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.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
Per Please don't, this has been discussed, CFCF, was this thread the discussion you were thinking of, or are there others? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Medical conspiracy theories — alternative and pseudo‑medicine[edit]

CFCF is edit warring to change the title of the sidebar, adding Medical conspiracy theories. This goes against consensus. The consensus title Alternative and pseudo-medicine is documented here: Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar/Archive 2#Title of template. I'm opening this section for discussion.- MrX 🖋 12:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT, it's related to my edit here [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Asked for more input at some WikiProjects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't mess with the title. It's better as it. Natureium (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
CFCF, could you raise some examples of such conspiracy theories, so everyone knows what you are talking about?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham — There was a very neat link showing exactly what these were, before being removed by MrX. List_of_conspiracy_theories#Medicine Carl Fredrik talk 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
And all listed there is in the sidebar. Chemtrails is also on that page, but not under Medicine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
In general, I find the conspiracy theory section to be related to alt med and not out of place. But on the whole I find myself neutral on whether or not the alt med sidebar is the best way to provide such navigational content. It could also just be that some things need to be culled, like Chemtrails which I don't see much of a connection with alt med and focus on the alt med centric conspiracy theories, such as antivaxx and HIV denialism etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb — What is the purpose of the artificial separation of some conspiracy theories that pertain to treatment (i.e. "alternative medicine") from those that conspiracy theories that pertain to effects of everyday life and misrepresentation of pathology? There is an extensive literature that ties belief in health conspiracy theories writ large and belief in alternative medicine. Why keep them separate? Carl Fredrik talk 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
would generally agree w/ HEADBOMB--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory, with aspects that are health related. It's not a form of alternative medicine though. In fact, neither "medicine" nor "medical" appear anywhere in the article. Chemtrails belongs in a different sidebar template. - MrX 🖋 18:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
MrX — No one is saying it is alternative medicine. What we are saying is that it is "pseudomedicine", and that there is nary a distinction between the two. The primary difference between "alternative" and "pseudo" is that "alternative" is primarily attached to treatments (although alternative diagnoses exists as well, muddying the waters). They are indisputably two sides of the same coin — and there is no good reason to keep them separated into different sidebars. Carl Fredrik talk 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree, but it need not necessarily be a sidebar template. Also think a sidebar with the current title is a good sidebar to have. Titles like this [2] seems just... messy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång — To avoid those titles it may be useful to understand how there is a near-total overlap between medical conspiracy theories and alternative medicine, especially if we accept the definitions that make no distinction between pseudomedicine and alternative medicine. There is just no way that "chemtrails" would not be considered pseudomedicine. That this is the same thing as alternative medicine for all intents and purposes, does not exonerate chemtrails. Carl Fredrik talk 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's too long. Medical conspiracy theories belong elsewhere unless directly related to alternative medicine. Natureium (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I see two more articles in this template that IMO are not obvious fits (and vice-versa): Scientific racism and Parapsychology. Both fits poorly under "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. They are not medicine related.- MrX 🖋 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Now, that is just awfully wrong MrX. They are per definition medicine-related — they are misunderstandings of the health effects of things such as race and psychology. One central point is how both scientific racism and phrenology were perpetuated by medical doctors who simply did bad science. To say that they are not even "medicine-related" is bizarre. Carl Fredrik talk 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a relation between chemtrails/parapsychology and medicine, but the relation is to weak for it to be a good idea to include them in the Alternative medicine sidebar, is my editorial opinion (Scientific racism is weird topic, I'm less opinionated on that). Consider Parapsychology#Scope, sure, you can see a connection to medicine but it's weak, a small part of the whole. Consider also the guideline that recommends The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. And please don't start inserting the terms Alternative and pseudo‑medicine in those articles because of this discussion. The focus of this template is Alternative and pseudo‑medicine, and the articles in it should be fairly within that scope. Nobody is selling a cure of chemtrails for your bonecancer.
Can you (CFCF) accept per the comments in this thread and the old discussions at Chemtrails talk that consensus favor removing Chemtrails? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I do admit that the majority position seems to be that Chemtrails are to be excluded, but I similarly do not see why it falls outside "medical conspiracy theories". Every facet of the conspiracy theory is based on the idea of substances that have specific effects on the brain (i.e. pharmacology). Per WP:Consensus there is a need for not only majority opinion, but a specific and valid rationale. To state that "It isn't medicine", when it falls squarely within pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories — at the very least admitting it to be contentious is required. It is possible there are arguments out there that can constitute valid rationales, but they haven't been presented here. Carl Fredrik talk 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You thinking valid rationales haven't been presented does not mean other editors agree on that. Your edits to the template starts to resemble a degree of WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talkcontribs) 17:38, April 24, 2019 (UTC)

Now, don't go around deleting valid links because "they are not medicine" — when what that only proves is a lack of understanding of what medicine is. Environmental medicine and occupational safety and health are uncontroversially included in medicine. Evolutionary medicine and setting right flawed theories of race differences is equally genetics and medicine. If you wish to argue that conspiracy theories which pertain to health and health effects are not medicine MrX — do so on the basis of solid logic and sources, not some wishy washy "this isn't medicine" — especially doing so without achieving consensus here first. Carl Fredrik talk 07:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My response is pretty much identical to Gråbergs Gråa Sång's. Phrenology fits, but scientific racism is not a type of medicine, a diagnosis, a cure, or a medical treatment, which is what this template is supposed to be about. If you want to make a case for why they are, please do so in a logical manner and with sources to support your view. Then please wait for consensus before restoring disputed material.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Scientific racism was a misappropriation of medical knowledge and genetics with the intent to "produce pure races" in pursuit of health. It was perpetuated by medical doctors doing poor science — if it isn't pseudomedicine, then nothing is. Carl Fredrik talk 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
MrX — You seem to be making very sweeping changes, removing far more than what is up for discussion here. I suggest you back down and let this debate finish over the first topic first. At the very least you need to bring your new issues into the discussion, not just go removing things that have been included per consensus for years. Carl Fredrik talk 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@CFCF: Can you link to the consensus discussions related to anything I removed (I only removed a few—hardly sweeping)? I'm still not convinced that scientific racism belongs, but I will listen to what others have to say. I am firmly opposed to including chemtrails, and I believe that "Conspiracy theories" is the wrong section header based on the contents of that section. - MrX 🖋 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Scientific racism and chemtrails are not forms of alternative medicine or pseudomedicine. What is the point of trying to add as many pages as possible to this template? Natureium (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Traditional medicine section, a few doubtfuls[edit]

Per my understanding, Traditional medicine is something alive and kicking, it is bought and sold or at least used/argued for today. Most of the links here fits that, but a few is outside the scope, IMO: Europe/Medieval medicine of Western Europe, Greece/Ancient Greek medicine and Roman/Medicine in ancient Rome. Fitting articles could probably be written, but these are not them, their topic is history. Also, per the WP:SIDEBAR guideline, none of them mention the sidebar-topic.

I'd like to remove them, opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is little distinction between current and prior traditional medicine. Why would historical articles not be at all relevant? Carl Fredrik talk 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Leaving them out of this template does not make them not at all relevant, just not relevant enough. History of alternative medicine is relevant to this template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Traditional medicine is not defined necessarily as current. I doesn't see any basis for this distinction. While traditional medicine may have historical aspects their overall category should be medicine and in this case traditional. I don't see a reason to remove them. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The editorial reason/distinction I see is that when I click Europe in this template, as a reader I expect to arrive at a similar article as when I click African or Chinese (which both have sections on history). I don't, so why is the link called Europe? As a reader, I find this slightly misleading/annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


What does eugenics have to do with pseido-medicine? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it involves peoples health, so it is medicine-related, and has, at least historically, had a pseudoscientific aspect (or at least it's ps today, it may not have been at the time). Scrolling through the article, this doesn't seem to be the focus of it, so the connection may be rather weak (similar to scientific racism discussed above). Funnily enough, Nazi eugenics doesn't mention pseudo-anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Apitherapy, again[edit]

It's been discussed at Template_talk:Alternative_medicine_sidebar/Archive_2#Apitherapy, but if I can get a consensus, I'd like to re-insert it. It seems to fit this sidebar like hand in glove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Opinions on a section for orgs, like National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National University of Natural Medicine and Health freedom movement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)