources seem to say that no clinical test or trial has been, nor in principle could be, devised to demonstrate whether or not a treatment which on its own is 'alternative' could have positive results when combined with a conventional treatment. The upshot is, that until these points are better clarified in the body, we'd better leave the lead as it now is, but without editors being committed to it as irrevocable in their lifetime. Qexigator (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The term decent is perhaps facetious and it is hypocritical of me to warm against picking at scabs and then itch myself. I'm not defending DVMt's methods but his point was valid; 1. The proof/evidence is not or ever likely to be absolute, so terms like insufficient evidence are to be preferred and 2. Belief is an integral concept of alt med whether we describe it as such or call it placebo (as per Ernst / Lancet, etc...). I'm happy to provide pdf articles if you want to e-mail me, you can use a throwaway account if you want to preserve anonymity Aspheric (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative medicines often have a poor scientific basis. Complementary medicine describes the use of alternative medicine in combination with conventional medicine, in a belief that it complements the proven treatments, increasing their effectiveness. I think that that is a more elegant solution than the current statement in the lead.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is too radical to let that wording suffice. Alternative has been so named because it disclaims a "scientific" base of that kind. What "alternatives" are there which are based on that kind of science? Their motto is "include me out". Another problem which is mentioned in the literature is the meaning and proving (testing, trying out) effectiveness and efficacy in respect of medical treatments of any kind. Qexigator (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That does not exclude the possibility of an evaluation of the scientific basis of alt med from a normative perspective. Otherwise, one could also say (or add to the above) that there is little evidence of any therapeutic effect beyond placebo for most alt med interventions? Or, we could just leave the lead for a little while and concentrate on defining/elaborating the definition of complementary medicine in the body of the text? I'm not so pushed about changing the lead to any degree yet. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, leave lead while doing other. Qexigator (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Above I asked about two phrases to examine, and the second one still needs to happen:

• "...that it increases the effectiveness,..." or, as mentioned immediately above, "increasing their effectiveness."

We are claiming that is their belief, but what is our source for that statement? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely better to mention here belief, not to infer or imply unbelief? The origin of this in lead seems to have been 24.130.156.204 at 05:26, 15 January 2013.[28]"Complementary medicine is what alternative medicine is called when used together with science based medicine, in a belief that it increases the effictiveness, or "complements", the science based medical treatment.[14][15][16]"[29] 14= "White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy". March 2002. 15= Ernst E. (1995). "Complementary medicine: common misconceptions". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 16= Joyce CR (1994). "Placebo and complementary medicine". The Lancet. Comment:

• 14: Supports wording, at least to the extent of being consistent with it: This is not to imply that CAM systems of health care are more effective than conventional health care in promoting health and preventing illness, as many have not been scientifically shown to prevent disease or promote health. The perception that conventional health care emphasizes high technology approaches to treating patients, while CAM health care emphasizes low technology approaches to promoting health and preventing disease, has led some to suggest that conventional and CAM health care may eventually converge to form a new health care system that integrates the best of each10. However, there are not only scientific, but also educational, regulatory, and political obstacles to integration of the two systems. ....For example, because many consumers appeared to be using unconventional health care practices as alternatives to conventional health care, the term "alternative medicine" was widely adopted in the United States and Europe in the later 1980s.11,12 This perception, however, was largely dispelled by surveys in the early 1990's, which found that people were using the two systems of health care-mainstream and alternative-simultaneously.13,14 These surveys found that health care consumers were accessing a range of therapeutic and preventive options, both alternative and conventional, to essentially "complement" one another. As a result, the term "complementary medicine" was widely adopted not long afterwards to describe systems of health care and individual therapies that people used as adjuncts to their conventional health care.
• 15: Again, supports, at least to extent of consistent with, and is fairly argued, not merely negative, is true to its title and could be used as a subsidiary argument on either side in a debate about "big pharma". It has snippets which if taken out of context could seem wholly and irrationally negative or merely polemicist. A critical reader would be asking of this as of other such sources: "what were author's expectations for research funding at the time?" (Bottom lines at (4) and final para.)
• 16: Link to payscreen.

Efficacy per link: the capacity to produce an effect... In medicine, it is the ability of an intervention or drug to reproduce a desired effect in expert hands and under ideal circumstances. Is that not supported more or less by what is in the article body? Or is there a citable source to the contrary? As above mentioned, "until these points are better clarified in the body, we'd better leave the lead as it now is". Qexigator (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Whose belief are we talking about, how much is belief is required and in what therapies, how is effective to be understood in this context?

Sources (quite random, I've not read through this literature, so should be seen as indicative)

1. Patients' belief in effectiveness of CAM:

• • • Vincent, C.; Furnham, A. (1996). "Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study". British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 35: 37–48. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01160.x. PMID 8673034.
    • Furnham, A.; Kirkcaldy, B. (1996). "The health beliefs and behaviours of orthodox and complementary medicine clients". The British journal of clinical psychology / the British Psychological Society. 35 ( Pt 1): 49–61. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01161.x. PMID 8673035.
    • Why Some Cancer Patients Choose Complementary and Alternative Medicine Instead of Conventional Treatment
    • Singh, H.; Maskarinec, G.; Shumay, D. M. (2005). "Understanding the Motivation for Conventional and Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use Among Men with Prostate Cancer". Integrative Cancer Therapies. 4 (2): 187–194. doi:10.1177/1534735405276358. PMID 15911931.
    • Schoenberg, N. E.; Stoller, E. P.; Kart, C. S.; Perzynski, A.; Chapleski, E. E. (2004). "Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among a Multiethnic Sample of Older Adults with Diabetes". The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 10 (6): 1061–1066. doi:10.1089/acm.2004.10.1061. PMID 15674002.
    • Furlow, M. L.; Patel, D. A.; Sen, A.; Liu, J. R. (2008). "Physician and Patient Attitudes towards Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Obstetrics and Gynecology". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 8: 35. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-8-35. PMC 2464574. PMID 18582380.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
    • Smith, J. F.; Eisenberg, M. L.; Millstein, S. G.; Nachtigall, R. D.; Shindel, A. W.; Wing, H.; Cedars, M.; Pasch, L.; Katz, P. P.; Infertility Outcomes Program Project Group (2010). "The use of complementary and alternative fertility treatment in couples seeking fertility care: Data from a prospective cohort in the United States". Fertility and Sterility. 93 (7): 2169–2174. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.054. PMC 2860047. PMID 20338559.

1. Orthodox physicians' & other healthcare professionals belief in the effectiveness of CAM:

• • • Ernst, E.; Resch, K. L.; White, A. R. (1995). "Complementary Medicine: What Physicians Think of It: A Meta-analysis". Archives of Internal Medicine. 155 (22): 2405–2408. doi:10.1001/archinte.1995.00430220059006. PMID 7503598.
    • White, A.; Resch, K. L.; Ernst, E. (1997). "Complementary medicine: Use and attitudes among GPs". Family Practice. 14 (4): 302–306. doi:10.1093/fampra/14.4.302. PMID 9283851.
    • Astin, J. A.; Marie, A.; Pelletier, K. R.; Hansen, E.; Haskell, W. L. (1998). "A Review of the Incorporation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Mainstream Physicians". Archives of Internal Medicine. 158 (21): 2303–2310. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.21.2303. PMID 9827781.
    • Furnham, A.; McGill, C. (2003). "Medical Students' Attitudes About Complementary and Alternative Medicine". The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 9 (2): 275–284. doi:10.1089/10755530360623392. PMID 12804081.
    • Hyodo, I.; Eguchi, K.; Nishina, T.; Endo, H.; Tanimizu, M.; Mikami, I.; Takashima, S.; Imanishi, J. (2003). "Perceptions and attitudes of clinical oncologists on complementary and alternative medicine". Cancer. 97 (11): 2861–2868. doi:10.1002/cncr.11402. PMID 12767101.
    • Maha, N.; Shaw, A. (2007). "Academic doctors' views of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its role within the NHS: An exploratory qualitative study". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 7: 17. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-7-17. PMC 1896178. PMID 17537248.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
    • Sewitch, M. J.; Cepoiu, M.; Rigillo, N.; Sproule, D. (2008). "A Literature Review of Health Care Professional Attitudes Toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Complementary Health Practice Review. 13 (3): 139. doi:10.1177/1533210108325549. "Positive attitudes toward CAM did not correlate with CAM referral or prescription patterns."!
    • Fries, C. J. (2008). "Classification of complementary and alternative medical practices: Family physicians' ratings of effectiveness". Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. 54 (11): 1570–1571. PMC 2592334. PMID 19005130.

1. Belief and CAM ed in medical schools

• • • Brokaw, J. J.; Tunnicliff, G.; Raess, B. U.; Saxon, D. W. (2002). "The teaching of complementary and alternative medicine in U.S. Medical schools: A survey of course directors". Academic Medicine. 77 (9): 876–881. doi:10.1097/00001888-200209000-00013. PMID 12228082.

FiachraByrne (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To summarize my superficial reading of the above, patient/consumers who use CAM tend to believe that it is effective. A surprisingly high proportion of doctors also tend to believe in the effectiveness of CAM and those who practice CAM or refer patients to CAM practitioners seem to have a greater belief in its effectiveness. Elite doctors, relative to GPs & family physicians, are less likely to believe in CAM and this is especially marked in certain disciplines (e.g. oncology). In the UK, part of the turn towards (or simply greater visibility of) CAM was driven by GPs who, under market reforms of NHS introduced by Thatcher, gained greater control over the disbursement of their clinical budgets and appear to have responded to patient/consumer demand. That last point is not from the above literature (and I can't find the source at the moment). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the addition of those words by the socking IP editor were OR. I'm still concerned it's OR. The IP did not add any sources to justify that wording, and it seems like special pleading and editorializing. It's unnecessary and speculates on the motives of users. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification please I had a hard time wading through the above to find what the exact proposed change is at this point. Could someone briefly summarize: what is the current article content under discussion, what's wrong with it, and what change to it is being proposed, using what sources? Sorry for being late to the party. Zad68 03:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, coming in to the discussion at a late stage would be heavy going. It has moved on to the next section, which, if you can bear to read on, should be self-explanatory. Qexigator (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"in a belief" --Cmt on FiachraByrne 11:11, 19 March 2013 above about: Patients' belief in effectiveness of CAM/ Orthodox physicians' & other healthcare professionals belief in the effectiveness of CAM/ Belief and CAM ed in medical schools/ + summary 11:28. 1_Please consider adding in suitable place in the article something based on "...patient/consumers who use CAM tend to believe that it is effective. A ...high proportion of doctors also tend to believe in the effectiveness of CAM and those who practice CAM or refer patients to CAM practitioners seem to have a greater belief in its effectiveness. Elite(?) doctors, relative to GPs & family physicians, are less likely to believe in CAM and this is especially marked in certain disciplines (e.g. oncology)." 2_Brokaw,and others (2002). "The teaching of complementary and alternative medicine in U.S. Medical schools: A survey of course directors" unseen behind paywall, but is there something there which could be put in? Qexigator (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Points to clarify in body by end April: proposal

The current lead is a tweaked up version of 15:06, 28 January 2013[30]. It is intended to satisfy the criteria which had been mentioned by another (currently active) editor (17:58, 18 Jan.): 1.-that leads should summarise the article, and 2.-not require masses of citations. At the same time, a voluntary editing ban on the then current version of the lead had been proposed "for a month or two".Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 22 [31] The recent discussion shows that the now current version is subject to at least one question (from a long-standing editor) about the phrase "...that it increases the effectiveness,..." [32] (9 00:48, 18 March). Since the January criteria for the lead, there has been much discussion and work to improve the body's content, arrangement, sourcing and format. This continues, and it is expected that as a result a question about the lead such as the one just mentioned will become clarified by revising the text after checking out sources, and may be after some discussion if necessary to settle the point.

• While this editing is in progress, propose voluntary editing ban on current lead for a month or so, say to end of April.

Qexigator (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We should probably resolve the question above in the interests of article stability. Otherwise, I think that this is a sensible proposal (having first made it, I would say that, wouldn't I). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that proposing that the effectiveness question should now have priority in the currently ongoing cleanup/rewrite? Not objecting, but there's quite a lot of stuff about it in the article which may divert from taking points in order of appearance, progressing through the article? Qexigator (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in relation to Bullrangifer's question about sources for "their" (who?) belief in the effectiveness of CAM and, from my POV at least, just for inclusion in the lead at the moment. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's NOT my concern. It's a given that those who use AM/CAM believe it's effective. They have been fooled and believe that's the case. So be it. My concern is the OR that use of AM methods together with mainstream methods somehow "increasing their effectiveness," IOW increases the effectiveness of the mainstream methods. That's what's implied, but that's special pleading and unsourced OR added by a socking IP. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in question first appeared in Revision as of 05:26, 15 January 2013[33], and has been rolled forward from then on, as if it had a more ancient and venerable lineage. But if we can now view it as a questionable intruder, which slipped in unapproved, then let it be omitted. The sense of the sentence would not suffer, nor would the lead or article as a whole. As one of those who have been rolling it forward I am going to remove it, and not defer to April. Qexigator (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's better, but still leaves something to be desired. It now seems a bit awkward, and that's likely because we haven't really rolled back the whole thing the IP added. Here is what it was like before (copying the raw text, without the code):

• "Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine which, in general, refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[14][15][16] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM." [34]

I'm inclined to favor that version over what we currently have, but I think that could be improved. Here's a try:

• The acronym CAM refers to Complementary and alternative medicine, which is an umbrella term encompassing two settings in which alternative medicine methods are used. The first part, Complementary medicine, refers to the situation where alternative medicine methods are used in conjunction with (complementary to) mainstream methods. The second part, Alternative medicine, has already been defined above, and refers to when such methods are used instead of mainstream methods.

How does that sound? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous text looks clearer to me, but tweaked to read:

• Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM. In general, this refers to the same alternative interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[14][15][16]

Or perhaps it could be put more explicitly like this:

• Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it "complements" the treatment.[n 1][4][5][6] The acronym CAM refers to complementary and alternative medicine. Depending on context, it has been applied indiscriminately to refer to two distinct kinds of use: that is, one where alternative medicine or treatment is used in conjunction with conventional medicine or treatment; and the other when not used in conjunction with conventional medicine or treatment. But whether or not being used in conjunction with conventional medicine or treatment it remains "alternative". Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with either: " "Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine which, in general, refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[14][15][16] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM." [35]"; or "Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM. In general, this refers to the same alternative interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[14][15][16]". I'd advocate keeping it as clean and simple as possible for the lead. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

At this moment I would opt for letting para. 2 read "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it "complements" the treatment. Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM. In general, this refers to the same alternative interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques". But would prefer to let it be as now, and wait and see what turns up in body revision. Qexigator (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I like this last one by Qexigator. It seems to encompass it all. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see three words added. When that happens, the last sentence becomes superfluous:

• "Complementary medicine is when alternative medicine methods are used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it "complements" the treatment. Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM. In general, this refers to the same alternative interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques."

Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, leave out last sentence, and let us go a little further with rephrasing first sentence to read thus (+=add, /-....\ =omit):

• "Complementary medicine is +the use of+ /-when\ alternative medicine /-methods are used\ together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it "complements" the treatment. Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM.

If agreed, it clarifies the present wording, and need not wait about for further clarifying of the body. That leaves it to any readers who may be concerned to work out that 'Depending on context, "CAM" has been applied indiscriminately to refer to two distinct kinds of use: that is, one where alternative medicine or treatment is used in conjunction with conventional medicine or treatment; and the other when not so used. But whether or not being used in conjunction with conventional medicine or treatment it remains "alternative" '. There may be a place for spelling this out this in the body. Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The spelling out now added in para. on "CAM" at end of "Terms and definitions". Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If, per Skinwalker's edit summary,[36] the passage reverted was "self-evidently bad writing" that editor would have had no difficulty in explaining the comment and/or making a good faith copyedit. In fact, the passage expressed a point which needs to be made. If others agree that some tweak is needed, please go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because it made neither grammatic nor textual sense. Perhaps I am missing the point. Your proposed edit seems to obfuscate the difference between altmed and CAM. Skinwalker (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. You have clearly missed the point, perhaps due to failing to follow the discussion. Please read again more carefully. I do not propose to argue the point. We are moving on. But I would be interested to know what you consider to be the fault of grammar. Qexigator (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure where to fit this in, but "belief" is a bit wishy-washy. I also dislike "not proven" by scientific methods, as the whole idea behind scientific hypothesis testing is that you do not prove something; instead your findings lead you to support or reject your hypothesis. As a suggestion: "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in order to "complement" the treatment, although results (or maybe "findings" is a better word) have not been replicated using scientific methods." Ashleyleia (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This page shows that attempts to find suitable wording for the context have suffered some obstruction (see recent edits). Your contributions to other topics look as though you could do something acceptable here, subject as usual to source support and unfriendly counter-edits. Some may have difficulty with understanding what scientific method signifies in this context. Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this: "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in order to "complement" the treatment, although the effectiveness of this has not been demonstrated using scientific methods such as randomized controlled clinical trials." Ashleyleia (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting closer, may be, and would avoid the trap (mentioned above) that "alternative" in the main disclaims a "scientific" base of the kind claimed for conventional. Of western non-conventional, while osteopathy has been conceded MD status in N.America, chiropractic or homeopathy have not (for different reasons). But would it not imply that any and every "conventional medical treatment" has had its effectiveness demonstrated using scientific methods such as randomized controlled clinical trials"? If so, would that include harmful pharmaceutical products such as thalidomide or surgical operations such as lobotomy (I have insufficient specialist knowledge to refer to any but the most notorious.). Qexigator (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Science" based jargon?

Question arising from above: How should the article revisal succinctly touch on questions of efficacy, effectiveness, science-based, evidence based, without being drawn off topic into underlying controversies about any of those? What about sources that report in (journalistic fashion and therefore without scientific/academic exactitude or responsibility) that doctors use alternative medicine in a belief that it is has 'placebo' status? Such as today: Most family doctors have given a placebo to at least one of their patients, survey findings suggest. In a poll, 97% of 783 GPs admitted that they had recommended a sugar pill or a treatment with no established efficacy for the ailment their patient came in with.[37]. One common sense and rational interpretation would be that the placebo consists, not in the pills or whatever it may be, but in having one's ailment taken seriously enough ('to heart') by a socially and personally trusted person (usually GP) and confirmed by the act of prescibing the remedy, which is then taken in the belief that it is remedial. Some would call that quackery on the part of a GP, others an act inherent in the art of healing which good family doctors have traditionally practised (as perhaps a mother comforting her children). In other words, the term 'placebo' has become part of a jargon which perpetuates age-old evasions (before and after Flexner) about medicine and healing. Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just writing about that with someone privately! I suspect you're also referring to the same report. Here's another source: 97 percent of UK doctors have given placebos to patients at least once. Here's what I wrote:

• "Quoting from that article: "This is not about doctors deceiving patients,..." That's BS. A placebo has no effect if no deception is involved.
  "This widespread use and acceptance of placebos is consistent with similar studies worldwide, yet they are still against General Medical Council ethical codes. 'Current ethical rulings on placebos ought to be revisited in light of the strong evidence suggesting that doctors broadly support their use,' says Dr Howick."
  Yes, it's definitely against guidelines. Referring specifically to homeopathy, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has stated:
  "In the Committee's view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice - which the Government claims is very important - as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
  "Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS."[38]"

So, back to your question, they call it "bad medicine," among other things. BTW, that last quote is used in the homeopathy article, and this would all be good for the placebo article. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, same article and same issues. If official pronouncements are received with the scepticism due to bodies with agendas and which are practised in the arts of spin, what those such as GMC and HC say is not conclusive but are, of course, evidence of their public position. My concern is that we should say as little as possible about that discussion here and leave it to other topic specific articles, such as placebo as you mention. But our article has the words; ...alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief.... To my mind that does not apply to a physician who prescribes "alternative" without having such a belief, and that would be no more dishonest than one prescribing conventional medicine without believing it would do any good, except, perhaps, as a 'placebo' (we can all think of motives and cases where this happens, sometimes to the point of malpractice). And in similar cases jargonised language tends to become unduly determinative. The issue about the validity of homeopathic dilutions is not necessarily the same question, but involves yet another kind of discussion. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Haven't we dodged that bullet by eliminating the words "in a belief" in our rewordings above? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are referring, I think to wording proposed above:

• Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine under the term "complementary and alternative medicine", or its acronym CAM. In general, this refers to the same alternative interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques.

which is a version, tweaked for clarity, of 05:12, 15 January 2013[39] which read:

• Alternative medicine is sometimes grouped with complementary medicine which, in general, refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques, under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM.

That proposed wording seems acceptable to others, and need not wait. But note that eliminating belief in the body has been reverted by another editor 01:11, 22 March[40]. May have been due more to edit conflict than edit war. Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

For the body (of the "body"!): An early influential definition of complementary medicine is provided by Ernst et al. in 1995 letter to the British Journal of General Practice (not indexed properly in PubMed).

"complementary medicine is diagnosis, treatment and/or prevention which complements mainstream medicine by contributing to a common whole, by satisfying demand not met by orthodoxy or by diversifying the conceptual frameworks or medicine"

"Complementary medicine – a definition". British Journal of General Practice. 45 (398): 506. September 1995. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Google scholar indicates it's been pretty widely quoted (often by Ernst himself, admittedly) [41]. And it has been stated (by Ernst) that this was the definition adopted by the Cochrane Collaboration [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

In the body of the text, the point should be made as to why the term complementary medicine was adopted by figures like Ernst instead of the available alternatives (alternative, holistic, etc). While the term complementary medicine dates back to at least 1981 (according to OED, which ain't infallible on these matters, it was first used in a Which? magazine article; there's also this 1981 publication by Stephen Fulder [47]), Ernst's argument for its use stem from the data on consumer usage of alt med. Thus:

The term "alternative medicine" implies that these therapies are used as a substitute for conventional treatments. While this may be the case for some, the vast majority of consumers embrace both types of treatment. The National Library of Medicine ... increasingly uses the term "complementary therapies", which implies that the therapies are used alongside conventional treatments.[48]

Until or unless we can find anything on earlier usage and meaning of the term, I think that we should begin with Ernst's 1995 definition in the body of the text. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Two points: 1_Noted that the letter was from Ernst and six other health care professionals of Centre for Complementary Health Studies, University of Exeter, September 1995, including a herbalist, an acupuncturist, a chemist and a clinical psychologist.[49] 2_The latter quote (from Ernst and Dixon) does not seem to help the uncommitted reader, except as information about the tendency of proponents and opponents to conflate what should be distinguished. I would not see this as suited to the body of the text. Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the authorship is a fundamental issue, although Ernst has been, of course, influential within the general field. The definition is notable and important due to the fact that it was adopted relatively widely and offered as a reference point for understanding the term "complementary medicine" in many publications (at least until about the mid-2000s). It's neither the only understanding of the term nor is it uncriticised (and other perspectives should be included), but it is an important one. I don't follow the relevance of your latter point. It is an explanation of why the term was preferred by someone who was influential in its popularization. Ernst, in fact, has had a hand in many of the definitions (he sat on the OAM 1995 panel). FiachraByrne (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My (edit) view is that too much of this sort of thing about terminology bloats the article. Key points: after "alt.med." had come into public discussion in 1960's/70's, comp.med. first came in 1980's/90's (?) - reason - but often used equivocally - one constant: any particular "alternative medicine" will remain "alternative" whether or not used alongside "conventional" until it has been accepted as conventional, when no longer is it CAM, since CAM is "alternative" being used alongside "conventional" - instances of any particular change from "alternative" to "conventional", if any - if none to date, mention - in principle: any given alt.med. (such as homeopathy, chiropractic) will remain alt. unless its theoretical and professed basis changes and becomes compatible with conventional, or as a result of a change in the theoretical and professed basis of conventional such as to let conventional be compatible with the given alt. That is what I have learned so far from the articles and sources, but always willing to be corrected if mistaken. Ernst is clearly pertinent to this topic, but in my view the likes of Dawkins not at all. Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit rushed. My fundamental worry is that you're in danger of coining a novel definition unlike any other found in reliable sources. As regards bloat, that's a valid criticism, and that section could be edited back. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's not rush rashly and needlessly startle enforcers. Eisenberg, as above at 11:37, 4 March 2013 ? -- ".... the current custom among researchers is to refer to treatments such as acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and herbal remedies collectively as “complementary and alternative medicine” or CAM. The term CAM acknowledges both their disjuncture or lack of “conformity with the standards of the medical community” (Eisenberg et al. 1993:246), and the simultaneous growth of public acceptance and their integration into conventional treatment regimens." Yes, that looks good both to natural reason and, presumably, approved sourcing. Where to place it? Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd use it to replace the current text in the body of the article on complementary medicine. Then, I'd move the NSF statement on alt med into the section on "normative" definitions in the "terms and definitions" section (absent the name & chapter of the report). I have one question, however. As Eisenberg is not using the acronym CAM in 1993 (invented in 1995), is he using the term "complementary and alternative medicine" or another? FiachraByrne (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That replace and move would seem to work, but the name and chapter of the report from which it comes indicate the character of its provenance, which is pertinent to "...there being used to refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using scientific methods". Can the doubt about the acronym and Eisenberg as source be cleared? Qexigator (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Move etc.done. Please alter/tweak if required. Qexigator (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative is culturally racist, can we avoid it's use?

What is the alternative to "alternative medicine"? Mainstream medicine? Generally accepted medicine? Even by the definition on this page it is hard to define. There are billions of people that consider acupuncture to be mainstream so for them it is definitely not alternative. Therefore from their perspective calling acupuncture alternative is false, offensive and racist. Alternative is specifically from the Western point of view. I propose instead we use words like "scientifically proven" or "proven" and "unverified" or "lack of scientific evidence". From what I know there is no consistent scientific evidence to support to usefulness of acupuncture so it would be inthe "lack of scientific evidence" category and this has nothing to do with making it alternative. Can we agree to define alternative medicine on this page and leave it as a western centric term and on specific medical pages avoid this unscientific and racist term and instead use something like "science based medicine" and "other treatments"?Sthubbar (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an alternative to evidence based medicine. The race card is a non-starter, please don't make such accusations. You may want to read over WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE to understand the policies which govern this article. Sædon^talk 10:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Saedon, thank you so much for the input. If indeed that was the generally accepted definition, than I would agree. Unfortunately that is not the case. Many herbal treatments are very well supported by evidence based medicine and yet they are being forced under the title of "Alternative Medicine". Your statement exactly supports my position. If we can get an agreement that the word "alternative medicine" can only be used by treatments not supported by standard wikipedia medical standards, meaning secondary sources in reliable journals, than I agree. Do you agree then that any treatment, including herbal treatments that are supported by secondary sources in reliable journals can be kept out of any header listed as "Alternative medicine"?Sthubbar (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Herbal treatments are still deemed to be alt med even though some do have some evidence to support their use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How is that scientific? Something either is or is not supported by evidence. Why the special rule, "We all all evidence based medicine, unless of course it is not common in American, then we are going to put all treatment with strong evidence to support them, though not used in America and put them in the same category as acupuncture and voodoo. Don't worry it doesn't impact on these treatments that they are in the same category. How is this scientific?Sthubbar (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any proposals for content changes to this page so I'm not sure why you're posting this here.

The decision as to whether to categorise a given treatment as alternative or conventional should not rest upon the opinion of an individual editor, whatever their moral objections to the term, but, rather, on its categorisation in reliable sources. For pages detailing treatments, the correct manner of determining whether a treatment should be included in a section entitled "alternative therapies" (or the like) is to consult the PubMed medical database and determine how the preponderance of reliable medical sources categorise the treatment.

That a treatment may be categorised as alternative in one regional or temporal context and conventional in another is true but this reflects a perspective from disciplines such as sociology and anthropology. A normative scientific perspective, which has pretensions to universality and is largely reflected in literature indexed in PubMed, does not entertain such a viewpoint. It is the latter viewpoint which should prevail in article sections detailing therapies for individual medical conditions. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, thank you. You make some great points. 1) I was advised to post here by Jmh649. I have also posted at Project_Medicine. 2) Your statement of a normative scientific perspective is completely fine. How can there be any scientific consensus on a word like "Alternative" unless there is a definition? Everyone seems to agree that it can't be defined. Even this page agrees that there is no consensus on PubMed for the definition. We are in a catch-22, requiring consensus on an undefinable term. I am fine with this page and discussing exactly this problem on this page. My point is to stop using that term else where, especially as broadly as Jmh649 wants which is to include all herbal remedies under the title alternative. Omega-3 is extremely well supported by scientific evidence, I don't think there is much double about it. There is nothing "alternative" about omega-3 for several diseases yet Jmh649 insists on putting it there. Omega-3 should have the same status as any other proven treatment. Why continue to use an term that will never get a consensus?Sthubbar (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that it cannot be defined it is just that it is not consistently defined (where different definitions reflect different ideological positions rather than anything else), or inadequately defined. In any case, it doesn't matter whether there's a scientific or wider scholarly consensus on the meaning of the term, whether the term is inadequate, vague, unsatisfactory or ideological. The point to bear in mind is that it, or cognate terms (CAM, etc), are used in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia should reflect that usage. You're not going to succeed in the abandonment of the term on a point of principle; the only effective arguments are going to be based on reliable sources appropriate for the specific topic. If you want to argue that a given therapy should not be described as alternative in wikipedia, you're going to have to show, not that it is effective for a specified condition, but that the preponderance of the best recent medical literature and medical organizations no longer regard it as alternative. That's it and any other arguments are pretty much irrelevant I'm afraid. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I appreciate the feedback and your points are well taken. I don't see how your condition is to be met. I don't see any articles on PubMed that say "X used to be alternative and now isn't", or "Here is a list of alternative medicine and here is a list of non-alternative medicine". On PubMed I see many articles about omega-3 that have no mention of alternative medicine and some that do. At what point can we consider Omega-3 no longer alternative? According to your definition, I suspect it will be once branded alternative, always alternative. If a treatment is proven through secondary evidence based studies, doesn't that take it off the alternate list? Again, when can omega-3 be off the alternative list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd start with sources that provide stipulative lists of alt medicine/CAM such as the Cochrane CAM field or NCCAM. But you'll certainly need plentiful sources that contest its categorisation as alt medicine to make any kind of case. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, you'll have to determine whether it's categorised as an alternative/CAM treatment for specific conditions. Go to pubmed, look at the sources there, and see can you construct specific arguments for specific treatments. Then go to Cochrane, the NCCAM and other bodies. Check out the NICE guidelines and see if they recommend Omega-3 for any conditions and how they categorise it. Etc, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And no, proven effectiveness for a given condition would not necessarily rebrand it as conventional - although it might help. It's more complex than that. Omega-3 has a better chance as its not proposed as a treatment based on a model that necessarily contradicts accepted scientific norms. The distance is greater for TCM and others is far, far greater. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, thank you. By this standard I guess it is clear. Cochrane CAM field website seems to make it clear that once defined as CAM always a CAM. NCCAM clearly says "Defining CAM is difficult" and that it is based on Western medicine, nothing about based on evidence. I'll just accept that Wikipedia is written for the Western audience. I used the analogy before about when I was young and my crayon's had a Flesh color and nobody though 2 seconds about that. This is the same issue. Nobody thinks twice about calling certain treatments Alternative because for the majority of you it is Alternative and you have respectable organizations like Cochrane CAM and NCCAM to support you. This will change just like my Flesh colored crayons eventually went off the market and got renamed something like pink.Sthubbar (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's source based. If you can argue that different sources should be taken into account please do so. There's little that can be done about biases in the sources, which reflect economic, political, social and scientific cultural inequalities, as Wikipedia will tend to reproduce them. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

--It's not easy to find a response to anything quite so off the point.

• ...billions of people... consider acupuncture to be mainstream so for them it is definitely not alternative. Therefore from their perspective calling acupuncture alternative is false, offensive and racist...

Here's my attempt, which I hope other editors interested in improving the article will not find too feeble, or redundant given others' responses above. The question about the use of alternative is and is known to be about hegemonic dominance of a medical system in a given place at a given time: for example, the promotion of the results of medical research science of Berlin against the homeopathy which had been earlier originated by a German in Germany and which spread to N.America; and the later introduction of "German/Berlin" medicine into N.America by a US citizen, and the introduction of this "western" medicine into countries as an alternative to what was indigenous. Persons of European or N.American race or culture may prefer to practice or be treated by what is now "conventional" medicine or by homeopathy (or other alternatives originating in Europe or N.America), or by one of the alternatives originating as indigenous to other parts of the world; and persons of other races or cultures may prefer the conventional or alternatives originating in Europe or N.America instead of what is indigenous to their own country or tradtion. But alternative in this context is about medicine and is not "culturally racist", which is sometimes deliberately or mistakenly used as politicised jargon.[50] Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Qexigator, I'm not sure if you are supporting the use of alternative or not. @FiachraByrne, you have provided clear and convincing points and arguments. I can understand that Cochrane CAM field and NCCAM are considered reliable sources. It also seems to me that in general they do say "All herbal medicines = Alternative medicine". The fact that this is from a Western point of view is true, and not necessarily relevant by Wikipedia guidelines. I suspect the burden is now on me to find similar sources, I guess they also have to be in English, that dispute "All herbal medicines = Alternative medicine". As I don't have those sources, I will accept that the consensus happens to have an opinion different than mine, and billions of other people. Oh what a travesty! :)Sthubbar (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My comment was in rebuttal of the complaint that in the article alternative was "culturally racist" and "calling acupuncture alternative is false, offensive and racist". What you have said about herbal medicine is quite different, and the points made by another editor have been conceded. Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On the upside, graciously accepting someone else's argument is a rare attribute that bodes well if you intend to continue to edit on Wikipedia. It's not a quality I've necessarily mastered myself.

In regard to Qexigator, he has an idiosyncratic style of self-expression but I've found his comments, if initially opaque, normally repay reconsideration (not that we're always in perfect agreement). He's also open-minded enough to change his mind, which is unusual here.

Using non-English sources at all, due to linguistic barriers, is problematic and likely to be regarded with suspicion if the content they are used to support is in any way controversial. For naming an object of study (i.e. an article title or section), English-language sources should be used per whatever policy covers such things (lots and lots of policy/guidelines/essays here, some contradictory, due to absence of centralized governance). Some sources mention Omega-3, at least, as borderline CAM (can't locate at the moment) but I think they'd be insufficient to argue for its recategorisation on Wikipedia.

On the wider point of regional differences, while it is estimated (based on no empirical data) that upwards of 80 per cent of the world population uses alternative medicine, one can't neglect the globalisation over the past one hundred years and more of what you and others term "Western medicine" (biomedicine, also imperfect, might be better). In non-"Western" contexts, even if a minority medicine in terms of popular usage & access, biomedicine, due to institutional dominance and state support, can normally, but not universally, be regarded as at least partially dominant even in countries like China (TCM would seem to be politically subordinate to biomedicine there). It's very complex though. Tiger balm may have conquered the world with only minor concessions to exoticism but Ayurvedic medicine (which like TCM has been stripped here of its most violent, purgative components) is different in America and Europe to its Indian incarnation. "Alt med" has been globalising too, though, and is often changed in interaction with biomedicine. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a new "conventional" in the making?

Among points for consideration in the present revisal is whether current sources show that "CAM" presages a new "conventional". It should be noted that the terms "conventional" and "alternative" are in themselves neutral, and used to distinguish one type of medicine from others. The sources upon which the article relies seem to support the proposition that to the extent that the norm is "western" medicine (typically, US medical schools for MDs and similar in Europe and elsewhere) it is "conventional", and others are "alternative"; and that this is also "conventional" by reason of the extent of its actual use in a given population, such as N.America or Europe, in that where there is an option among treatments which are available the "normative" is typically used in preference to others (practically invariably for major surgery, whether in a modern hospital or in a makeshift field or emergency hospital provided that the required equipment and medicines are available); but the possibility remains open that this would not be "conventional" where and to the extent that it is neither normative nor the preferred option in a given population. Some sources to date may indicate a development where use of particular "alternative" medicines or treatments may normatively be accepted as professionally "permissive" for MD licensed physicians. That tends to raise the question which expressly or implicitly underlies some of the public discussion of recent years, mentioned in the sources: is there emerging a new "conventional", and by what newly accepted principle or characteristic would that be distinguished from the others as "alternative"? To what extent is the question loaded when considered in conjuction with concepts such as "politically dominant", as discussed by Loretta M. Kopelman in The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Accomodating Pluralism (ed. Daniel Callahan, Georgetowm UP, 2002) [51]? --Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to have a discussion about Alt Med in general, do that off wikipedia. This isn't a WP:FORUM. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For those who are attempting to improve the article, perhaps it should be mentioned that the remarks opening this section are directly related to the question of text and sources, in continuation of what has been previously discussed, revolving about complementary and CAM, including the discussion about changing the article name and the query raised about "Alternative is culturally racist, can we avoid it's use"? Has IRWolfie or any other editor anything to contribute with intent further to improve the article concerning the distinction which can currently be made between conventional and other which will help the article be more intelligible to uncommitted readers looking for information? Qexigator (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your text has no purpose other than to suggest that in your opinion CAM is becoming dominant; this is not reflected in the most reliable sources which accept as modern biology as their foundation. Your comment is a WP:SOAPBOX and nothing more. It has no concrete proposals for this article. Claiming that AM is a "culturally racist" term is a meaningless stupidity that stems from the unfounded belief that modern medicine is "western" while elsewhere other things are dominant. What you wish is a general discussion that will lead to no concrete changes in this article, but you can get that elsewhere on the internet. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Had you not noticed that my point about "culturally racist" was just that? And that my edits and comments affirm that reliable sources accept modern biology as their foundation? Perhaps that is why you find some difficulty in seeing the point here and prefer to shout "soapbox". It can often help to cool it bit, and credit others with rational intelligence instead of attempting to discredit them. The point is that the information in the article should be presented in as reasonably intelligible fashion consistent with sources. Obvious really, but not always that easy. Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you said it; I was commenting how irrelevant it was (and so I'm not sure why you brough it up). What you are proposing for this article is not clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not bring it up! I had rebutted it. Some of the sources seem to be a little woozy on the subject of CAM, and so too some of the comments. This could be due to conceptual and/or linguistic looseness, equivocation or ambiguity. Too often in the course of the current revisal it has been found that some of the text is not supported by sources cited. But the sources seem to reflect that over time there has been a drift away from conventional= biomedicine to conventional includes "permissive" (my coinage to make the point here) use of some alternative. Editors need to consider carefully the implications for the credibility of the article when informed about GPs recommending pill or a treatment with no established efficacy for the ailment their patient came in with mentioned above under "Science" based jargon?. Let us recognise that on this issue we are not opposed. Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, do you have any content proposals or are you content to play at being the police person? FiachraByrne (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping that when my watchlist is highlighted for an article talk page, it's because someone is discussing changes to this article (and I assume that is what the other 345 watchers hope too). If you want to have a chat with each other about the issues (which I don't mind in other places too just not here on-wiki), there are places to do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing article content. The current revisal is attempting to clear up the sorry mess the article had come to as a result of one or two editors dumping suspect material here. It requires some diligence and circumspection, and is not much helped by ill-considered comments due to impatience or unwillingness to keep up to date. Qexigator (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! As succinctly as possible, what do you propose to change in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a start by some reasoning here to explain your rv[52] and your peculiar notion of 'original research and synthesis'. With a better understanding of that it may be possible to discern the purport of your question. Qexigator (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

--It may be that some of the points mentioned in the cross-talk here will in the not too distant future be resolved as a result of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Alternative medicine.[53] --Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

An example of the wooziness of "CAM" which could be due to conceptual and/or linguistic looseness, equivocation or ambiguity, as mentioned above (21:19, 27 March) is at Consciousness-based healthcare[54] which opens by saying it is "a field of complementary and alternative medicine", and evading the distinction between alternative and conventional by conflating it with "complementary". It continues in that vein: "CBH is a complementary and alternative medicine modality..." It cites two writings of Larry Dossey, MD: Dossey, Larry, Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-Body to a New Era of Healing (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1999), pp. 140-146 and Dossey, Recovering the Soul (New York, NY: Bantam, 1989). The article continues to use the CBH acronym which tends to mute the actual concept 'consciousness-based healthcare', and, like CAM, mutes the contrast with 'conventional medicine' which is seldom, if ever, hidden behind 'CM' . Regardless of the merits of the theory or practise of the treatment, it is a poor way to present the information. Qexigator (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

correction: 3 instances of "CM"

• CAM providers' messages to conventional medicine: a qualitative study. Moura VL, Warber SL, James SA. SourceComplementary and Alternative Medicine Research Center, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Michigan[55]
• Complementary alternative medicine and conventional medicine should use identical rules to complete clinical trials[56]
• Talk:Conventional medicine/Archive 1

Qexigator (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

--Anyhow, it's been caught up with and blanked. [[57]] Qexigator (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Example of typical thinking in alternative medicine

For the edification of editors, here's an example of very typical thinking. We may think that this is limited to such places as Sudan, but such thinking is also common in the USA and Europe. She reminds me of Hulda Clark. This story demonstrates why we demand good sourcing for all biomedical claims:

• Sudanese Female Traditional Healer Attains 14 Patents on Treatment of Intractable Diseases

This woman works, by her own admission, in the alternative medicine/traditional medicine area. She makes many claims, has been in trouble with the law, and a judge made a decision in her favor. A very interesting read. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Those were good years for patents. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Effect of CAM on cancer survival and quality of life

Here are three studies which arrive at similar/related conclusions:

1. Does use of alternative medicine predict survival from cancer? Eur J Cancer. 2003 Feb;39(3):372-7.

"In a Cox regression model adjusted for demographic, disease and treatment factors, the hazard ratio of death for any use of AM compared with no use was 1.30, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.99, 1.70; P=0.056), suggesting that AM use may predict a shorter survival. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the negative association between AM use and survival. AM use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use=2.32, 95% CI, 1.44, 3.74, P=0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher. The use of AM seems to predict a shorter survival from cancer. The effect appears predominantly in patients with a good PS."

2. Effect of complementary and alternative medicine on the survival and health-related quality of life among terminally ill cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Annals of Oncology. 2013 Feb;24(2):489-94. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds469. Epub 2012 Oct 30.

RESULTS: In a follow-up of 481 patients and 163.8 person-years, we identified 466 deceased cases. On multivariate analyses, CAM users did not have better survival compared with nonusers [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.10]. Among mind-body interventions, prayer showed significantly worse survival (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.00-2.43). Clinically, CAM users reported significantly worse cognitive functioning (-11.6 versus -1.3; P < 0.05) and fatigue (9.9 versus -1.0; P < 0.05) than nonusers. Compared with nonusers in subgroup analysis, users of alternative medical treatments, prayer, vitamin supplements, mushrooms, or rice and cereal reported clinically significant worse changes in some HRQOL subscales.

CONCLUSION: While CAM did not provide any definite survival benefit, CAM users reported clinically significant worse HRQOLs.

3. Do cancer patients with a poor prognosis use complementary and alternative medicine more often than others? J Altern Complement Med. 2009 Jan;15(1):35-40. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0262.

RESULTS: The results are reported at five levels of CAM use. The poor prognosis group reported CAM use more often than the better prognosis group; however, only significantly higher at CAM level 2 (use of a CAM provider) (p = 0.021) and in use of self-support/CAM techniques (p < 0.001). Use of over-the-counter (OTC) dietary supplements and use of diet as treatment were not significantly different between the groups.

DISCUSSION: This study supports the suggestion that use of a CAM therapist and use of self-support/CAM techniques might be associated with less hope of cure given by the physician.

4. Any difference? Use of a CAM provider among cancer patients, coronary heart disease (CHD) patients and individuals with no cancer/CHD. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012 Jan 12;12:1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-1.

My question: I'm well aware that synthesis is not allowed, but for the sake of understanding the above, I'm wondering about the last two. We know that articles in alternative journals "tend" to be defensive and make unjustified assumptions which tend to favor alternative medicine, but not always. Number 3 seems to start with assumptions (see the link) which seem to contradict the results of Number 4. If there is no significant difference in the use of CAM between these patient groups, Number 3 is making an unjustified assumption that CAM use is higher "because" of a negative prognosis, not because it's "associated" with a negative prognosis, which just might happen to be a "cause" of such a prognosis. Who knows? Please discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we not edit on the basis that "Who knows?" is still an open question (whatever private knowledge or conviction any editor may have), and describe what is done in treatment and surgery (if notable) and the extent of usage in a given population. Also, any results known to be unequivocally adverse, as in the case of any onetime conventional treatmen practised by MD physiscians which has been found harmful? On cancer specifically, the short paragraph on "Alternative treatments" in Cancer ssems to be fair comment. Is that not enough said for editing here? And one of the main editing points as I see it is not to let the acronym CAM blur the distinction between "conventional" and other, namely "alternative", given that all along the basis for the article has been that conventional = "western" (per current version of article) and other = "alternative" whether or not used concurrently. Are we not finding that all branches of fundamental scientific research, in physics and biomedicine, are once again asking "Who knows?" Sorry if I have missed your point. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Brngifer is touching on 4 important issues relevant to critical appraisal but NOT to wikipedia: Selection bias (choosing a dodgy group to study and saying it's representative of the wider population), Reverse causality (an increase in ice cream sales does not cause hot weather, it's the other way around), Confounding (Red states have better health because they are richer, not because voting republican is good for your health) and Generalisability (how similar is the patient in front of you to the patients in the study, ties in with selection bias). For those interested I would recommend [58] Trisha Greenhalgh's series of articles on how to read and interpret scientific research in the BMJ (No pay wall !)

THis is a good illustration of why we use secondary sources and avoid OR. It's not difficult to tear a paper apart, identify it's flaws and question it's conclusions. It's necessary for a doctor to do this to understand the limitations of research and provide individual advice that is mindful of the problems the researchers faced. On wikipedia and in other forms of lobbying, minor flaws in a paper can be magnified, distorted and used to discredit good research or buff up bad research. So instead wikipedia uses expert opinion which is a lot safer but occasionally less powerful and up to date.Aspheric (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Section for identifying potentially useful sources not yet used in the article. Please add source with short comment. As/if sources are added to the article they can be struck through here. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Johannessen, Helle; Lázár, Imre, ed. (2006). Multiple Medical Realities: Patients And Healers In Biomedical, Alternative And Traditional Medicine. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-026-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) Edited volume from the "medical pluralism" end of the spectrum. Very good for non-US perspectives. Can't vouch for quality of content but some of it looks interesting. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Danell, J. -A. B. (2011). "Representation and Negotiation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Citation Context Analysis". Science Communication. 34 (3): 299–333. doi:10.1177/1075547011413140. Re boundary work; biomed policing through categorisation of CAM as "deviant", "pseudo", "amateur"; CAM advocates attempt to shift boundary through producing RCTs etc; asymmetrical negotiation - CAM subordinate & translated and transformed through process.

• Shippee, T. P.; Schafer, M. H.; Ferraro, K. F. (2012). "Beyond the barriers: Racial discrimination and use of complementary and alternative medicine among Black Americans". Social Science & Medicine. 74 (8): 1155. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.003. Experience of racial discrimination and use of CAM/alt med (US).

• Shim, J. -M.; Bodeker, G.; Burford, G. (2011). "Institutional heterogeneity in globalization: Co-development of western-allopathic medicine and traditional-alternative medicine". International Sociology. 26 (6): 769. doi:10.1177/0268580911423062. Some really horrible language and very acronym heavy. Data from 58 countries on development of WAM ("western allopathic medicine") and TAM ("traditional alternative medicine") in the context of globalization. Greater mortality burden predicts greater heterogeneity of medical institutions (WAM TAM - Bam Bam).

• Fu, J. Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y. H.; Huang, M. H.; Chen, D. Z. (2011). "Bibliometric analysis of complementary and alternative medicine research over three decades". Scientometrics. 88 (2): 617. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0391-0.

• Naraindas, H. (2011). "Of relics, body parts and laser beams: The German Heilpraktiker and his Ayurvedic spa". Anthropology & Medicine. 18: 67–86. doi:10.1080/13648470.2010.525873. Interesting on the problem of boundaries and divisions

• Sointu, E. (2011). "Detraditionalisation, gender and alternative and complementary medicines". Sociology of Health & Illness. 33 (3): 356–371. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01275.x. Qualitative; UK sample (women); gender & CAM usage

• Sointu, Eeva (15 May 2012). Theorizing Complementary and Alternative Medicines: Wellbeing, Self, Gender, Class. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-30931-9. Patient perspective

• Ruggie, Mary (8 April 2004). Marginal to Mainstream: Alternative Medicine in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83429-2.

• Wahlberg, A. (2007). "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom". Social Science & Medicine. 65 (11): 2307–2316. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024. PMID 17719708. Excellent source on UK developments re CAM in late 20th century. Had been used in article but did not support text which referenced and it and article text were deleted.

Agreed did not support the text (now removed). Qexigator (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Alphabiotics

I suggest we include/add Alphabiotics into this article and/or subarticles.

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alphabiotics
• http://alphabioticinfo.com/
• http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/alphabiotics.html
• http://www.alphabiotics.net/

Ibanix (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Flexner Report in lead

I'm wondering why we mention the Flexner Report in the lead. Is this necessary? It's a rather esoteric (though very significant) bit of medical history which few know about. I'm not sure how relevant it is to alternative medicine, other than it separated the homeopathic schools out and increased the standards of the remaining schools. I suggest we not mention it in the lead and just move the refs to the mention in the article's body. It's just not important enough to be worth mentioning in the lead. (See my guidelines on how to create a lead.) What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like an improvement. It is of course pretty important historically, but nobody pulls out their dog eared copy of Flexner 1910 before handing down a decision that Quantum Iridology (please let that be a redlink) is not medicine. It has a subsection so there is some justification for including a mention in the lead summary, but it does not really seem like an efficient use of space. We have some three dozen sections and subsections, so some fairly brutal summarizing is in order.

If we want a more thorough rewrite of the lead, I would say take the first paragraph to provide a workable definition, including examples and a bare smattering of historical context; devote an entirely new second paragraph to safety, efficacy, and criticism; and then end with a third paragraph on regulation, prevalence, and appeal. This is not quite the order information is currently presented in the article, but seems a logical enough set of groupings. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2013

Typo "postive" --> "positive" -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Major undiscussed change, edit warring, copyvio

Wkerney, would you please explain what is meant in this edit?

You appear to be referring to a consensus not currently in evidence on this talkpage. My understanding of current consensus is that the lack of independent verification is a defining feature of the topic and should properly be treated in the lead summary section. A seven year old draft guidance document is unlikely to change this. If consensus has changed, we should hold a discussion here rather than repeatedly inserting the same disputed text. This is edit warring; please do not do that. Please also be aware that this page is covered by ArbCom sanctions, as noted at the top of this page (any action under the sanctions requires an independent administrator, in which category I do not count myself).

Please also be aware that it is never permissible simply to copy text from a source, as you did in the above-linked edit. Yes, this policy applies even to documents produced by a US government agency. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I spent three hours in the middle of my night reading the Talk page archives searching for this consensus. I felt sure it was there, as the comment on the edit was so confident. Can I no longer assume "Good Faith"? I know I'm a bit wet behind the ears at this wiki thing, but honestly ! (To be totally clear, I support 2/0's actions) Roxy the dog (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It was there, no idea where it went after being archived. Wkerney (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have struck a compromise. There is no reason we can't have both. Since the wordings are nearly identical, except for the last few words, I have kept those words and also the reference. Wkerney, does that edit serve the purpose? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The key sticking point is defining alt med by "not backed by science" when this is not the definition any of the major sources use. If you want to switch it to "some say it is not backed by science" I wouldn't have a problem with it. My main issue is that the Wikipedia page is essentially inventing its own definition instead of using the definition that the FDA, NHS, WHO, and so forth all use, which is defining it in contrast to traditional medicine. Wkerney (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the FDA, NHS, WHO definitions contradict the NSF source we use to support he current wording? (i.e. not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method) Or you just think there's a WP:WEIGHT issue? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wkerney, I wasn't aware that that was your concern. I thought you wanted to also use the FDA definition, so I included the words which weren't identical to the previous definition, and also included the ref to the FDA page. This way we are being inclusive, rather than narrow. As far as inventing our own definition (and we're not doing that "instead of"), the lede summarizes content from the body of the article, so it's common practice to end up with definitions based on that content. This also means that definitions at Wikipedia are often better and more comprehensive than definitions found elsewhere, because they are based on multiple sources. They are usually, as is the case here, in addition to definitions found elsewhere. Here we are actually combining and paraphrasing well-known definitions. The part you seem to object to is from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which TippyGoomba has just quoted. That is a key defining feature of alternative medicine, since altmed does not base its claims on scientific evidence, but often on shoddy research, anecdotes, traditions, or even the outright devious fabrications and marketing ploys of quacks.

The very term "alternative medicine" is considered deceptive. It's actually "alternative to medicine", and not a true alternative, since there is no equivalence of effect. A true alternative would be between two (or more) different methods that all have somewhat similar proven effect(s), so choosing between them would be a legitimate and valid choice. This happens between effective drugs all the time, and each one can be considered a true alternative to the other(s). -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Alt med does not mean "an alternative to medicine". It means what it says, alternative medicine, which is still medicine, but an alternative to traditional treatment. This is not my definition - this is the definition every major medical organization in the world uses. Inventing your own definition violates NOR and should be discarded. The notion that alt med is not based on science is valid in some specifics, but not in the general. Pubmed has something like 300,000 papers tagged for alt med, not all of which, needless to say, contain negative results. The journal of "Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/241/) or the UCSF pharmacy school classes on the same topics would be a contradiction of terms using your definition. Wkerney (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I too support the current version. It's accurate and well-sourced. It doesn't beat around the bush either, which is a clear improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We reached consensus several months ago, now archived, after a very very long discussion after which it was agreed that no major medical organizations use the definition currently in the lede. The version I used was what is actually used. Wkerney (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As someone who participated quite a bit in that discussion, I don't agree that there was a consensus except by default. That is, there were a lot of back-and-forth changes, people gradually lost interest (I know I did), and the article's final state happened to be the one you mention. Six weeks ago someone changed it again and there was no objection. I think that is long enough for a new default consensus to have formed. But regardless, the opinions of the editors who are currently on the page is more important.

If anyone is interested in the original discussions, they are spread out all the way from the bottom of Archive 20 to the bottom of Archive 23. Also, significant portions are out of order and in some cases are cross-referenced with each other. Have fun reading. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

is the reason this 'consensus' is all higgledy piggledy because people kept commenting on the discussion in the wrong places? Roxy the dog (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, this was the actual "major undisclosed change" when consensus was broken. Wkerney (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

By my standards, I was the boldest I have ever been, but there is no consensus for that change.Roxy the dog (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The assertion by Brangifer above is clearly not original research:

The notion of alternative medicine was, and still is used to indicate that an alternative to medicine proper exists. In other words, whatever the alternative consists of, it is both theoretically and methodologically equal to medicine as a system.

— Louhiala, P. and Puustinen, R. (2012), "Alternative, complementary, integrative – conceptual problems in marketing healthcare ideologies and services". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 17: 156–159. doi:10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01147.x

LeadSongDog come howl! 20:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wkerney's changes and comments seem reasonable and it is unsurprising that this reference is continually questioned as we are using a non-medical primary source using a specialised definition to interpret survey data in precedence to definitions provided by major medical organisations (WHO, NCCAM, etc..) and major journals (BMJ, Lancet, etc..). This defies wiki policy / guidence and common sense but persists for a number of reasons, including PoV and the inherent difficulty describing the subject.

It's like writing an article about sofas and cushions under the title "alternatives to chairs", appeasing people who can't stand stools and think they should be banned and debating with philosophers who are searching for the platonic ideal form of chair. The result is an article that great in parts (background and history) and terrible in others (examples) and is a poor reflection of the subject.

One litmus test of good medical article is whether the structure and content reflect any of the general reviews in the medical literature. This article doesn't. I don't think the lead has had consensus for a long time (more a truce) but it's not terrible and the article has other problems like the 'Examples' section and references like 111 which are pushing it towards parody. Ideally i'd like to go back pre-Nov 2012 but can't think of a way without an edit war or time machine Aspheric (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Liking Jackmcbarn's edit, hope it lasts. Removed the tautology in the second sentence - what else would medical schools teach, other than medicine and surgery ?! Aspheric (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't propose to come back in editing here but haviing contributed to lead etc (last edit 23 May 2013, first 10 Nov 2012), including putting Flexner in lead, just want to say broadly agree with Asp. above - and 2/0's proposal below for lead rewrite looks like making sense. Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't last long, but I like the new one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To summarise, bold edits have been made to lead and quickly reverted. No discussion has ensued, presumably becuase the logic doesn't stack up / can't be evidenced and in any case it's easier to simply insert a few perjorative accusations in to the edit summaries. Alt med is a difficult article to improve but this sort of editing is still very disappointing.Aspheric (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

2/0 among others are goaltending the article. We reached a reasonably NPOV consensus lede a while back, then someone ninja edited it back to the POV lede, and now 2/0 and others are instantly reverting any changes to it without discussion, and he filed an official complaint against me. I am trying not to say he is Operating in Bad Faith, but based on his userpage, it appears he has an ax to grind on the issue, and is not interested in consensus or the truth. Merely changing it from "all" to "some" of alt med is not based on science, which is pretty uncontroversial (PubMed has 300,000 articles tagged with 'alt med') was enough for him to instantly edit war it back to its NPOV status. Someone else besides me needs to try to make a change for the better. It's stuff like this that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Wkerney (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The understanding of "science", scientific method, criteria etc, is itself inherently shifting, as the term is used among various groups of theorists and practitioners of its many branches, as well as among reasonably well-informed others, whatever definition-lovers may in good faith happen to believe from time to time, sometimes with a degree of self-righteousness which can be more fervent than true to the changing state of the art. The result can be ambiguity, equivocation, polarised argument and other hindrances. The Flexner Report was mentioned to let such hindrances be mitigated by reference to its effects as a well-known event happening in the course of developing "modern" medicine in North America and then elsewhere, springing from the promotion of "scientific" medicine elsewhere, particularly in Germany, from which homeopathy had also spread to America. There are some editors who are more in favour of allowing the facts to be stated, than letting the article be unduly affected by editorial fervour tending to soapboxing. Qexigator (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that Wkerney has continued the behaviour that he was warned for only a few days ago. What happens next? Roxy the dog (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support an immediate indefinite topic ban. I think we should take a much more active stance against the editors who conspicuously identify themselves as problem editors on this article. He recently left a message on my talk page, and my impression is that he is the incorrigible type. It's already a full time job keeping out the quacks as it is. Let's do this. Greg Bard (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem editors? I am trying to improve the state of the lede to something reasonably NPOV and consistent with the definitions used by major medical organizations around the world. Consistently calling people "quacks" and flaming people in their edit statements is just bad behavior on your part, not mine. If you want to reach a reasonable compromise, take it here, not to edit summaries. I can quote you all the Wikipedia policies you are violating, but unlike you I do not try to get my opposition silenced rather than engage in discussion. Wkerney (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to the edits of that editor in particular but if a sufficiently long history of diffs can be provided demonstrating obvious continued disregard for Wikipedia policy after multiple warnings, it's worth looking into. Zad68 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Actually I see that this article is under Discretionary Sanctions and Bbb23 has provided the appropriate notification and a warning already. Getting action done would actually be relatively easy. All that would need to be done is to notify Bbb23 about the problematic behavior and provide diffs, and then see if Bbb23 thinks a discretionary sanction is in order. Alternatively, a request for discretionary sanctions can be lodged at WP:AE. Zad68 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of trying to 'ban' editors, could we instead focus on the issue as wkerney is not the only editor to have raised this. The lead currently defines 'alternative medicine' as 'not based on science' but this is a broad and definitive statement without any real evidence to support it. In fact, there is a large body of scientific research (of variable quality) on alternative medicine. If somebody can suggest a high quality medical secondary source to support the statement then we can move on, otherwise we should change it e.g. "These practices generally do not have scientific support for their claims". It's not weasel or whitewashing as medicine in general and alt med in particular are a broad church and the article needs to reflect that. Instead of a ban on editors, I would prefer a ban on 'reverts' without comments or suggestions on how to improve the lead Aspheric (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes,[59], better. Anyone reading on will find the reason for "lack scientific support for their claims" and for "scientific criticism" sufficiently explained. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"without any real evidence to support it" is probably one of the most shocking things I have read today, and if it wasn't so sad, I'd still be laughing. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to be corrected. If you are able to provide a reference, it would make things easier, thanks Aspheric (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to return to discussing content - the controversy is regarding the first sentence of the lead. The first sentence says: "Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method" and is sourced to a book from the NSF. I do not understand why so much weight is given to this controversial definition? The NSF source even qualifies this controversial definition, it says:

"As used here, alternative medicine refers to all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods.".

I bolded the first 3 words of the sentence because they say a lot about the generality of this definition. It is interesting that 2 sentences later, the same NSF source also says:

"The American Medical Association defines alternative medicine as any diagnostic method, treatment, or therapy that is "neither taught widely in U.S. medical schools nor generally available in U.S. hospitals."

Why do we give more weight to the controversial definition used in the NSF source (for the specific purposes of their book) to start the lead, when there is a more generalizable definition provided by that same source and also attributed to a well-respected medical body (the AMA).Puhlaa (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I've been bringing. The AMA, FDA, NHS, WHO, etc., *all* use the definition I've been trying to put back into the lede, after reaching consensus several months ago. Instead we seem stuck with a very NPOV definition in the lede due to some very active edit warrers. Wkerney (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we're giving "more weight", rather than the proper flow when multiple definitions are paraphrased into the first few sentences. We use the FDA source as backing for wording that is essentially the same as the AMA's definition: "... not typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools or used in conventional medicine." That sounds much like the AMA's definition, right? The essential difference has to do with lack of evidence, which also happens to be one of the major reasons for why such subjects aren't traditional medical school stuff, so starting with the NSF definition and leading into the FDA/AMA definition seems to work fine and flow nicely. We get them all that way. I think the current version reads fine and contains the essential points. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NSF is non-medical, context specific, primary source and inclusion, let alone use to define the topic is very dubious to say the least. Of course we should highlight the poor science / pseudoscience that characterizes much of alt med but it's not how you define the subject. As it stands, the lead is simply misleading.Aspheric (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article itself makes fairly clear what the most common definition is among institutions:

An expert panel at a conference hosted in 1995 by the US Office for Alternative Medicine (OAM),[n 4] devised a theoretical definition of alternative medicine as "a broad domain of healing resources ... other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period."[35] This definition has been widely adopted by CAM researchers,[38] official government bodies such as the UK Department of Health,[39] has often been attributed as the definition used by the Cochrane Collaboration,[40] and, with slight modification, was preferred in the 2005 consensus report of the Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention issued by the US Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.[n 5]

The issue with using "non-evidence based" is that many mainstream medical practices are not evidence based (in the double digit percentages, last I looked), and there's obviously a lot of dispute over various alternative medical practices, including whether they remain alternative if they are proven by evidence (and adopted as maintream or not). As I recall from a recent report on adherence to back pain clinical guidelines, mainstream practitioners have actually moved away from evidence-based practices, and in the best case it typically takes 10-15 years for guidelines to be adopted. II | (t - c) 05:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing, it's not clear to me that there's much chance of a productive discussion here. As I've observed on ANI, I'm worried about complete dishonesty at a related page. Here, I'm concerned that we're cherrypicking sources rather than sticking to the most defensible position, based on the most reputable institutions. Should I bother continuing the discussion, or should I proceed straight to RS/N and failing that, ArbCom? II | (t - c) 05:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to discuss possible future RfC

Everyone here - including you, actually, II ;-) - is repeating arguments that were already recycled multiple times in the archives. So yes, probably some kind of intervention is needed.

I will try one last attempt at a solution. I don't recall anyone ever arguing that either of the definitions should be excluded from the lead entirely (even though those are the two states that the article is going back and forth between). Can we work something out that puts both definitions in the lead?

Maybe a WP:RFC with options like this:

• definition A in sentence 1, definition B in sentence 2
• definition B in sentence 1, definition A in sentence 2
• definition A in sentence 1, definition B lower down in the lead
• definition B in sentence 1, definition A lower down in the lead
• both definitions in sentence 1, with definition A first
• both definitions in sentence 1, with definition B first
• definition A only (definition B described in article body)
• definition B only (definition A described in article body)

Feel free to offer modifications. To be honest, I'm not sure why we never called an RfC on this before. I thought of it a couple times, but never followed through. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have returned the page to the state as it was when section of the talk page was started. There has been no consensus for the repeated changes to the page since that time. Please don't do it again, wkerny has already been warned for this behaviour,ad thse unagreed changes are just repeating that against consensus edit. Roxy the dog (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

These options are fine. The current lede isn't consensus, Roxy. I've been trying to get the lede consistent with the actual consensus, and into a place where it isn't crazily NPOV as it is now - it not only ignores all the major medical organizations in the world, but even its own source doesn't say what it claims to say. My suggestions for how the lede should look are in the history log, but in general my proposal is this: Definition B, followed by a weaker version of Definition A (that some/many/most of alt med does not have good scientific research supporting it). I think both are important, actually, but the way it is now, it is just grotesquely misleading. Wkerney (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also requested page protection because of the edit warring. But please, comment on the RfC proposal. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This Talk section started at 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC) with question about this [60] change in the lead, first paragraph. If there is to be retro edit while that is being discussed,, then the lead would be better reinstated as immediately before, at 05:45, 30 July (and as it had been for some time before that), per [61] and [62]. Let tweaks about Flexner or naturopathy come in later. Qexigator (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In above list, which is A and which B? Qexigator (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is simply which source should define the topic - 1. NSF (not based on science) or 2. AMA/WHO/NCAAM/BMJ/NEJM/Lancet (not part of conventional medicine). It doesn't make sense to include them both in the lead because they are clearly different. The NSF source is a non-medical primary source with a context specific definition. If the decision is keep, there should be some attempt to justify this large deviation from WP:MEDRS Aspheric (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with an often unscientific and fake medical/nonmedical subject, we need both types of definitions to cover the subject adequately. It's largely a legal and political issue too, involving medical fraud, quackery, illegal and unethical marketing, false claims, junk science, pseudoscience, etc.. MEDRS only covers strictly medical facts, not controversies, and the very existence of this subject is defined by its controversial nature. The NFS is definitely a RS for scientific opinions on the subject. Using only the POV of proponents would violate NPOV. We must include the POV of skeptics and other mainstream scientists.

You can find plenty of sources and ideas here: Alternative medicine critics. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but to avoid confusion, which of those two is A (such that the other is B) in the above listing of 8 options? Is it being proposed that when we have ranked them from 1 down to 8, we pick a winner? Qexigator (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RfCs are one of the standard mechanisms of Wikipedia dispute resolution. You can check WP:RFC/A for a list of currently open RfCs to see what they look like - here is an example of one that has been open for a while. Basically, when a group of editors can't agree, they decide to publicly ask for the input of the Wikipedia community on a particular question (it is good form to propose the question beforehand to make sure there are no objections; this is what I have just done). In this case, since there are a lot of options, I would recommend asking people to give their top three choices. After a while, usually a month, the discussion is closed and the consensus of editors in the discussion determines the answer to the question. The process is semi-binding, i.e. it can't usually be overturned without a good reason.

I deliberately left out which was A and B, because I thought people would start debating that instead of the actual proposal. :-) If necessary, we can ask an uninvolved editor to flip a coin IRL. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why flip a coin when we have access to verifiable online dice rollers with an arbitrary number of sides?

I think that the distinction between "based on science" and "part of conventional medicine" is a bit of an artificially flavored snozzberry here. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not yet another hierarchical system; the corner cases can go in the individual articles. While it has been reliably reported to be true that a somewhat scary percentage of interventions by medical professionals have insufficient evidence, nobody calls these alternative medicine because they are not part of that network of cultures. What I think both sets of definitions are aiming for is that in medicine we look for new interventions that build on previously well measured aspects of biology (or to overturn previous understanding with new data), whereas various alternative medicine treatments are based on unobservable putative energies, are promoted to the public before sufficient evidence has been gathered, or otherwise operate outside this standard. These definitions are compatible (and really there should be little surprise that reliable sources tend to agree) under this functional approach, and I think that this is the key understanding that we should be conveying in the lead. If the phrase "not part of conventional medicine" leaves a reader with an impression that the statement is akin to "not a Cubs fan", then we have been misleading and should reword.

If we do set up an RFC (probably wise), I urge that we first agree on a neutral presentation of alternatives accompanied with a short summary of the best of each side, and that everyone here then desist from talking past each other for the duration. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

2/0, I suspect you mean RfC, rather than RFA. We should reserve ArbCom proceedings for extreme cases after all other measures, including RfCs, have been exhausted. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. This article may be in need of a little improvement, but I do not think it has done anything nearly bad enough to warrant making it an admin. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not agree that you can define alternative medicine as non-scientific and even the NSF source goes on to cite the more conventional AMA definition. In fact the most dangerous alt med practioners are the ones who use the language of science (albeit really bad science). Brangifer has helpfully pointed out a number of sources and ideas but none that support the assertion that alt med can be defined as non-scientific; it's just not that simple. Saying that MEDRS doesn't apply and that the definitions are compatible is the worst sort of Orwellian doublethink and does little other than obfuscate this central issue. Even a descriptive encylopedia dealing with controversies has to start with a definition and it makes no sense that we are not using a standard definition Aspheric (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misapprehend my point, Aspheric. Even a cursory glance through PubMed will show plenty of research articles studying alternative medicine, some of them of the highest quality. Merely being studied does not make a practice science (and here is not the place to hash out the demarcation problem anyway). Take, for example, Reiki: even if high quality studies were to validate the effects claimed by practitioners, the original driving force behind the idea would remain a mystical revelation on a mountain, not the data. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. i think i've got it; science is being used as a synonym for conventional medicine and as a noun, not an adjective. It's an interesting question (you could even argue faith in science is a religion) but it doesn't help us. At best, it's a shakey (science / ebm is only one ingredient in conventional medicine) and the view is simply not reflected in the literature (phenomenological / philosophical or otherwise). Most papers that ask 'what is alt med' do not go on to define conventional medicine as science and I don't think we should either. The sources should take precedence and in this case, they are unambiguous. To say instead, that alt med generally lacks scientific support and is subject to heavy scientific criticism is a far more citable (i.e. every review thats ever been published) and robust position. Aspheric (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To get this rolling, let's define our terms and get ready for a possible future RfC. That way we go into it without any confusion or misunderstandings. Simplification is essential. We have too many choices offered above. In this preliminary process (I have tweaked this section's heading to be more descriptive), we may end up obviating the need for an RfC! That would really be nice.

Here are the first two (and relevant) sentences from the current lede (it's currently stable because of article protection). I'm going to split it into its A and B components:

• Part A: Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method.

• Part B: It may consist of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using alternative medical diagnoses and treatments which are not typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools or used in conventional medicine.

Part A (NSF definition) addresses the evidence base, and Part B (FDA/AMA definition) addresses its placement outside of the mainstream (non-alternative) health care system. I have taken the liberty to underline the essential phrases. Whether we agree with those definitions, I trust that none of us here disagree that those are actually the definitions those sources use.

There are other descriptive aspects of more minor importance which are mentioned, but which are not questioned or debated. Let's use the A and B descriptors in our discussion and see if we can reach a good solution. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. If it is proposed that A and B are both in the lead, then does that let us have Option 1 A 1st, B next as above, and Option 2 B 1st, next A thus:

• Part B: Alternative medicine consists of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using alternative medical diagnoses and treatments which are not typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools or used in conventional medicine.
• Part A: It may be a practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you will need to add something to the effect that you are referring only to medical schools in the West, since degree courses in the East do include treatments that this article describes as alternative. Gandydancer (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that is implied in the term "conventional medicine," but I have no objection either way. Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Qexigator's proposal for option 1 and option 2 are good. I would make an additional suggestion, that in both cases the second of the two sentences shouldn't be conditional ("may consist of," "may be").

By the way, we did have quite a few other sources under discussion in the archives, beyond the ones being discussed here. In particular, there were a number which (I think) didn't directly support NSF's statement but generally followed the theme of describing alt med based on level of evidence or level of scientific rigor. There was an attempt to summarize sources here but interest in the discussion was waning at that point, and only one set of sources was added. Here is a previous revision of the page, which I do not endorse, but which contains most (I think) of the other sources. I am sure someone will point out that most of these sources have been challenged (but then again, the suitability of the references from NCCAM, BMJ, etc have also been challenged on various grounds.) We will still need to decide whether or not to present them, or of course to present only some of them.

I will be leaving for a wikibreak in the next couple of days, but I'm sure that everything will go fine. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that medical schools in The West sometimes teach alternative medicine alongside their medical courses as well.

We really should find a better source than that eight year old FDA draft. The points it makes are fine and I have no doubt that we can find similar, but it lacks a certain gravitas. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources that could help inform the discussion:

1. NCCAM (of the NIH) – [CAM is] “often used to mean the array of health care approaches with a history of use or origins outside of mainstream medicine, they are actually hard to define and may mean different things to different people” This definition is very popular, as evidenced by this review, which says: "the NCCAM definition is widely known and used.....the NCCAM definition is inclusive of many different types of therapies and products"
2. The US 'Institute of Medicine', in a 2005 consensus report entitled Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, defined CAM as - “CAM is a broad domain of resources that encompasses health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period. ”
3. World Health Organization - “The terms "complementary medicine" or "alternative medicine" ... refer to a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country's own tradition and are not integrated into the dominant health care system.”
4. Peer-reviewed article in British Medical Journal entitled: “What is complementary medicine?” - “a group of therapeutic and diagnostic disciplines that exist largely outside the institutions where conventional health care is taught and provided.”
5. The National Cancer Institute in the USA lists CAM as "Any medical system, practice, or product that is not thought of as standard care"
6. The National Health Service in the UK defines CAM as "treatments that fall outside of mainstream healthcare."Puhlaa (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fact Compendium

While Wikipedia cares more about Verifiability than Truth, it is also true that Wikipedia pages should try to accurately portray the facts that they are summarizing. Stating that alternative medicine "is not backed by science" is a generalization which is at odds with the facts. Here are 220,461 papers on PubMed that are tagged with "alternative medicine": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternative+medicine. Here's 40,000 papers tagged with CAM: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=complementary+alternative+medicine and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=CAM. Here's 100,000 tagged with "Chinese medicine": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=chinese+medicine and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=traditional+chinese+medicine. 21,380 on "herbal medicine" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=herbal+medicine and so forth.

Obviously, not all of these papers have negative results. Therefore the current lede is false. For one specific example, Chiropractic Medicine (which is undoubtedly full of wild and dubious claims) has, in fact, been found to be effective at treating lower back pain. Source 1. Source 2.

Put simply, the current lede is untenable in the face of reliable, verifiable facts from reliable and verifiable sources on the internet. The only source provided for the wording in the current lede is an NSF article which even states that it is not using the generally accepted definition, but creating one just for the paper.

Every major medical organization in the world (the FDA, NHS, WHO, AMA, and so forth - click on each link) use the definition that alternative medicine is an alternative to traditional or orthodox medicine. It has nothing to do directly with the scientific basis for the treatments. In fact, the NIH maintains a journal of evidence for alternative medicine, and the AMA has run special reports showing which parts of alt med work, scientifically speaking, and which do not.

The facts are overwhelming. Therefore it seems very odd to me that numerous editors continue to insist on a definition that has no basis in reliable, verifiable fact. Worse, they edit war any constructive edit to the lede to make it less blatantly POV and wrong, call for the banning of people working to improve the article, and are relentlessly Wikilawyering. I am not sure why they are doing this, but hopefully the posting of all the facts in one convenient place above will put their relentless edit warring to rest. Note that I am not arguing that alt med is not full of hooey. There's lots of hooey. So I am proposing a very simple change that should make everyone happy - changing it from "all" of alt med is not based on science to "some". Wkerney (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are, again, confusing the (1) existence of scientific research for (2) unequivocal consensus that such research has proven an alternative method to be good enough to be worthy of inclusion as mainstream medicine, and thus no longer called "alternative". That's what happens when the weight of such research is convincing. That hasn't happened. Counting papers is OR and doesn't work here. We go by what RS say.

So, to quote you, "Stating that alternative medicine "is not backed by science" is a generalization which is [NOT] at odds with the facts." The facts are, as stated by the NSF and several other sources in the article, that the weight of evidence from all that research does not "back up" the claims of evidence proposed by alternative medicine practitioners. Even the NCCAM's (a VERY pro alt med organization) use of hundreds of millions of dollars over many years has not given good results: "NCCAM and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than $2.5 billion on such research since 1992; this research has largely not demonstrated the efficacy of alternative treatments." -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing 'all' with 'some'. I have never said all of alt med is supported by science. But the facts clearly show some of it is, which is why the current lede is counterfactual. Wkerney (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts are not overwhelming. Your argument here is based purely on counting papers, not on the content of them. I would suggest that the overwhelmingly huge majority of them show that Alt Med has no scientific basis. If the best that Alt Med can come up with is "probably effective for lower back pain" then I think the article has the balance about right. I don't think your proposal will make everyone happy. --Roxy the dog (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even one positive result for alternative medicine means the lead needs to be rewritten. Someone should go through the papers and count how many show alternative medicine to be effective. RatOfNIH (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This article should not describe Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)'s personal opinion as fact. The NSF is an important institution, yes, but it is not a medical institution. It is not a part of the NIH. People who come to this article and walk away thinking that the predominate definition in Western society is the definition from an obscure 2003 NSF paper rather than the definition used more recently by the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration have been basically misled. It doesn't matter how many editors agree to this definition: it does not fly. Consensus is not majority for a reason: it protects minorities as it is biased towards the correct approach. And yes, there is a correct approach. This is not postmodern English lit: there is a right way and a wrong way. II | (t - c) 02:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think wiki articles should describe anybody's opinion as fact, particularly my own, even if the article itself would be considerably improved. What a strange thing to say. --Roxy the dog (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused. Do you support the lead as it is currently, using a 2002 National Science Foundation definition exclusively rather than using the more recent Cochrane Collaboration or the U.S. Institute of Medicine definitions? The proper way to write a Wikipedia article is to find the most relevant and authoritative sources and work backwards from there. The approach taken here is the opposite: the editors have an opinion, mine deep through possible sources to find a relatively obscure source which supports that opinion, and present that source as authoritative to the rest of the world. It is hard for me to believe that any reasonable neutral observer would agree that an older NSF trumps Cochrane Collaboration and the Institute of Medicine. Frankly, as I commented to User:2over0 on his talkpage, I'm surprised at the lack of propriety here. II | (t - c) 05:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

NSF "definition exclusively"? You must be joking. Has someone removed the other definitions? It was used as one of the definitions, not the only one. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Wkerney (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

My argument is in two parts, actually. 1) That the claim that there is no scientific support for alt med is false. This is clearly the case. It's not possible to argue otherwise. As I said, the government maintains a journal of scientific research of alt med, and there are hundreds and thousands of papers available on the subject on PubMed. 2) That the definition used is clearly not the one used by all the medical organizations worldwide. The only counter-definition used is a reference to an NSF paper that makes it very clear that the definition is only for the paper, and that the general definition is the same as all the other organizations use. But we seem stuck with a definition that is at odds with fact and organizational consensus, because a certain group of people threaten to ban anyone who makes an improvement to the article. Wkerney (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is scientific support for Alt Med, we certainly should see it. Have you got a decent reference for your extraordinary claim that there is scientific support for Alt Med? Which government maintains a journal? What is the Journal called? --Roxy the dog (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you truly have the interest, you could check out the sources I mention above (Cochrane Collaboration and the Institute of Medicine) which have been peremptorily dismissed. See Alternative_medicine#Efficacy and read more than three paragraphs. II | (t - c) 07:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not been here long enough to know if we can use a wiki page as a reliable source, but the following tiny section from the efficacy link hits the mark " NCCAM and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than $2.5 billion on such research since 1992; this research has largely not demonstrated the efficacy of alternative treatments.[156][198][199]" This illustrates the point. --Roxy the dog (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I only included the link to the article encourage you to read and research independently rather than being spoon-fed. I think it is problematic for people to jump into talk pages without spending a sufficient amount of time just slowly reading the article in its entirety. It appears you may have skipped over the fourth paragraph:

As of 2005, the Cochrane Library had 145 CAM-related Cochrane systematic reviews and 340 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. An analysis of the conclusions of only the 145 Cochrane reviews was done by two readers. In 83% of the cases, the readers agreed. In the 17% in which they disagreed, a third reader agreed with one of the initial readers to set a rating. These studies found that, for CAM, 38.4% concluded positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%), 4.8% concluded no effect, 0.69% concluded harmful effect, and 56.6% concluded insufficient evidence. An assessment of conventional treatments found that 41.3% concluded positive or possibly positive effect, 20% concluded no effect, 8.1% concluded net harmful effects, and 21.3% concluded insufficient evidence. However, the CAM review used the more developed 2004 Cochrane database, while the conventional review used the initial 1998 Cochrane database.

I'm not going to say that these statistics are perfect and I think it could be improved through a newer update or by segmenting it according to some sort of category as some categories are pseudoscientific, like homeopathy, and should never be thought effective or possibly effective. II | (t - c) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement to read and research. I'm curious as to why these Alt Med positive and probable effects are not reflected in all the effective Alt Med treatments vindicated by this Cochrane review. Alt Medists must be rubbing their hands with glee that at last they have positive things to report, backed by Cochrane endorsed science? Perhaps Dawkins et al were correct, and all this good Alt Med stuff has simply been incorporated into ... medicine? --Roxy the dog (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Alt medists"? Dawkins? Rubbing their hands with glee? For goodness sake, cut it out. I just want the lede to reflect the facts. "At last they have positive things to report"? You learning about something for the first time doesn't make it new or novel. The fact that *some* alt med is effective has been known for a long, long time. Wkerney (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. However, I recently saw an estimate that it takes around 15 years for mainstream medical guidelines to become common practice (search for a recent JAMA article on low back pain medical guideline adherence), so I wouldn't be jumping to that conclusion without reliable sources. I do think that "alt med" practitioners may try to claim credit for things which are legitimately medical but somewhat less emphasized such as lifestyle therapies, but I'm not sure how far that goes. II | (t - c) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are in fact peer-reviewed studies of alt medicine that label entirely uncontroversial and widely-used practices as "alternative medicine". Off the top of my head, I recall a study showing how widespread the use of alt med was, but the study included increased use of exercise as a form of alt med. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who practices western (i.e. legitimate) medicine who does not believe that increased exercise leads to any number of health benefits. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We're essentially talking about definitions based on different criteria: one based on relation to existing mainstream, and the other based on evidence base. We should include both, but start with the AMA/FDA definition (relation...) and then include the other by attributing it and prefacing it with something like "others define AM by its relation to scientific evidence and believe the evidence is not convincing." Would something like that work? Attribution should help. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine. In-line attribution could be used but I'm not sure it is necessary. Start with the AMA/FDA/Cochrane/IOM definition and then follow it up with the NSF definition. Done. Let's move on to more interesting stuff. I'm on my way to the Sequoia National Park for vacation and I'm typing this thru tethering as my friend drives the rental car on the interstate. The wonders of technology. :) II | (t - c) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

II, that is *not* the "NSF definition". What is widely referred to as the NSF definition on here comes from a paper that, in fact, uses the FDA/NHS/WHO/AMA definition, but says that just for the purposes of the paper, it will equate alt med with medicine not backed by science. If someone has an equivalent definition from a major medical (or scientific) organization, they have yet to post it. Wkerney (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several related but distinct issues that inform the statement "not based on science" that should not be conflated:

1. there is plenty of research done to study various alternative medicine practices;
2. some alternative medicine practices are supported to various extents by decent sources;
3. about the only characteristic unifying the multitude of practices described as "alternative medicine" is that they are not part of "conventional medicine";
4. "alternative medicine" and "conventional medicine" can be construed as social constructs, but this is not a sufficient characterization;
5. there are a few common reasons why an alternative practice might lie outside of what is conventionally considered medicine, including an underlying theory not consistent with biology (homeopathy, chiropractic) or being promoted based on ways of knowing not considered sufficient by modern medicine (echinacea, but not pharmacognosy in general); this list is neither exhaustive nor normative, but covers a goodly number of cases.

Point (1) is not in doubt, but also does not inform a statement about whether altmed is "based on science". Point (2) I think we basically all agree on as well, but post hoc justification is not what is conveyed by the phrase "based on science"; in such cases we should stick to "supported by research" with appropriate consideration for nuance. Point (3) seems to be the root of this discussion - the topic is a vast umbrella term defined in the negative. Point (4) is I think where we really start seeing divergence of opinion: when a major medical body (kudos to Puhlaa for collecting sources) states that a practice is "outside of mainstream medicine" or "not thought of as standard care", this is not a value-neutral statement and the article should not mislead by presenting it as such; the NSF as a body is relevant to this discussion, but we should shy away from the 2002 SEIND source, as it is old and does not add anything that more direct sources do not already address. Point (5) addresses "based on science" in the sense of "derived from or growing out of previous scientific research"; do we have general agreement that alternative medicine practices originate in ways definably different from the ways that new medical therapies are proposed? The example of chiropractic is a good one: there is decent evidence that manual therapy as practised by chiropractors works about as well as manual therapy from a physical therapist for lower back pain, but it would still be incorrect to describe vertebral subluxations as "based on science". Describing "science" as some monolithic force is anyway problematic in general, and clearly there is some disagreement regarding the usage of "based on". Do the distinctions presented here provide a sufficient basis for discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a social construct, and yes this is sufficient for a definition. What is orthodox in one place is heterodox in another. There is nothing controversial about this fact. Wkerney (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Two/three points waiting resolution

This section is to invite discussion where the lead (version quoted below) may need updating and/or tweaking. It is a continuation of the discussion above at "1 Major undiscussed change, edit warring, copyvio - 1.1 Arbitrary break to discuss possible future RfC", which had been interrupted by "2 Fact Compendium", and is to demonstrate that there is no need to rewrite the lead per "3 Rewrite the lead". The question whether there may be one or more parts of the main body of the article to be revised , after the "Two/three points" in the lead have been resolved, is left open for later discussion. Qexigator (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let these two/three points be resolved before attempting rewrite. Another editor (per Arc de Ciel 07:08, 3 August 2013 - "Major undiscussed change, edit warring, copyvio") referred to lead as at 20:08, 19 June 2013 (which restored what had been stable before recent changes),[63]. That version is listed below as a series of bullet points. The last sentence, which reads "The term alternative medicine is used in information issued by public bodies in the United States of America[11] and the United Kingdom.[12] Regulation and licensing of alternative medicine and health care providers varies from country to country, and state to state" is not included in this list, as it is not in question. As I understand it, the three points listed with double bullets are in question, but not the single bullets. All that needs to be resolved for the lead is the inclusion/omission or rewording of those three points, and any updating/correcting of sources.

Alternative medicine is

• any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine,
  • -1- but is not based on evidence gathered with the scientific method.[1]
• It may consist of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using methods of medical diagnosis and treatments
• which were typically not included in the degree courses of established medical schools teaching medicine, including surgery,
• in the tradition of the Flexner Report or similar.[2][3]
• Examples include homeopathy, Ayurveda, chiropractic and acupuncture.

Complementary medicine is

• alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment
• in a belief,...
  • -2- not proven by using scientific methods,
• ...that it "complements" the treatment.[n 1][1][5][6][7]

CAM is the abbreviation for Complementary and alternative medicine.[8][9]

Integrative medicine (or integrative health)

• is
  • -3- the combination of the practices and methods of alternative medicine with evidence-based medicine.[10]

A proposal was under discussion which resulted in tweaking the lead to allow for both of the two following sentences to be included thus:

• Alternative medicine consists of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using alternative medical diagnoses and treatments which are not typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools or used in conventional medicine. It is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method.

Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

+ Please note the accuracy of the lead quoted above concerning the examples given, namely, homeopathy, Ayurveda, chiropractic and acupuncture:

• in respect of -1-, those do not claim to be based on evidence gathered using the scientific method, and typically were not included in the degree courses of established medical schools teaching medicine in the tradition of the Flexner Report or similar. That is factual, sourced and as far as I can see, indisputable, and more fully explained in the body of the article. If there are any examples of alternative medicine health care practices, products or therapies which do claim to be based on evidence gathered using the scientific method and which were typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools teaching medicine in the tradition of the Flexner Report or similar, let them be identified. Qexigator (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• in respect of -2-, the sources support "not proven by using scientific methods". The reasons for this may be debatable in theory and/or practice, ranging from a) bias in the methods used and reported, or inadequacy of trials purporting to be based on "scientific methods", to b) scientific reasoning of the kind which maintains that a perpetual motion machine is impossible due to the fundamentals of modern physics and chemistry, But the lead is not the place to discuss that, whether or not there is a place for something about it in the body. Qexigator (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Beg to differ. "not proven by using scientific methods" is the most fundamental part of any definition of Alt CAM or 'integretave' Med. It should remain in the lede. --Roxy the dog (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not according to any of the world's major medical organizations. Qex is right that it is the major point of contention in the current lede. Wkerney (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Show me any of the worlds major organisations that think Alt Med, Cam, or integrative is proven by scientific method. You can't. --Roxy the dog (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wke - in your view, would draft rewrite per 2/0 (cont.) above be acceptable in respect of:

• "4. Alternative practices generally lack scientific support for their claims and are often the subject of scientific criticism (links to Scientific skepticism) (+ cites /notes 1. to 7.)" and 11.to 15 (+ cites 11. to 15.)? Qexigator (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Differ from whom or what? The above is proposing to retain, for the sake of accuracy, but acknowledges that there is a range of debatable points which may be put to the contrary. Qexigator (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we first rewrite, then we address the remaining points. I don't like how new sections keep getting opened, instead of closing the old ones and advancing the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we should focus on the proposal for the new lead by 2/0. There is a real danger of missing the wood for the trees here Aspheric (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see introductory note now added at top of this section. Qexigator (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

General comment on article as a whole

Please see (per headnote for this section) that The question whether there may be... parts of the main body of the article to be revised, after the "Two/three points" in the lead have been resolved, is left open for later discussion." Qexigator (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why all the hype about conventional medicine and mainstream medicine? This article should be quite simple. I know it never is but... all that is needed is a simple definition e.g."Alternative medicine is comprised of healing arts practiced by practicioners that do not usually follow accepted mainstream medicine practices for a particular geographical location and varies from country to country and even inside country boundaries". The rest all reads like a sales pitch promotion of mainstream medicine, taking every last possible ditch to state how wonderful and approved by their own methods and board, it is. It doesn't belong in this article. It's just bias and reads like it. The article is about Alternative medicine. Define it and stop promoting something else, or slamming alternative practices, here. Oh yeah. What is "Scientific criticism"? Is it studied and peer reviewed before it is publicised? Possibly "criticism from the scientific community"? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you change it to "alleged healing arts" or "professed healing arts" it might be okay. But if you refer to putative "healing arts," it's assumed from the statement that they heal. Do you think homeopathic water "heals"? Do you think putting crystals on your chakras "heals"? Is there any type of "alternative medicine" that you DON'T think heals? Just checking. SBHarris 01:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

confusing "conventional" with "evidence based"

I found an instance of this article confusing "conventional" with "evidence-based". While I would like to think conventional medicine is "evidence based" the sad truth is that much is not. "Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States"[[64]] says "many conventional treatments have not been supported by rigorous testing". Also "simply because a herbal treatment becomes to be adopted by physicians does not mean that herbalists cease to practice" [[65]] i.e. some CAM has evidence to back it. This link [[66]] (College of Medicine, "What Is Integrative Health?") doesn't even mention "evidence" - "An Integrative Health practitioner uses all appropriate therapies, both conventional and complementary" Bhny (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the troublesome (possibly) wordings which occur in the article. Would it be acceptable, where "conventional" first occurs in the lead, to link it to Conventional, or to its redirect Convention (norm)? Macmillan[67] gives of the usual, traditional, or accepted type, instead of being new and different, as in this context; and Oxford[68] gives based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed. Certainly, "conventional" has been part of literary usage for at least two centuries, but "evidence based" is a newcomer, and is probably not in such wide circulation outside specialist fields, and may not be acceptable in some rigorously specialist fields anyway. Qexigator (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good question. It does seem to be used in the more general and traditional sense, rather than a specific scientific sense. If it's part of a quote, we aren't supposed to wikilink words or phrases in quotes. If it's a paraphrase, we could be accused of OR or a synthesis violation by wikilinking, but if the meaning is obviously as stated in my first sentence, we could probably justify such a wikilink. If a consensus backs such an edit, then it will likely survive. To make this easier, we'd need a concrete example of the proposed text and ref(s). That's my opinion, and I'd like to hear what others think. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhny, sorry about not checking the article first. I now realize that this is about a specific change, and a small edit war. If the source says "conventional", and not "evidence-based", then we should write "conventional". That's the simple answer... . Conventional may be used in a general sense, or it may also be used as a synonym for EBM. I haven't checked this one out. Other sources can be used to justify mentioning "evidence-based" in the lead. It's mentioned in the body, so those references can be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to believe that Alternative medicine practitioners believe their procedures and "cures" are based on evidence too. Not to say there aren't shucksters out there in all styles of medicine but I doubt most alternates operate in bad faith. Most believe in what they are doing based on teachings and witnessed evidence r they wouldn't be wasting their time for a miniscule of mainstream medic incomes. Do we have to define the quality of evidence, just stop attempting to write in CAM slams and boost mainstream practices in this article, or just state what these practitioners believe as straight unbiased information to the reading masses? Yes some may parallel witchcraft, IMHO, but judgments should be reserved for the criticism section with credit to the referenced authors only. Articles that open up with obviously biased statements sounding like "these idiots believe...." are a complete turnoff, causing doubt about the authors and lowering my trust of the writings in the article. Wikpedia shouldn't state what is valid in some group's opinion, only knowledge about findings without bias. Despite what anybody declares, Wikpedia is a springboard of knowledge links for intelligent researchers. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note 1) that the lead actually reads: "Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method", 2) the accuracy of that is demonstrated above in "Two/three points waiting resolution", 3) the proposal above "For the lead". These are not denying "that Alternative medicine practitioners believe their procedures and 'cures' are based on evidence" and "believe in what they are doing based on teachings and witnessed evidence ." Qexigator (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite the lead

Alternative medicine or complementary and alternative medicine is a diverse set of systems, treatments, and products typically used or originating outside of or not validated by standard medical care. Aside from falling outside mainstream evidence based healthcare, various alternative medicine practices share little with one another and include many distinct and often contradictory ideas and traditions. Use of the term "alternative medicine" dates from the 1970s, coincident with an increased visibility of unorthodox medical practices; historically, the distinction between "standard" and "alternative" practices traces to the nineteenth century, though several alternative medical systems pre-date the development of modern biomedicine by hundreds of years.

Estimates for the prevalence and acceptance of the use of alternative medicine range from several percent to more than half depending on the precise practises labelled as alternative and the population surveyed. Use has probably been on the rise in the developed world over the past two decades. Regulation varies significantly by jurisdiction. Some alternative medical systems are governed by laws creating a specific license and board of practice, sometimes including a protected professional title such as "Doctor of Chiropractic" (DC) or "Naturopathic Doctor" (ND). Most people who seek alternative treatments do so adjunctive to standard care, with a small but significant minority abjuring conventional care entirely. Reasons cited for seeking alternative care are as varied as the practices themselves, including tradition, mysticism, cost, fear of side effects, bedside manner, and lack of awareness that a treatment or product is not part of mainstream healthcare.

Safety and efficacy differ greatly among alternative medical practices, and many have not been studied systematically. Biologically active alternative therapies can interact or interfere with medical treatment. Adverse outcomes are more likely when standard care is delayed or replaced with an ineffective or unproven therapy. Billions have been spent researching alternative treatments, much of it on low quality clinical trials; results for some therapies are indistinguishable from placebo, while others are simply unproven and a few, including acupuncture and chiropractic, see a degree of acceptance by the medical community.

I have doubtless omitted at least one major point that should be included in the brief introductory summary, but this should at least give us a concrete basis for discussion of our coverage in preference to arguing the topic itself. Links and refs to be added as desired; most of the text is lifted relatively directly from the article as it stands and thus is cleanly supported in the body of the article. Most of the disagreements in the above few suctions are covered with essentially sufficient nuance at #Terms and definitions. This proposed text attempts to summarize without recapitulating that section, as well as better covering the remainder of the article as it currently stands. Please propose specific changes, or start a new section if you would rather begin discussion from the current lead. We can add a few representative examples as the current lead does, but it might be more efficient if we just use the infobox for that purpose. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm impressed, and I recognise a lesson for me to learn in dealing with what I had thought to be an intractable problem. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this have the support of other editors? The proposed draft would need some sharpening up before it could be regarded as an alternative to the present lead, which, if not perfect (few things are), seeks to avoid generalised waffle. The draft fails to meet the specific points raised above in "Major undiscussed change, edit warring, copyvio" and "Fact Compendium" (now in Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 24). Subject to others' comment it would, in my view be better to start from the current lead. Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To a certain extent it is unavoidable that we have to say "well, these practices are only loosely conglomerated so it varies", but overuse is bad writing and unhelpful to the reader. Specific suggestions would be most welcome for tightening the prose and providing details without delving too deeply into issues better covered in depth in the body. I tried to include the points raised above where the conversation did not devolve into discussing the topic itself rather than our coverage of it; what particular points did I miss or could be covered better? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this definition is in the right direction, but I would like to see it: (1) more concise and (2) referenced in-line (per WP:CITELEAD, no exemption for the lead, and in this case the language is likely to be challenged), and consistent with the body. The language should be directly supported by sources and not a synthesis (not saying the draft is, but it is unclear which sources are specifically used). As I mentioned above, I suggest picking the most significant institutions and working backwards from there. I would rank the Institute of Medicine slightly above the other sources (even though it's not a household name, it establishes U.S. Dietary Reference Intakes and is composed of elected members), followed by Cochrane and AMA, with the FDA and NCCAM (more direct political influence and widely-criticized) ranking below these. The IOM definition starts on page 16 of its book. This report was heavily criticized by Barrett of Quackwatch, and with good reason, but Wikipedia is biased towards large mainstream institutions and not to The Truth. Conveying the mainstream view, regardless of whether it is "good", also does a service to those who are concerned that the mainstream institutions are wrong, as it is a wake-up call to be more active in lobbying in the "real world" (rather than Wikipedia). The lead should also be consistent with the body's long section on the definition, which starts by referencing the IOM: "There is no coherent, consistent and widely accepted definition of alternative medicine". One paragraph in particular gives a good overview of widely-adopted version, although it could be improved by fleshing out the Cochrane CAM Field's operational definition (coordinated by the University of Maryland; see Wieland et al 2011 and UMM listing):

An expert panel at a conference hosted in 1995 by the US Office for Alternative Medicine (OAM),[n 4] devised a theoretical definition of alternative medicine as "a broad domain of healing resources ... other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period."[35] This definition has been widely adopted by CAM researchers,[38] official government bodies such as the UK Department of Health,[39] has often been attributed as the definition used by the Cochrane Collaboration,[40] and, with slight modification, was preferred in the 2005 consensus report of the Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention issued by the US Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.[n 5]

I reviewed some of the definitions used in the article's history:

• I actually like the version I reverted back to not long ago:

  Alternative medicine consists of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using alternative medical diagnoses and treatments which are not typically included in the degree courses of established medical schools or used in conventional medicine. Examples of alternative medicine include homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. These practices generally lack scientific support for their claims and are often the subject of scientific criticism.

  Top this off by adding something about lack of evidence as a definition using the NSF source and it looks fine to me, although I would switch out the FDA source for the IOM. It should be noted that the NSF article says that its definition is "as used here" and specifically acknowledges the different AMA definition.
• Prior to this last edit war, a version was stable for a while but was not very good: "Alternative medicine is any of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies, using methods of medical diagnosis and treatments which, at least up to the end of the twentieth century, were typically not included in the degree courses of established medical schools teaching western medicine, including surgery, in the tradition of the Flexner Report or similar.[1][2]".
• Going all the way back to 2010 and continuing until at least 2011 when I last edited the article, the definition was: 'In Western culture, alternative medicine is any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine",[1] or "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective."[2]' - I find this to be an OK compromise and it certainly raised no complaints from me. It was stable for years. II | (t - c) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

On the whole, I do not support the new language. Perhaps some of it can be used with some refinement. The main issue I have is the on-going and persistent attempts to whitewash the issue. One of the main services that Wikipedia can perform for the public, is conspicuously identifying what is and is not valid. In the area of logic there is no dithering about the logical fallacies, and we don't have a regular intrusion of editors paying a visit to whitewash the issue there, as if somehow a particular logic fallacy is sometimes perfectly logical. I think we have the political environment here to take a stand and in doing so greatly help Wikipedia's credibility. It is in articles just like this one that Wikipedia's credibility will be measured. If I had my way alone, the lead would certainly include terms like "fraudulent," "dangerous," "invalid," "nonfactual," and "belief." This is the point from which I would like to compromise. I have grown impatient with the periodic whitewashing, and I think we need to identify problem editors as those who are hopeless true believers, as they have absolutely nothing positive to contribute to this article. In this light, I think that maintaining that alternative medicine is primarily defined by the fact that it is not derived from valid scientific methodology should be an acceptable compromise, as it is an objective statement. whether or not you care about your medicine being derived from valid scientific methodology is left up to the reader in this case, and I think that is enough whitewash.Greg Bard (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gregbard you're going to run into problems with Wikipedia'se No Original Resarch policy. While you might want something to be true, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not a place for you to interject your own personal beliefs, especially when they are completely at odds with all of our reliable, verified sources. While you are right that there are areas of alt med that are dangerous and fraudulent, *not all of them are*. Read over my fact compendium section above to see what the world's major medical organizations say on the subject. And finally, for the last time, saying that *some* of alt med has been proven to work scientifically is absolutely *not* the same as saying *all* of it is. I'm not sure why you're so antagonistic toward people who are trying to report the truth, not whitewash the truth. Wkerney (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@II: Yeah, the references should certainly go in whatever version we end up agreeing on, but everyone here should be familiar enough with the article, poorly organized though it is, to recognize text corresponding to particular sections; this is an advantage to writing the lead to follow the article. I can copy them in this weekend sometime since this proposal seems to be gathering enough traction that that will not be a complete waste of my time. As for a more concise definition, I am not sure that we accurately can or want to go for something less than one line long; my writing style does tend to be a bit dense, so there is every chance that a simpler statement can be found. I would argue against the simplest formulation "alternative medicine is stuff that looks like medicine but is not", as restating the term without adding context or nuance is not terribly useful to most readers. The specific words I included in this definition were lifted directly from a couple of the major medical organizations we are citing; explicitly adding the refs will make this clearer, but it should be obvious from a direct comparison. I have not followed the "not the dominant medical paradigm used by a particular culture" language used by several sources, as that would prevent us from identifying a consistent set of practices denoted as alternative. We have at hand a topic that is well enough defined, and even those sources that make a relativist statement then proceed to discuss the practices in Category:Alternative medicine. The first sentence mentions "standard medical care", so we are at least alluding to the idea; could this be expanded without simply tacking on "for a particular culture/era/group"? The "no widely accepted definition" point I have tried to address with "distinct and often contradictory ideas"; should this be stated more directly?

Proposal: add your "examples of ... scientific criticism" language to the first paragraph above, before "Use of the term", tweaked for flow:

Alternative medicine or complementary and alternative medicine is a diverse set of systems, treatments, and products typically used or originating outside of or not validated by standard medical care. Aside from falling outside mainstream evidence based healthcare, various alternative medicine practices share little with one another and include many distinct and often contradictory ideas and traditions; examples include homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Alternative practices generally lack scientific support for their claims and are often the subject of scientific criticism. Use of the term "alternative medicine" dates from the 1970s, coincident with an increased visibility of unorthodox medical practices; historically, the distinction between "standard" and "alternative" practices traces to the nineteenth century, though several alternative medical systems pre-date the development of modern biomedicine by hundreds of years.

Remaining two paragraphs, one for prevalence and regulation, one for evidence, could be swapped if that works better. The article is scattered enough that following its organization is not really an option anyway.

@GB: We certainly need to guard against any presentation of the topic that gives false balance between reality based sources and nonsense. We are not, however, here to right great wrongs. While I think that nobody would disagree that certain alternative practices are fraudulent or ineffective, I have not located a source that lists that as a primary reason for applying the label "alternative". If you have found such a source, please present it. I believe that your proposed compromise, "not derived from valid scientific methodology" is adequately covered by the proposal above in the form of describing alternative practices as not part of modern biomedicine, not validated, and inadequately studied. Does the new opening paragraph help? Do you have a specific proposal for making the point more clearly while carefully hewing to the best available sources?

Your point is valid that this article is often attacked by true believers who desire to slant it one way or another without providing sources commensurate to the changes. This article is covered by standard discretionary sanctions, but discussion of or insinuations about particular editors belongs at usertalk or project pages, not articletalk. I can help you navigate arbitration enforcement if you think you have sufficient cause, but you will need to do the legwork of gathering evidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that " this article is often attacked by true believers who desire to slant it one way or another ", but "...enough traction..." - really? Maybe with one or two, but not enough. Before debating copyedit points and writing style, how does above draft meet the specific points raised above in "Major undiscussed change, edit warring, copyvio" and "Fact Compendium" (now in Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 24).? Wording such as "outside of or not validated by standard medical care" would be a loss of clarity, and merely so much fuzz. Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, please clarify without sarcasm any specific points raised in the above sections that you see as not being addressed in this draft. To my reading, those sections essentially concern themselves in the difference between "no papers have been published showing an effect" vs. "this practice did not develop from biomedicine". This proposal avoids the problematic "Science Sez" wording while still presenting the amply sourced point that the practices described by this article have a few distinguishing characteristics that separate them from modern medicine (e.g. even though the evidence base for antidepressants is disputed and antibiotics are over-prescribed, neither belongs at this article). How would you word a statement to similar effect? The clauses containing "used ... originating ... validated" were taken pretty directly from the sources we have been discussing, which define the topic in the negative; if combining them in this way reduces clarity or meaning or debases the language, please make a counter-proposal that accurately conveys the sense of the topic to our readers.

Whatever its current merits, the current lead does an abysmal job of summarizing the body of the article, omitting mention of entire sections and dwelling disproportionately on minor points. What specific proposal do you bring to fix this? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you ask, perhaps one problem here is to impute sarcasm instead of reason when faced with fair but opposing comment. Certain points have been raised by others above, and it is doubtful that they are satisfied with the revisal you are proposing. The exaggeration "abysmal" implies an emotive response which is less than helpful in working towards an improvement here. I have stated above that pending revisal, it would be better to reinstate the lead as it had been for some time, per [69] and [70]. Try and work from there, with improved sources if you have them. Qexigator (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a lovely bit of prose and am grateful to 2/0 for taking the time and effort to write it. It's probably a touch academic for a general encyclopedia and i'd drop technical terms like prevalence and jurisdiction but wouldn't change very much. Aspheric (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the content proposal by 2over0 is well-written and am grateful that they took the time. I also agree with Q's comment above; while I understand "often used outside of standard medical care" to be consistent with most RS, "...not validated by standard medical care..." is not found in the sources and is unclear. Puhlaa (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And what is "standard medical care", for what purpose (medicare, insurance, personal hygiene and diet)?, and where - some or all states of USA, all or part of N.America, of UK, of Europe, of Africa, India, China, Japan, Australia, any other territory? Who or what government or agency is fixing the norms for any one or more of these? When? The lead (expanded in the article) as at[71] was fairly exact about this, but if possible let it be more so. Phrases such "evidence based" are not as certain and authoritative as sometimes believed or claimed, but let other sources be cited to show that there are fuzzy edges. Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Standard Medical Care will vary across time, place and context. That's kinda the point. We can always nitpick but proposal is a better summary, more accurate (with respect to sources) and more sustainable and defensible than the current lead. If there aren't any major criticisms / ommissions, we should vote. I suspect it won't please people on either extreme but would take that a positive sign the balance is right. Aspheric (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks like well-written. If 2/0 can source it, then it has my support. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

sources line by line

current version for ref number comparisons

1. Alternative medicine or complementary and alternative medicine is a diverse set of systems, treatments, and products typically used or originating outside of or not validated as standard medical care.
   1. NHS uses "outside of mainstream healthcare", "extremely wide range", and notes that the terms "alternative" and "complementary" are often but not always used interchangeably.
   2. NCCAM uses "the array of health care approaches with a history of use or origins outside of mainstream medicine" and "developed outside of mainstream Western, or conventional, medicine" while noting that the precise meaning varies by source.
   3. IOM uses "a broad domain of resources that encompasses health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period". Many therapies "are already in widespread use without such validation [by scientific investigation]".
   4. OCCAM gives "[a]ny medical system, practice, or product that is not thought of as standard care".
   5. NCI gives "group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine", further defining "conventional medicine" as the stuff practised by MDs, DOs, RNs, PTs, and similar (also noting that members of these professions may also practice CAM). Synonyms for "conventional medicine" include "mainstream", "orthodox", and "biomedicine".
   6. ACS-manage supports the interchangeability of the terms "mainstream medicine" ("the kind you get from a medical doctor"), "standard treatment", and "conventional medicine".
   7. Wieland2011 of Cochrane supports the "typically originating outside" language ("based upon the theories of a medical system outside [modern medicine]"). States that "currently considered to be a standard treatment" indicates not alternative. Supports "typically used outside" language ("therapies that are delivered exclusively by conventionally credentialed medical personnel or exclusively within hospital settings are much less likely to be considered as CAM").
   8. NCCAM, OCCAM, and NCI are all part of the US NIH, and together with the IOM report there is a serious chance of systematic bias here.
2. Aside from falling outside mainstream evidence based healthcare, various alternative medicine practices share little with one another and include many distinct and often contradictory ideas and traditions;
   1. "Share little" is supported by much the same language that supports "diverse" above; "distinct and often contradictory" is inherent in the term being so difficult to pin down.
   2. Sampson2005
   3. We could put an acknowledgement here of the fuzziness of the boundary. Wieland2011 has a pretty good discussion of the pratfalls of demarcation.
3. examples include homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.
   1. These are pretty commonly recognizable practices, relatively widely used, and uncontentiously categorized as alternative. We could probably come up with a more representative or otherwise better list, but I do not see any barrier to having that discussion on the live article.
4. Alternative practices generally lack scientific support for their claims and are often the subject of scientific criticism.
   1. NCCAM-2 states that "statements [from manufacturers and providers regarding effectiveness] may not be based on scientific evidence", and offers a few red flags for consumers evaluating an unfamiliar therapy.
   2. ACS-manage supports stating that a subset are "based on theories of disease and treatment that are contrary to accepted scientific ideas".
   3. NHS states that "[s]ome complementary and alternative medicines or treatments are based on principles and an evidence base that are not recognised by the majority of independent scientists."
   4. Sampson2005
   5. WaPoNCCAM reports scientific criticism.
   6. Vickers2004 describes "based on theories not found in biomedicine"
   7. The word "generally" may be too strong for these sources, and perhaps we should reword to avoid more of the confusion evident in previous sections.
5. Use of the term "alternative medicine" dates from the 1970s, coincident with an increased visibility of unorthodox medical practices; historically, the distinction between "standard" and "alternative" practices traces to the nineteenth century, though several alternative medical systems pre-date the development of modern biomedicine by hundreds of years.
   1. bivins2011 supports 1970s and use of the term "unorthodox". Calls out the nineteenth century as seeing the formation of "scientific medicine" contra medical sectarianism. Notes that various traditional medical systems are now labelled as CAM. Start with chapter 32 (p. 578).
   2. IOM describes "late-nineteenth century rivalries between the “regular” physicians and their economic and ideological competitors (mainly, chiropractors and homeopaths)". Lists several practices described as "ancient" in Appendix A.
   3. Ref [60] from current article:
   4. Bivins2007
6. Estimates for the prevalence and acceptance of the use of alternative medicine range from several percent to more than half depending on the precise practises labelled as alternative and the population surveyed.
   1. NCI cites studies including 4 in 10 US adults used CAM in the last 12 months (2007) and 61% of cancer survivors used "prayer and spiritual practice".
   2. IOM states "[m]ore than a third of American adults report using some form of CAM, with total visits to CAM providers each year now exceeding those to primary-care physicians" and "30 percent to 62 percent of U.S. adults, depending on the definition of CAM"; this was written in 2005 and based on data from even earlier, so due care should be exercised. Cites "discrepancies in overall prevalence of CAM use may largely result from the lack of agreement in the definitions".
   3. Wieland2011 cites that "[d]epending on how CAM is defined, prevalence surveys on CAM use vary from 10% to 100%".
   4. Druss1999 gives 8.3%, including 1.8% who used only unconventional healthcare services.
7. Use has probably been on the rise in the developed world over the past two decades.
   1. IOM cites "a dramatic increase in CAM use by the American public between 1990 and 1997".
   2. American Hospital Association reports in a press release that "37 percent of responding hospitals indicated they offer one or more CAM therapies, up from 26.5 percent in 2005".
   3. Salomonsen2011 reports that CAM being offered at hospitals "has increased substantially in Norway during the first decade of the 21st century".
   4. This is very likely true, but should have a more worldwide perspective and could be better sourced.
8. Regulation varies significantly by jurisdiction. Some alternative medical systems are governed by laws creating a specific license and board of practice, sometimes including a protected professional title such as "Doctor of Chiropractic" (DC) or "Naturopathic Doctor" (ND).
   1. This mostly just speaks to the heterogeneity of the topic, but if we need an inline source IOM says "[c]hiropractic, acupuncture, and massage therapy are licensed in most states. Naturopathy and homeopathy are licensed in fewer states. Numerous other therapies and modalities are considered unlicensed practices and at present few or no formal regulations apply to these therapies and modalities."
   2. NCCAM-2 is similarly vague, stating that many "states have regulatory agencies or licensing boards for certain types of complementary medicine practitioners."
   3. Ref [188] from current article
9. Most people who seek alternative treatments do so adjunctive to standard care, with a small but significant minority abjuring conventional care entirely.
   1. IOM states that most US CAM-using adults do so "in combination with conventional medical care". Cites "[m]ost CAM therapies were used in conjunction with conventional medical services, a finding consistent with prior observations".
   2. NCCAM states that "[m]ost people use non-mainstream approaches along with conventional treatments".
   3. Druss1999
10. Reasons cited for seeking alternative care are as varied as the practices themselves, including tradition, mysticism, cost, fear of side effects, bedside manner, and lack of awareness that a treatment or product is not part of mainstream healthcare.
    1. IOM Table 2-2 gives all these and more.
    2. ACS-manage supports "they think there are no harmful side effects".
    3. ACS-guide supports side effects and "[some patients] prefer alternative theories of health and disease".
    4. refs [99] and [100] from current article
11. Safety and efficacy differ greatly among alternative medical practices, and many have not been studied systematically.
    1. IOM describes safety and efficacy research as "needed", proceeding to state that "there is a paucity of [comparative] clinical research ... [v]ery little research has been done on the cost-effectiveness of CAM."
    2. NCCAM-2 states "[w]hile scientific evidence exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of some complementary therapies, for most there are key questions that are yet to be answered through well-designed scientific studies"; questions listed are safety, efficacy, and mechanism of action.
    3. ACS-manage supports paucity of safety research ("Sometimes, if the patient is treated by a doctor who writes up the problem for a medical journal, there may be reports of some of the more serious effects of these treatments"). Also supports range (from "most complementary mind-body methods are very safe" to "some alternative biological therapies are no less toxic than chemotherapy"). Supports placebo as not ruled out.
    4. ACS-guide notes that "most complementary and alternative methods have not been tested for safety in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding – effects on a fetus or nursing child are mostly unknown."
12. Biologically active alternative therapies can interact or interfere with medical treatment.
    1. IOM cautions of "potential interactions between prescription drugs and CAM-related herbs" and possible negative interactions when taking "prescription medications concurrently with herbal remedies or high-dose vitamins". It cites "clinically significant adverse drug-herb interactions" including St. John's Wort reducing levels of indinavir.
    2. NCI states CAM therapies "may interfere with standard treatment or may be harmful when used with conventional treatment".
    3. NCCAM-2 cautions about "potential side effects or interactions with medications"
13. Adverse outcomes are more likely when standard care is delayed or replaced with an ineffective or unproven therapy.
    1. NCCAM-2 states: "Complementary products or practices that have not been proven safe and effective should never be used as a replacement for conventional medical treatment or as a reason to postpone seeing a health care provider about any health problem."
    2. ACS-guide states that "patients who choose alternative medicine instead of mainstream cancer treatments may be putting themselves at serious risk", and supports using "mainstream treatment" and "standard treatment" interchangeably. Note that this source is using "alternative" explicitly to refer to treatments used instead of conventional care; ACS is an excellent resource, but we need to be careful when quoting this directly that no meaning is lost by the change of context.
    3. ACS-manage states that use of alternative therapies "may cause the patient to suffer because they are not helpful, because they can delay the use of proven methods, or because they are actually harmful." Further: "One big concern is the delay in mainstream treatment that can allow the cancer to grow and spread to other parts of the body."
    4. BBC2010 cites a report on side effects of alternative remedies, including patients "regarded as being harmed by a failure to use conventional medicine".
14. Billions have been spent researching alternative treatments, much of it on low quality clinical trials;
    1. IOM gives now-outdated tables of the NCCAM and OCCAM budgets (easily exceeding "billions"), and gives extensive discussion of the problems with the evidence base. A worldwide and if possible more precise source for the amount spent researching CAM would not go amiss.
    2. NCCAM-2 cites "better designed studies are needed."
    3. ACS-manage discusses the sometime lack of placebo control, randomization, blinding, and other research components necessary to draw a strong conclusion.
    4. WaPoNCCAM discusses US budgets.
    5. 2.5bb2009 supports "billions" (USD).
    6. Renckens2009 supports common methodological flaws.
15. results for some therapies are indistinguishable from placebo, while others are simply unproven and a few, including acupuncture and chiropractic, see a degree of acceptance by the medical community.
    1. NCI supports limited acceptance ("are finding a place in cancer treatment") of a few, including acupuncture. Also supports adding a disproven/ineffective clause to this sentence.
    2. ACS-manage states that initial information about CAM therapies generally does not flow from a patient's "doctor or cancer team" (limited acceptance is limited). It describes alternative therapies (in this context, definitionally including only therapies that have not been validated) as "unproven because they have not been scientifically tested, or they have been disproved".
    3. ACS-guide supports adjunctive or supportive use of some CAM (to improve quality of life rather than to treat cancer, but this still speaks to a degree of integration with the medical community). Lists acupuncture and chiropractic as the CAM modalities most often covered by insurance (US source).
    4. NHS and ACS-manage support placebo as a description for some alternative therapies.
    5. NCCAM notes the existence of "large, placebo-controlled trials, many of which have failed to show anticipated effects."
    6. WaPoNCCAM supports "placebo" and "unproven".
    7. Ernst2005 supports more than some to many as placebo.
    8. 2.5bb2009 supports many "placebo".
    9. Renckens2009 supports adding "disproved".
    10. Vickers2004 supports adding "disproved".
    11. There is a valid argument that this "some ... others" formulation could be misleading as it fails to give relative numbers other than stating that only "a few" see some acceptance. If someone can craft more specific language that is still supported by the sources, that would be most welcome. Perhaps something weighting by popularity or cost?

Refs

For the live version, this list of references can be trimmed to the most prestigious and relevant or compacted by offering several sources under one numbered heading. Several sources (i.e. easily and amply sourced if you like the idea) consider it important to mention that many patients do not discuss their use of alternative products and treatments with their doctor; I prefer a lead "as short as possible but no shorter", but a sentence in the second paragraph between "care entirely" and "reasons cited" might be worthwhile. This is a short week here in the US so I am unlikely to have much editing time until this coming weekend. The beauty of consensus-based editing is that discussion can proceed just fine without me, but I have my talkpage on RSS if anybody needs me. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The presentation of the sources above is impressive, but we should not let that obscure the fact that this proposed rewrite is not an improvement on the earlier version, in respect of which see below: "Two/three points waiting resolution". Is there a tendency for the article to drift towards an unduly USA-centric viewpoint? Qexigator (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

+Of the points listed 1-15 above, subject to comments of others, the following appear acceptable: 1, except that the use of "Alternative medicine", "complementary medicine" and "complementary and alternative medicine" should be distinctly and separately explained, as in the existing lead. 2, except that the reference here to "evidence based healthcare" is not much of an elucidator for the inquiring reader - it is itself a term and topic needing careful elucidation. 3, except why has Ayurveda been excluded? (4. this is under discussion) 5, This looks like a possible summation, given those citations. 6, ditto. 7, is "developed world" as in Developed country? (8, leave as in present and earlier versions.) 9. Reword? 10. -15 (no comment). Qexigator (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is an improvement and will hopefully be the basis more stable and accurate version. The 2/3 points about are dealt with satisfactorily in the body of the article. Remember, the lead should simply summarise the article, much like the abstract of a scientific paper. 2/0 has done a tremendous amount of excellent work and no one has identified any concrete issues with their proposal. The referencing is robust and over and above what would be expected since references are not normally required in the lead, much like abstracts in scientific papers.Aspheric (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Aspheric: the references were mostly already being used, I just read them. Do not get me wrong - I very much appreciate that you are providing positive reinforcement for the effort I put in here, but I would be remiss to claim to have built a solitary edifice all on my lonesome.

@Qexigator: thank you for using the numbers to help keep discussion clear. 1: the proposed separation of terms is not cleanly or consistently supported by the references cited. Several make mention that the several terms can be used with distinct and idiosyncratic meanings, but all then proceed to treat a unified topic, as we do here. The best approach here would seem to be to follow the convention established by the sources being cited by saving the expanded and nuanced definitions for the body. I agree that the rewrite should mention the term "integrative medicine", thank you for noting the lack. 2: yes, EBM is a term of art, but the meaning is close enough to what a naive reader would expect; I certainly agree that linking to the full discussion is appropriate. EBM is important enough to covering the topic of alternative medicine that we should link the term in the lead. Would rewording to move the link to another sentence help? 3: I was working from the version suggested by ImperfectlyInformed earlier in this section; these examples also match the list currently used in the article. As I mention above, any brief but reasonably representative list of examples would work as well. Do you propose to add Ayurveda to grow the list to five examples or to make a substitution? 4: if we get better wording out of the discussion in the next section, that should be used. 7: yes. This is a standard usage. The sentence could be eliminated without unduly impacting the flow of the text, and perhaps should be unless we can locate a broader array of sources. Would you consider this an improvement? What would you suggest as an alternative? 8: the proposed text provides more specific information without a significant cost in concision compared to the third paragraph of the current lead. What would you suggest as a compromise text? 9: rewording would be fine. What specifically would you suggest? - 2/0 (cont.) 12:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In general, my position is as in "Two/three points waiting resolution" below: crisper, more to the point, less diffuse (as it seems to me). But as to your points: 1. I see no reason for not arranging this text in a way which clearly goes from "Am" to "Comp" to "CAM", according to what is explicit in the names, and found in sources. The body is the place to mention that the distinction is sometimes blurred in practice, and in publications. For informing readers encyclopedically, it is important to be as clear as possible at and from the outset, with fuller explanation in the body. 3. If one or other only, should revert to Ayurveda so that the list is more representative: like acupuncture, it is from an age-old tradition in another continent, gaining some ground in the west, but naturopathy is another of those which has originated in recent times in the west (from 1880s, Scotland, N.America). Alternatively, mention that the list is of examples of Alt.med. originating in the west; then mention Ayurveda and acupuncture together as examples of Alt. med. originating in earlier times and elsewhere than Europe and the west. Please note below the accuracy of the lead quoted in "Two/three points waiting resolution" concerning the examples given, namely, homeopathy, Ayurveda, chiropractic and acupuncture. Those remarks apply also to naturopathy. Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

1: your proposal is not a supported reading of the sources we have and how they approach the topic. Please provide different sources of similar or superior quality to support this change. 3: I think the point of listing a few examples is to show the great diversity of topics covered by the umbrella term "alternative medicine"; either of your proposals would fit this criterion and would be fine with me, with somewhat of a preference for the first to avoid introducing too much complication to the lead. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

+ @ 4. above: "Alternative practices generally lack scientific support for their claims and are often the subject of Scientific skepticism. -7.The word "generally" may be too strong for these sources, and perhaps we should reword to avoid more of the confusion evident in previous sections." As explained below, this does not improve on the accuracy of the present version, and so far no one has come up with a rewording, perhaps for that reason. Qexigator (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)