Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 


Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017[edit]

I don't think humorism should be linked in the "fringe medicine and science" section, for a couple reasons:

  1. Unlike its apparent cousins, mesmerism, anthroposophy, phrenology, and orgone therapy, humorism was the dominant way of thinking in a huge portion of the world for over a thousand years, until it was wholly superseded. It's false, but not fringe. The concept is still a facet of a few alternative medicine systems, and those are absolutely fringe, but they have their own links.
  2. Outside of those systems the concept doesn't really have any presence in the same way that, say, acupuncture does. There are no cranks telling me to balance my bile or dubious academics churning out papers about the dangers of a phlegmatic diet. 165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nihlus 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with this. Note there's a discussion at FTN about it. The thread is Proposed change to Template: Alternative medicine sidebar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018[edit]

Hello, it's me again. Same request as before, except this time I have gone through the process and obtained consensus:

Please remove the humorism link under the "fringe medicine and science" category, per this discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard. 165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Nihlus 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Chemtrails[edit]

There is no concensus to remove this from the sidebar, and it is most assuredly both pseudomedicine and quackery. Carl Fredrik talk 08:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Have commented there! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
We're discussing whether the link should be in this sidebar here, that is a different discussion. Carl Fredrik talk 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's really not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Carl, In one of your edsums, you state that "this template is not alt-med." If this is correct, can you tell me what it actually is? The title at the top of the box, informing us what the box is about, is "This article is part of a series on Alternative medicine, pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories." Should we change it to ... Alternative medicine, pseudomedicine medical conspiracy theories, and Oh yes, we forgot, Chemtrails" -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Health Fraud[edit]

CFCF can you clarify what you mean? I don't see "health fraud" in the article anywhere before your 9:56 13 May edit. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

See Quackery, and the edit shortened the title considerably, which is why it was neater. Carl Fredrik talk 20:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If you look at that reference on quackwatch, it says that "the word fraud would be reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." It's never good to use wikipedia as a reference :) Oh, and I see it was you who added that wording to the Quackery article with no discussion and no edit summary, so I guess I'll fix that too. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Or you could look at the myriad other sources in the article that equate them, not just the very first, per WP:LEDECITE. There are two good books: "More harm than good" by Edzard Ernst, and Consumer Health 9th edition. Carl Fredrik talk 20:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
NCAHF website says "health misinformation, fraud, and quackery", so it is not equating them. Ernst says "CAM practitioners may peddle untruths for reasons ranging from honest error to deliberate fraud.", so he isn't equating them either. You seem to be struggling to find a source that equates them, so therefore there is no justification for equating them in the title of the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I gave you two sources, but if you so wish for page numbers, see page 5 of Consumer health, co-authored by Barrett, which has a section titled "Quackery and health fraud" which makes no distinction. While Ernst doesn't make the tie as clearly, see page 153 where he differentiates two types of CAM peddling untruth: " honest error [and] deliberate fraud". He follows with:

[It] can never be sufficient for healthcare practitioners to merely act in good faith. All healthcare professionals have a positive moral duty to ensure that the treatment of their patients is based upon sound evidence and theory. Thus, regardless of how sincerely an untrue medical belief is held, the practitioner who acts on false beliefs— however honestly and with good intent— is judged negatively according to virtue ethics. (Arguably, the clinician who believes in quackery, and therefore is more convincing that the one who is motivated by greed, is even more dangerous to patients; in other words, conviction renders a quack not less but more harmful.)

Definitions are notoriously difficult to find in any book, but these are as good as they get. Carl Fredrik talk 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That quote doesn't support your edit in any way, and the text on Barrett's main website which *explicitly* discusses "health fraud" directly contradicts your edit. I would suggest reverting your edits unless you can actually support them with a logical argument. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consumer Health is a recent source written by Barrett, and supersedes the page you refer to — it makes no distinction whatsoever. I also find it remarkable that you suggest the quote does not support the equation of health fraud and quackery. Ernst equates acting without ensuring that treatment is based on sound evidence and theory, i.e. "honest error" with "deliberate fraud", mentioning both quackery and health fraud.
What is your suggested distinction between the two? Do you see the need to write an independent health fraud article, and if so, do we base it on the same sources? Carl Fredrik talk 00:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I have acquiesced with this edit: [1], but it seems nitpicking to me. Carl Fredrik talk 00:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we need more input from other editors here before deciding whether or not to re-add this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)