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humorism was the dominant way of thinking in a huge portion of the world for over a thousand years, until it was wholly superseded.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. (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. (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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


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)

Sciencewatcher is correct that we shouldn't be adding the additional terms but only the article links related to this template. "Health Fraud" is unnecessary even if it is accurate. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


To JzG: The history section of the Apitherapy article contains reliable sources that refer to this as traditional medicine. What do you have that contradicts those sources?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To Jytdog: it seems I've mistaken you for JzG above. Apologies. The article page contains reliable sources that support 1) the inclusion of Apitherapy in this template and 2) its listing as a traditional alternative medicine going back to the ancient Greeks and Chinese. I would like to know if there are reliable sources that counter that support?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between a system of traditional medicine like ayurveda or TCM and people doing stuff with bees sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
And where does it say that entries must be "systems" of any kind? Apitherapy is a traditional therapy. What reliable sources can be shown that it is not?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The other elements under "traditional" are systems: African Ayurveda Chinese Chumash European Greek Japanese Korean Mongolian Roman Shamanism Siddha Tibetan Yunani. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Right. It's like "English people, American people, French people, Bob". Guy (Help!) 08:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If "Bob" is reliably sourced, then where does it say he should be excluded just because he's not a "system"?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, another editor, CFCF, once again removed Apitherapy from this template while it's in discussion here. While I think that is wrong on several levels, rather than be a single voice in the wilderness, I'll accede to what appears to be consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Removed per BRD. Needless to say, I oppose. Regardless if Bob is reliably a human, he is not a nationality... Carl Fredrik talk 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved to alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar[edit]

To clarify confusion. Carl Fredrik talk 08:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss if necessary. Carl Fredrik talk 10:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Why you are not providing necessary explanations for your edits? Don't make page moves without discussion and don't add misleading template titles in the template especially when your proposed changes have been rejected by consensus.[2] Unless every source in the world primarily refers "Alternative medicine" as "Fringe medicine" or Alternative medicine has been moved to Fringe medicine, you should stop making these edits. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if it is time to start an RFC on this template, name, contents, what have you. "This article is part of a series on Alternative" per latest edit as I write this obviously doesn't work, and on the template page all subsections should be expanded, to mention 2 issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need that? Only including "alternative" is so bizarre that it seems pointless to discuss. As for the documentation issue, I can fix that immediately. Carl Fredrik talk 03:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Right, I accommodated you Raymond3023 in not changing the base name — but this sidebar does not only cover what is traditionally alternative medicine. Because of the difficulties in defining what is alternative medicine, and what are simply conspiracy theories it is only appropriate that both are included. While alternative medicine is arguably included in the other, not all conspiracy theories fall into the alternative group.
The reason I expanded the name again, to include what had been included for a number of months was because pseudomedicine was removed by another editor from the title for no reason apart from a lack of wikilink. List_of_conspiracy_theories#Medicine is an appropriate and necessary link to include, because there is so much overlap that omitting it makes the sidebar infinitely less useful. Carl Fredrik talk 03:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete or re-edit this non-neutral POV pushing template[edit]

I am very concerned about the recent additions to this template. The intention was clear when it was first created, and it was a great side bar for locating related alternative or traditional medicinal topics. However, the recent additions to this template has rendered it non-neutral, not to mention POV pushing - driving a particular agenda which is detrimental to this project. There are millions of people around the world who believe and use alternative or traditional medicine, and in their view, with great success. Adding fringe medicine and science, quackery (health fraud), and medical conspiracy theories to this template and plastering it all over traditional or alternative medicine articles I find extremely biased and agenda driven. It gives the impression that traditional medicine is fringe and fraudulent which has negative connotations. Why hasn't this template been plastered on the medicine article and its related articles? There is certainly a need for a fringe and quackery template but that should be a separate template distinct from this one. By adding controversial topics to this template which was originally about alternative / traditional medicine pushes a certain agenda. In my view, this template should be re-edited and the controversial topics removed as per the original intention. By all means, create another template for the controversial topics.Tamsier (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the last consensus concerning the title of the sidebar. Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar/Archive 2#Title of template. There is probably a case for splitting the sidebar somehow.- MrX 🖋 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)