Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Archive 2

Inactive?

Can the project be inactive? I note that it has received edits today. Is it alive and kicking? What is the plan to produce fair, object and neutral (i.e. NPOV from either 'side') articles, free from all the very opinionated wrangling that has been a feature hitherto? I believe WP is incomplete without articles on CAM. However, there's no point in spending time on the articles if they disappear under a mire of adversarial editing. - Ballista 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The project is not inactive as long as people edit articles on Alternative Medicine. A few good places to start would be the Glossary of alternative medicine and Category:Alternative medicine stubs.

As the original founder of this project, I have perfected these articles on my own web site.

The current task of this WikiProject is to locate lost articles on Alternative medicine and classify them publically as such. Put them in :Glossary of alternative medicine and in appropriate categories. Next, develop the articles in Category:Alternative medicine stubs.

I am planning on writing an article on stress from an alternative medicine perspective that wont be deleted. -- John Gohde 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"We may have to create a large number of duplicate articles, such as Body work (alternative medicine) which is a duplicate copy of Massage. Perhaps, for example, Wellness (alternative medicine) might be a better way to go than trying to clean up Wellness?" [1] 12 May 2004

This task was done successfully, quite a long time ago. So, this WikiProject does in fact live on and on ... All you have to do is write new articles. John Gohde 04:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of Ayurvedic medicaments

Resolved

List of Ayurvedic medicaments (via WP:PROD on 30 September 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: The Body Soul & Spirit Expo

Resolved

The Body Soul & Spirit Expo (via WP:PROD on 12 November 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This Wikiproject created WP:AMED as its shortcut. I don't plan on wasting my time trying to update your maze of shortcut directories. Will create a shortcut for our portal, just as soon as we create a portal. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The short cut for our portal is P:CAM. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Crucial assessment department added

This project hasn't gotten very far. The project page does not look too inviting. I don't think the main focus should be on the CAM infoboxes but on getting the project revived and attracting participants. I have now set up the project's assessment department and created a project banner to be placed on all relevant articles' talk pages. I am going to continue tagging articles which have a natural belonging within the project, and hopefully this way, more people will find their way here and chip in to effect the changes that need to be undertaken. __meco 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The main focus of this Wikiproject is not, nor has CAM infoboxes ever been, its main focus. Your current tagging of some 500+ articles with the project banner, is not any different from our earlier participants occupation with tagging / identifying articles with our various infoboxes; as far as I am concerned. The only difference is that article tagging in now currently accepted. Furthermore, another group has tagged the branches of alternative medicine articles in Wikipedia with a much bigger infobox than our orange box ever was. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Identical articles

It has been reported to us that Complementary_and_alternative_medicine and Alternative medicine are very nearly identical articles. Here is a "diff" of the two pages <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complementary_and_alternative_medicine&diff=154896315&oldid=160737098>. My suggestion would be to pick one, and merge the two, and redirect the other to the one that is chosen. (I know nothing about this topic, so I don't know which to pick). Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged these articles for merging into the former. And I have also tagged the article on Complementary medicine likewise for merger. __meco 07:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish, here? Please explain.

Complementary_and_alternative_medicine is currently written from the perspective of the umbrella concept. Therefore, it deserves to be an independent article, IMHO. If you want better quality CAM articles, then I suggest that you try to expand the Complementary medicine article. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for a new start?

What can we do to infuse some vitality into WikiProject Alternative medicine? I think some serious work has to be put into the lay-out of the project page. It doesn't look very inviting right now. Wikipedia has some helpful guidelines on how to get a WikiProject started. I have picked up useful ideas there before. Check out WP:PROJGUIDE and then this page. Anybody with any suggestions? __meco 09:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the project page and freshen it up. It should now be inviting, once again, for all Wikipedians to join up. While not unnecessarily antagonizing the anti-alternative medicine elements of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good. If anyone among us has en eye for layout and visual design, it could become even better-looking. Take a look at the eye candy at WikiProject Miami for example. __meco 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the WikiProject Miami project page looks like a jumbled mass of I do not know what. What does eye candy have to do with anything? The present project page reads like a normal Wikipedia article. I see nothing wrong with that. Show me more than 2 persons willing to work on a collaborative group effort is what I am interested in seeing. I have added a To Do List page. I think developing that page would be more productive. -- John Gohde 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we differ in how each of us view the Miami project page. __meco 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Setup a project sub-page and re-do the main project page. That way we can see exactly what you have in mind. -- John Gohde 18:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that. I mentioned it for inspiration. There's no obligation in that. You weren't inspired. That's ok. __meco 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! The project page stays as it is. WikiPedia is not an eye candy website, but rather an encyclopedia featuring articles written in text. We want editors who can deal with vast amounts of written text. -- John Gohde 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know I am up for it.:) To get some vitality in we just need to get these pages used. Nice to see some action on the talkpage- maybe get more on the main page too although maybe those aren't used as much in wikiprojects? (I haven't been involved in many.) There are often AfDs we could get involved in and stuff. What I found when I decided to systematically edit the alt. med articles, was it was quite boring because there are hardly anyone watching/involved in them. Most of the pages I could edit remorselessly and no-one noticed lol. Of course on a few there was a lot of flaming etc but that was rare. Maybe we could all invite editors we've worked with who might be interested? No harm in asking:)Merkinsmum 13:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and- any mailing lists/forums for alt med type subjects we're on, we could ask people if they'd thought of editing on wikip.Merkinsmum 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that those are the actions that we should be focusing on. At least, I've never heard of such external/aggressive recruitment attempts, and I doubt they would gain the project. One thing I do propose is that we give a heads-up here about general or specific problems that we perceive concerning a suite of articles and then discuss what could be done. I for one am rather unhappy with the infoboxes that was created when the project was all new. They don't integrate visually with how Wikipedia's infoboxes and navboxes usually look, and they have been subst'ed instead of transcluded which makes maintenance extremely cumbersome. __meco 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about maintaining a wikiproject, infoboxes etc etc, I just wanted to collaborate with other editors on articles, so, if you want to design a more attractive box or whatever please go ahead:) I'll keep checking in to see what's happening.Merkinsmum 12:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Being the person who first created this Wikiproject, and being the person who has managed twice to be banned from WikiPedia for promoting Alternative Medicine and this WikiProject: What exactly do you have in mind?

I have written on this topic recently before. But, I will recap in brief.

• The project is not inactive as long as people edit articles on Alternative Medicine. A few good places to start would be the Glossary of alternative medicine and Category:Alternative medicine stubs.
• This WikiProject does in fact live on and on ... All you have to do is write new articles.
  • Also locating lost articles and / or classifying appropriate articles as being a part of Alternative Medicine by sticking them in an appropriate alternative medicine category would be where this WikiProject can make the biggest impact. People looking for these articles need to be able to find them.
    • People in Alternative Medicine from a historical perspective.
    • History related articles. History is not quackery, it is just plain objective fact. Therefore, any alternative medicine article written from a historical perspective cannot be attacked as quackery.
  • Getting any new article to stick in WikiPedia is simply a matter of writing it from the correct perspective. I will use Wellness (alternative medicine) as a good example. All it took for keeping that formerly hotly contested article from being merged and or deleted was writing it from the correct perspective. The same goes for Glossary of alternative medicine. All it took there, was calling our key index a Glossary.
    • In other words, a little bit of planning and development in a private sandbox before releasing brand new articles can save a lot of wasted time down the road.
• Engaging in edit wars at Alternative medicine is largely a waste of time. And, will only attract the attention of anti-alternative medicine admins. But it appears that somebody is once again pitting the Complementary and alternative medicine article against Alternative Medicine so that would be a good place to show your face as an active participant of this WikiProject.
• You can try posting our Project Banner in the talk pages currently being edited, that reads as follows:
  • "This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative medicine. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks."

I find it curious that you should write this as it has been a couple of months now since I actually did create the project banner which basically states what you write here. As you have mentioned that your focus, rather than being active on the WikiProject pages, has been writing articles, I am also somewhat curious that you hadn't noticed how I went on to add the project banner to more than 500 such articles. __meco 08:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work!

Originally, the project put a template on all the talk pages that also featured a cool eye candy overlay effect rating system. This action resulted in our project being attacked. But, apparently the development of a Wikipedia wide assessment system is now accepted. And, makes project notices on the talk pages acceptable. It is really amazing how original features of this project that the original participants were attacked for, is now completely accepted.

I have been absent from Wikipedia due to a one year ban. And, upon my return, I wanted to keep a low profile.

I myself placed a orange infobox on hundreds of CAM articles. Most of which are still there the last time I checked. Amazingly, one variation of our infobox that I placed on alternative medicine is still there too, but is now green in color. -- John Gohde 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Our Wikiproject Banner

Looks to me like this Banner could be tighten up and made shorter to look more like the notice for WikiProject Medicine. -- John Gohde 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative medicine. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

}}

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance assessment scale.

Comparing the banners the WikiProject Medicine banner is more succinct. However, I personally don't think this is a significant issue. Our current banner does not differ much from a lot of WikiProject banners, and I don't think it displaying one way or the other will make any difference. If you make the change that you propose, I will not object, however. __meco 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a significant issue. And, as you have stated that you would have no problems with me changing it; I have. The issue of a better graphic can come up again just as soon as someone comes up with something better. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it is referencing absolutely the wrong article. We want to be promoting our glossary of alternative medicine if nothing else. -- John Gohde 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject Banner

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions on talk.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

<-- -->

Our new Wikiproject symbol, with a mouse-over message, has a background that is invisible. John Gohde (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but historically the Glossary of alternative medicine is the list/article that this project has been using to counter Wikipedia's alternative medicine article. Of course, if anybody here is willing and able to do a complete re-write of alternative medicine and give it a favorable point of view and get the re-write to stick with or without starting another edit war, I am more than willing than to consider promoting it.

Of course, I am sure at this point in time that the Glossary of alternative medicine needs to be cleaned up and fine tuned. (See the Open Tasks of this project.) But from prior experience, we are more likely to succeed on this glossary than in alternative medicine.

Our banner presently sounds apologetic to me. And, why are we promoting our opposition's key article (ie, alternative medicine)? That seems totally stupid to me. We should either use our glossary, or not reference any article at all.

The graphic can stay, as far as I am concerned. Mainly because I cannot think of anything better to replace it with. And, no we should not use the symbol used by physicians. -- John Gohde 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about the use of the Yin Yang symbol to denote "Alternative Medicine". What is the rationale behind this? Have there been any other suggested images? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea why. Would like to know myself, why. -- John Gohde 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate at all. And though I can't readily think of something perfect, I would even think that the Rod of Asclepius image would be more apropos than the Yin-Yang. But then again, perhaps I am being too Western-centric. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I picked it. The rationale os obviously the holistic and harmonizing connotations that is carries. Feel free to come up with something else. __meco 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the banner should link to Glossary of alternative medicine. Alternative medicine or Complementary and alternative medicine are the articles that should be considered the "home base" of this project (in the main namespace). __meco 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you were to go back two or three years of discussions pages, you would obviously know that Glossary of alternative medicine is our featured article, even if it is actually a list. It is also one of our success stories since I was able to prevent it from being deleted by calling it a glossary. Alternative medicine, as it is presently written, positively is not. Complementary and alternative medicine (completely re-written by me, at one time) is very likely to be either deleted or merged. Try reading our wikiproject page. I know that our subject is alternative medicine, but the Glossary of alternative medicine is our primary success story. This glossary is precisely how we can ignore that absolutely anti-alternative medicine article. -- John Gohde 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not up-to-date on the appearance of either the AM or the CAM article, but I believe that we have to consider these articles our main articles even though they are not of the quality presently which we would like. On another note, the editors who have made changes that you find inappropriate to those two articles should also be invited to participate in this project. We should not perceive of ourselves as a faction of the defenders of these articles against those who fiercly oppose, or are merely skeptical towards, this paradigm. I believe anyone who attempts to insert bias and POV into these articles should be met with an invitation to bring their qualms here, because I think such an action could help instill a sense of responsibility and loyalty towards consensus-building instead simply obstructionism towards a field that they dislike. __-- meco (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to be a Stockholm syndrome victim. If the world was what it ought to be and should be, then there would be no wars and no crime. This WikiProject is for dealing with Wikipedia as it is rather than with what it ought to be and should be. I have better uses of my time than editing alternative medicine. Cleaning up our glossary of alternative medicine will be my first task. A true glossary should be absolutely neutral. A glossary is supposed to be a list of terms, with absolutely no place for skepticism of any type, per the rules of Wikipedia. Work on what ever you want to. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Talk:Alternative medicine currently has 14 archives. My user names are on most of those pages. Talk:Alternative medicine has 14 different archives for a reason. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we cannot be champions of alternative medicine per se either. This WikiProject, like any WikiProject must allow for any user interested in this field to participate and be given a fair hearing for their views, even if their basic motivation is to fend off the lunatic fringe. __-- meco (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That has never been at issue, nor have most of the objections that you have been raising for that matter. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The choice of the Yin-Yang symbol falls quite naturally since many (I would say "most") alternative medicine practitioners and websites use the symbol and identify with it. This is a natural result of the history of alternative medicine, which is a rather modern development, in spite of the long history of certain of its practices. To understand this, please read the wikilinks that follow. To really understand it I suggest reading Marilyn Ferguson's (read that article here) classic "The Aquarian Conspiracy".[2] There she outlined the plan for what we are now seeing actually happening. Alternative medicine as a modern movement is a direct part of this plan, the plan for getting everyone to accept New Age thinking. It is an unusual conspiracy, since it isn't a secret, but a publicized plan that is openly being carried out. Therefore the New Age/Alternative Medicine alliance is no accident, but part of a plan and therefore the use of the Yin-Yang symbol isn't an accident either. The book is fascinating. It is no novel, but a highly applauded and recognized blue print. The choice of the symbol is in direct opposition to the use of the Rod of Asclepius, which to New Agers and alternative medicine is the symbol of the devil himself, i.e big pharma, drugs, mainstream medicine, etc.. I once (when I was an alternative medicine user and practitioner) read a religious book that outlined how "fallen" Christianity was infiltrated by ungodly elements and gradually incorporated heathen practices and thus modern medicine signalized its heathenness by using a pagan symbol, the Rod of Asclepius. (Don't blame me for that. I just read it....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen the Yin-Yang symbol used in association with any alternative medicine practitioners. I associate Yin Yang with the philosophy/religion of Taoism and perhaps traditional Chinese medicine which, it itself, is just a subset of Alt Med. I think it is highly inappropriate to use the symbol in conjunction with alternative medicine. That being said, I have yet to come up with a better alternative; though I think we would be better off with no symbol than Yin-Yang. I just checked out the Yin and yang article here and it makes no mention of alternative medicine. I don't know. Perhaps since Alternative Medicine tends to be more holistic in its approach, a simple outline of the body human would serve us better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the talk page of the Yin and yang article you will notice that I made a post back in September regarding the use of the symbol to identify the present WikiProject. Noone has so far raised any objections. I do not share your appraisal of it being misapplied in our context, rather I agree with Fyslee that much of the alternative health movement is closely assosiated with the new age movement and easily identifies with this symbol, however acknowledging its origin in Taoism. __meco 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess my big contention is that when I see the logo the topic of "Alternative Medicine" doesn't leap into my head. I think of Taoism, Asian culture, good vs bad, etc... but Alt Med doesn't come to mind. However, I am being critical here while offering no solution. I guess that there isn't a unifying image to encompass Alt Med (probably because it is a hodge-podge of so many different kinds of disciplines and practices merely thrown together in a category because they don't - for whatever reason - fit into the mainstream category). Still, I think we can do better than Yin Yang. Again, I think a body image might serve us better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. __-- meco (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To be usable the image has to be uploaded to Wikipedia and pass copyright questions. -- -- John Gohde (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I copy-and-pasted the image into Illustrator, flipped it, redrew the lines entirely myself, applied some effects in Illustrator and thus turned it into my own work. We'll see how the other editors who check for copyright feel about this though. Anyhow, here's how it will look in our project banner. What do you all think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions on talk.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Here's another way to go. This might suggest an "aura" which is associated more with Vitalism and hence Alt Med. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions on talk.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Wow! That looks really good. The Aura and colors tie it in with many of the (related) things that underlie many forms of alternative medicine: energy medicine, TCM, and of course vitalism, as you mentioned. Good work. -- Fyslee / talk 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what the members of this project think. (Why aren't you a member of this project?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the aura version, but I think it should be a tad smaller in size. John Gohde (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks beautiful. __meco (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Smaller logo

How's this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions on talk.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

I have updated our project banner with our new graphic. I stuck with the original size. It did not look quite as good smaller and Medicine's graphic is also rather tall. Plus, I added a mouse-over message. John Gohde (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Active vs. Inactive Participants

Discounting those which have resigned from Wikipedia or haven't been around for one year or more, the list below contains 11 names.

User name	Talk page	Special interests or contributions	Medical qualification	Remarks
John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health	Talk	natural health, natural therapy and Psychosocial or Mind - Body Interventions, as well as the founder and developer of this WikiProject.		User account has been inactive since June, 2004. However User:John Gohde is currently active.
Ashibaka	Talk	alternative medicine and other areas of pseudoscience
Heidimo	Talk	traditional Chinese medicine, medical intuition, auriculotherapy	I have practical expertise in these fields as well as writing/proofreading/editing skills. I teach and write on these topics regularly.
irismeister	Talk	Interested in health, non-visual eye physiology, free speech and free thinking.		User was blocked permanently in January 2006
Karen S Vaughan	Talk	Interested in forming a subproject on Herbalism. I have written or extensively modified a number of articles on herbs, herbalists and herbal medicine, adding references, correcting information from secondary sources and improving accuracy.	Clinical herbalist and licensed acupuncturist in NY State, have written, been interviewed for books and television on the subject. Also certified in essential oils and have had various energy medicine trainings.
Greenman	Talk
DryGrain	Talk
xyberdoc	Talk		Homer Lim, MD from St Carlos Medical Center	This user has not been active since May 2006 (and has only 10 edits combined on Wikipedia)
ALargeElk	Talk			This user has not been active since April 2005
SargonZ	Talk		First year osteopathic medical student at Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine.	This user has not been active since May 2006 (and has only 10 edits combined on Wikipedia)
Smithfarm	Talk
Ballista	Talk
AnaBryce	Talk	This is one of my primary areas of interest.	I have been learning and working with various alternative healing methods for about 4-5 years.	This user has not been active since October 2006
Merkinsmum	Talk	I've studied reiki and other forms of CAM	But also scepticism, so think I can write with NPOV
meco	Talk	I'm interested in holism, thus systems that distance themselves from the reductionism of the current scientific (and in particular the allopathic medical) paradigm are of interest to me. I have a particular interest in the work and legacy of Wilhelm Reich, partly because my great grandfather worked closely with him. Among articles I have created I would name in particular Sex economy (essay).	I have worked as a registered nurse in Norway (I am Norwegian), but am now wholly involved in what I label God-work.
William Courson	Talk	Interested in discussing all topics relevant to ayurvedic medicine and ayurvedic medical education in India and abroad. Special interests include ayurvedic 'subtle therapies' and the place of energy healing in ayurvedic praxis.	Clinical herbalist and ayurvedic practitioner in New Jersey (USA). Author of numerous professional and popular articles on the subjects of ayurveda, herbalism (ayurvedic and western) and energy healing, esp. Reiki. Usui Reiki Master, also certified in Bach and other systems of flower essence therapy. Director, New Jersey Institute of Ayurveda (distance education program for ayurvedic practitioners). Principal, Vedic Energy Healing, L.L.C.
Friarslantern	Talk	personal experience with use of a.m.; philosphy, history and psychology of science as relates to acceptance of a.m.	none	--

Proposed deletion: Mosaraf Ali

Mosaraf Ali (via WP:PROD on 17 November 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken care of this article. There exists plenty of first-rate references that can still be applied to expanding this article further though. __meco (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Group Eye-Candy Project

If our wikiproject wants to make an impact upon alternative medicine articles in Wikipedia as well as advertise the fact that we are now active and actually have a group of participants working collaboratively on projects; then we should create a Portal. Since it appears that alternative medicine has been left out of the new concept of Wikipedia portals.

Study Portal:Medicine for an example of what a portal is.

The first order of business is to decide if we want to call it Portal:Alternative medicine or Portal:Complementary and alternative medicine.

Next, we need to decide if our new portal should be a sub-portal of Portal:Medicine. Both by name and category structure it appears that we fit into medicine. Or, should we look into other possibilities?

And, we also need to pick an existing portal to model our new proposed portal after. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the creation of a portal. I've never been much involved in portals so I don't know how beneficial this might be. __meco (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that the development of portals came from finally recognizing that categories are next to useless for finding articles in Wikipedia. Users prefer written text that visually organizes information in a more manageable form.

Both our glossary of alternative medicine and alternative medicine approach the topic of alternative medicine from a different perspective. Alternative medicine has a debate, Pro or Con, perspective. The proposed portal allows us to approach alternative medicine from yet another perspective. I have definite ideas on how to do this. I would like to write the portal from the point of view of the Contemporary use of Alternative Medicine. This write up lasted in our category page from June 2004 to around February 2005. A variation of it was also in another version of the CAM article for over one year, but was eventually deleted. Of course, it will have to be converted into multiple display boxes. The portal will allow us to display a very large number of links to alternative medicine topics of our own choosing as well as to categories and wikiprojects, like this one.

I am voting for Portal:Complementary and alternative medicine.

The bottom line is, if we don't write it, somebody else will. John Gohde (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Portal:Complementary and alternative medicine" would be the preferred route. Portals are fairly new territory for me so forgive me if I should tread slowly here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Next step, is to pick a portal to model our portal after. -- John Gohde (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We Now Have A Portal

Creating a portal is a messy can of worms. So, I went ahead and created one using the recommended box portal layout. I have gotten it to be recognizable as a CAM portal, Here it is: Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Its current status is a portal under construction. There is still plenty of editing to be done on it, before it can be offically listed.

Editing it can still be a can of worms. The Selected article, Selected picture, and Contemporary Use of CAM display boxes have a ramdom number generator in them, which I have set to 1. Let us keep it that way, at least until we have developed the portal well enough to be released. But, apparently you can have more than one copy of each box which can be automatically randomly changed.

This random feature was driving me crazy until I figured out what was going on. -- John Gohde (talk)

Excellent start! Thank you, John Gohde. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The portal has been officially listed.

Editing still needs to be done. But, it is good enough to release. Basically, the most important stuff is on top. The stuff at the very bottom can be updated at a later date. -- John Gohde (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User Template

This user is a participant in
WikiProject
Alternative medicine.

What do you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. -- John Gohde (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PROD: Bioecological medicine

Bioecological medicine (via WP:PROD on 30 November 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On these VfD stub articles, if the article is related to CAM the procedure would be to first add the definition to the glossary of alternative medicine before physically deleting it. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the categorization, it is related to Alternative Medicine; if that is incorrect, the categorization should be removed (I can do that edit if you let me know either way). Also, I am not nominating for deletion; I am informing so that knowledgeable editors can determine if the article is worth saving or should be allowed to pass quietly into the night. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is alternative medicine. I found one reference to it in PubMed. Put the definition into our Glossary. But, I am of the opinion that useage of the term "Bioecological medicine" in the alternative medicine community is almost unknown and must have been introduced not much more than one year ago. Most simply would refer to it as probiotics. There are only 60 hits when the exact phrase is Googled. And, most of the references are to this WikiPedpia article. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We Got a major problem

Somebody wiped out all the editing I did at Complementary and Alternative Medicine without any history being recorded. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be two distinct articles due to case-sensitivity of Wikipedia: Complementary and alternative medicine and Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Perhaps a merge is in order? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you manage to post so fast? I redirected the newest version to the oldest version. I consider this article to be very important, and don't want something like this to mess it up. If anybody wants to merge the text is still avialable as the file was not deleted. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I had my Watchlist surgically implanted into my cerebellum. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I, myself, merged the material on NCCAM. This makes the CAM article even bigger and more unique. The rest of the material seems to be a confusion over the fact that the English Edition of Wikipedia caters to the English speaking world, which is namely the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Problem

Somebody is trying to have Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Quotes, a part of our CAM Portal deleted. Quotes are a standard feature of many portals. Everyone needs to vote on this process. -- John Gohde 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. -- John Gohde 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing Articles from CAM

I am wondering if there is a way to remove articles from the CAM project that are not medical based? Therapeutic horseback riding is designated as part of the CAM project, but therapeutic horseback riding is a recreational or sport activity that teaches people with disabilities to ride horses. The requirements for teaching therapeutic riding are being over 18 years of age and passing a weekend workshop. This is not a Complementary Alternative Medical treatment.

However, hippotherapy is a medical treatment by a licensed medical health professional using the movement of the horse to provide functional outcomes. This would be appropriate to be listed under the CAM project.

Is there anyway to remove an aticle from the CAM project?

69.34.62.89 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)KarmaAnais (therapeutic riding instructor and occupational therapist)

While horseback riding is recreational, Therapeutic horseback riding positively is not. The word therapeutic certainly does not indicate a sport activity. While more than one WikiProject could claim this article, as a non-drug and a non-surgical treatment option, therapeutic horseback riding certainly would fall under the CAM umbrella. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that article is an appropriate topic for this Wikiproject. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested re merge of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-related articles

There has been discussion of this in several places with varying results. To attain a more clear consensus, with input from more editors, comments are invited at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine#Request for Comments: merge proposal for complementary and alternative medicine articles.

To be clear - I'm not advocating for the change, just requesting discussion from interested editors... Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• See Good article nominations. A neutral third party said that article should receive a GA rating. So, I have nominated it. But, since I have edited it extensively I am barred from the GA review process. Everyone should vote on its good article status. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Reiki history

Reiki history (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Germanic New Medicine / request for help

Hi! Could somebody, who knows enough about this matter, help? This article seems to involve legal and medical aspects... See main article Ryke Geerd Hamer... I personally would like to delete that article, but there seem to be quite rampant proponents for that article... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Yo San University

Yo San University (via WP:PROD on 4 January 2008)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting requested on the latest merge attempt of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-related articles

To attain a more clear consensus, with input from more editors, comments are invited at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Vote at the bottom of Comments by involved editors. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

The article Anti-psychiatry is currently tagged for {{POV}}. Since this is within the scope of this project, I was wondering if some editors here would like to improve the article to cover more viewpoints -- in particular, the conventional view that psychiatry is ethical and efficacious. At the moment there are problems in the article of WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints, as well as the common problem of insufficient citations. Any new references you can add (from sources not already used) would benefit the article.

The most pressing needs are (1) references from sources skeptical to the anti-psychiatry movement, supporting particular practices of existing psychiatry; (2) scientific studies on the effectiveness of psychiatry, ideally neutral; and (3) references from those supporting anti-psychiatry, showing it as a broader movement than the current narrow viewpoint in the article.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Donna Eden AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden Totnesmartin (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe articles added

I added Mobile phone radiation and health‎ and Electrical sensitivity to this project. Do others agree that these belong here? Do we need to adjust the project scope to encompass them? __meco (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't within the scope of this project, and I don't see how they could be without this project being changed a lot. Those two articles have nothing to do with C/AM. --88.84.144.193 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Orthomolecular medicine

See Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Request for comment on the attribution of criticism in the lead, all comments welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

MAKE CITING EASY PLEASE - FROM FRANK HILLS

I have been doing research since 1959. I have many articles pub lished, and 13 books so far. It is usual to support quotes, statements, et aal, with citatioons which are both meaningful AND very easy for anyone to find and so confirm. Some of the articles in Wiki do not have page numbers, or something like that, thus req —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.241.209 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE MAKE CITATION EXACT

fEW PROPLE WILL READ A LONG ARTICLE TO CONFIRM A CITATION, SO PLEASE PAGINATE OR USE SECTIONS OR SOMETHING. THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.241.209 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for an article

I believe that an article on Health Kinesiology would be useful. I gather that this form of therapy has a few practioners around and might not be as popular as others. Do we have anyone here who knows about it? Here is a website: [3].--Filll (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Chiropractic re effectiveness of chiropractic care

Please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care. Comments are welcome; please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Comments on claim of bias and proposal for fix for comments so far. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help: Nelsons (Natural Health)

I would appreciate if some people could review the article I've created for the natural health firm Nelsons. I've added some basic factual copy with a few refs, but it could really do with some peer review and further refs to avoid it being deleted out of hand. Thanks --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Horstmann technique

Can anyone point me towards independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the Horstmann technique? I prodded it a few weeks ago, and the prod was removed with a bare assertion that such exist. The article creator has not, however, seen fit to share what any of these sources might be. It is not mentioned at PubMed or NCCAM, nor is it listed in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine or other usual suspects. All of the internet hits seem to be either substantively copied from the originator's website or mere directory listings. While this does confirm that someone invented this technique and started teaching classes, it does not provide anything with which to work for improving the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion here. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD :Nelsons (homeopathy)

The Nelsons (homeopathy) page has been proposed for deletion.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Result was non-admin keep by consensus.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR for article Dianetics

I have listed the article Dianetics for Good article reassessment. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dianetics/1. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on deleting detoxification methods category

Feel free to provide your inputs on the deletion discussion for the detoxification methods category. It has only a 6 articles, and it is not likely to grow much. All of these articles are linked to from the detoxification article. I think putting it in a category of its own gives it undue weight, and is unnecessary. Others disagree; maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like some more input. II | (t - c) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 598 articles are assigned to this project, of which 274, or 45.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New medicinal herb template

There is a new template at Template:Medicinal herbs & spices. I believe it to be unworkable, as basically all culinary herbs in the Template:Herbs & spices template may also be used for medicinal purposes, and there are thousands of herbs used for strictly medicinal purposes. Badagnani (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what are people currently doing?

• The people who have contributed to this page, what are you currently working on? I know one has set up his own dictionary of CAM. But was wondering what the rest of you were upto and how you are keeping?Merkinsmum 12:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm interested in adding alt cancer therapies to the glossary using this page as a ref http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/altthrpy.htm. Thoughts? Chaveso 00:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• I have updated the participants list, and now I will post a notice on the talk pages of the ones who are still active Wikipedians. __meco 09:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Projects and the entire open editing concept of Wikipedia are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you cannot be primarily interested in promoting this Wikiproject. To be acceptable, you have to bill yourself as being primarily interested in improving Wikipedia in one particular area.
  • I see no need to maintain a list of active versus non-active participants. That will only turnoff new prospects, IMHO. I have moved it to talk.
    • There are many Anti-Wikiproject elements in Wikipedia. And, you really do not want to be wasting your time playing games with these people who will quibble over the entire concept of a Wikiproject participant.
    • Once a participant, always a participant in intent if nothing else.
  • This section should really be on the talk page. -- John Gohde 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• I have stubbed the Dr. Hay diet article. I have tried to add some historical material and clean up the refs, but it definitely needs much more attention. Currently, several would-be articles are forwarded back to this one (such as Nutripathy). I believe that if we make this article distinct, there will be a need to actually create separate articles for each of the topics currently forwarded to Dr. Hay Diet. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Participant John Gohde

• Added free full text documentation to the Wellness Movement article.
• Freshen up this project page to make it more inviting, as well as up-to-date. -- John Gohde 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Freshen up the project page some more. And, added a new list to our Core Project Articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Scope of Project - Added back Lists previously deleted from their exact same writeup in Feb 2005, but recently recreated one way or the other by other project participants and accepted todate. The project is once again whole as it was originally intended, by popular demand. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Added our glossary to the Alternative medical systems infobox. -- John Gohde 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Created / Added our wikiproject shortcut: WP:AMED. My 1st and 2nd choices were already taken. What exactly this shortcut is good for is beyond me. John Gohde (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Successfully expanded complementary medicine into an independent full fledged article. Trimmed the complementary and alternative medicine article down to an article taking an umbrella prospective. Also demonstrated how you can link to integrative medicine even though there is no article on that topic, thanks to our Glossary. Now, both articles have an excellent chance of staying as distinct and different articles covering different topics. -- John Gohde (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Basically got our Portal:Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine going in only one day of editing. Spent parts of a second day fine tuning it and adding more features. -- John Gohde (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Added Health Sciences category to the Science portal. From the Main Page if the public clicks on the Science Portal hyperlink which is listed on the very top of the page. And, then clicks on the Science Portal Tab, they will see our portal listed under health sciences. How long this might last, I don't know. But, since I added all of the health category portals, it just might take. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Likewise, added/created Category:Health science portals to/in Category:Science portals. If it sticks, should make our portal more visible by making it accessible both from medicine and a health portal category. -- John Gohde (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Complained about the browsebar template directing visitors to specific portals rather than to a masterlist of portals. Amazingly, the powers-that-be responded favorably. The browsebar was changed within one day. And, the Main page appears to be in the process of being changed. Ultimately it is hoped that the public will be able to click on a Health hyperlink that will take the visitor directly to a short list of health related topics which would include our portal. This change should make all portals more visible to the public. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Completed the creation of all the top level templates in the NCCAM classification series of 5 templates.
• Completed a complete list of the top-level basic CAM topics that have currently been written. -- John Gohde 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Added the top-level list of articles to Category:Concepts in alternative medicine. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Updated the listing of categories on the CAM portal at Portal:CAM/Categories. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Due to its relation to this project within WP, members might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new entry

Hi there: I'm a new user with a suggestion to have a Wikipedia entry for Stott Pilates. (Disclosure: I am employed by Stott Pilates.) I have taken the liberty of drafting an article on my user page but didn't want to post publicly due to conflict of interest. Anybody agree that this warrants an article? How can I help? Kalliope1 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Alternative medicine

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from Chiropractic?

It's been suggested to exclude Cochrane Collaboration and similar reviews from Chiropractic on WP:OR grounds. Comments are requested at Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment?

I was just looking for a place to request a reassessment of an article which has undergone major changes since it was rated. Bates method is the article I want to request that for, since the B-Class rating is about a year old. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

adding "Zen Shiatsu Tucson" link

This is a request to add our informational/bulletin board-style site for zen shiatsu to your external links. My teaching partner and I teach zen shiatsu at three different schools in Tucson throughout the year. One is a career training program at Asian Institute of Medical Studies, one is a venue for continuing education credit and public classes, and the third is foundational training in an established massage therapy program. Our site is http://www.zenshiatsutucson.org Thank you for your consideration, sincerely. Kristin Schaefer 68.230.53.231 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:LINKFARM. As a policy, Wikipedia only includes external links which meet a specific criteria. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

review of the shiatsu article

Hi, I have done some serious revision of the shiatsu article. I have tidied up the introduction, adjusted the Namikoshi bias and added a more global view, added more explanatory notes on diagnosis, made reference to a major europe wide shiatsu study of shiatsu and mentioned the opposition to shiatsu from health authorities. It's worth looking at again and perhaps removing the controversial tag that welcomes the reader now.

85.56.60.158 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Help Request

There is, what I believe, a blatant skepto-attack on Donna Eden. The article is being put up for deletion a second time. Legitimate sources have been removed (which I put back). The motivation seems clearly that there is a set of people who think energy medicine is junk and thus all things related are not noteworthy. If you have an interest, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2.

P.S. Is this a reasonable use of this page? I'm not sure. If not, let me know what alternative approach to take. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful that you do not violate WP:CANVASS. I am of the opinion that you are not violating that particular set of rules with this post, but always keep it in mind when you are trying to gain visibility for projects/ideas you want to see happen at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wang Zi-Ping

Article claims he had a significant role in "systematization of Traditional Chinese Medicine" if someone could clarify it would be appreciated, as my knowledge of this area is low. --Nate1481 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Soul

The Alternative medicine WikiProject tag was recently added to this article's talk page, but I don't see how it is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Any explanation? --WikiSlasher (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably should ask the editor, Sticky_Parkin who did the addition --Sultec (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody had already put it in the category, I am just adding the banner and rating to articles in the categories. Presumably the concept of soul someone felt to be important in alternative medicine as otherwise practitioners would have no problem with 'normal' medicine.:) One of their beliefs is sometimes that the person has an essence and normal medicine doesn't address diseases of thhe person's soul. The article doesn't much address the alt.med aspect at the moment but that doesn't mean that isn't possible or the concept isn't important in alt med with WP:RS on the subject discussing it. Anyway, don't ask me lol I'm just adding the classes or banners in accordance with what other people had put in the category.:) Sticky Parkin 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Soul is the crucial issue here. Modern medicine is 'Modern' because a priori it denies the existence of anything other than the body. The cause of illness is therefore in the body - DNA, whatever. Although alternative medicine includes the vitamins and minerals brigade and such physical therapies as osteopathy, many of the varied approaches include some kind of perspective that there is something more than the visible body, whether in terms of shamanic approaches that target the soul directly, or traditional systems like chinese or greek medicine that look at the energetic systems of the body, which constitute an intermediary between the soul and the physical matter that we see. Hippocratic medicine is, according to Edward Tick (The practice of Greek Dream Healing), only the external purification that was undergone by people preparing themselves for the real healing that was provided in a dream. Aniksker (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Alternatve medical systems

A user wants to rename Category:Alternative medical systems to Category:Whole medical systems as he says that is the NCCAM or something name for it. I would appreciate your opinion on the category's talk page or something, but I don't link to them or whatever page I'm on ends up in them lol, but you can put them in the search bar to find them. Sticky Parkin 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of alternative medicine

This article is being considered for deletion, just thought I'd let you know in case you want to give your opinions. Sticky Parkin 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Why is the Glossary of alternative medicine being considered for deletion? As a user of such medicine as a patient, I think there should be a glossary of alternative medicine in Wikipedia. Alternative medicine is also called complementary medicine so many practitioners refer patients to Western, allopathic medicine if they feel the patient needs it. Therefore complementary medicine is not alternative to Western, allopathic medicine.River Running (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Do excuse me Sticky, after reading further I support your "mass deletion".River Running (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles

I have started an RfC: RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles. Please comment on this important subject. -- Fyslee / talk 16:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying with this to everywhere Fyslee has put this request, though you are of course welcome to comment on what he's created. I need to write where he has put this because the title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) Sticky Parkin 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some editors might find this entry rather disturbing. Actually, there is really nothing new about it. This has been a requirement for years. They are simply trying to simplify the organization of this upper level category. In other words, articles will be moved out of Category:Alternative medicine into hopefully the most appropriate sub-category of Alternative medicine.

This task is really more for those editors concerned about maintaining the proper structure of categories on Wikipedia than it is a major responsibility of this particular WikiProject. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New list

Announcing a new list:

• List of alternative medicine subjects

-- Fyslee / talk 08:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Voicing my opinion, absolutely the last thing that this project should be doing is creating a new list that directly recreates the Index of topics in alternative medicine which was VfD back in Feb 2005. There is a reason why some things in Wikipedia survive, while others don't over very long periods of time. I am confident that the above list will eventually be deleted.

A lot of editors on Wikipedia are in fact interested in Glossaries. In no way is a master list a glossary. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your glossary exists. This is not in competition with it. Relax. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the new list to our list of Core Project Articles. All of our WikiProject's lists are important right up until they are deleted/redirected. Over the years, a couple of these lists were deleted. But, during my recent absence both previously deleted lists have been restored, one way or the other. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen bar - request for other views

Oxygen bar, an article within the scope of your project has been completely re-written as an advert (in my opinion). I have reverted once, but User:Oxygeninc has now reverted back to their promotional version. I have explained my views on the talk page and requested discussion, but this SPA has not left a single comment, nor edit summary. Any third-party view on the relative merits of the two versions would be appreciated. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

State of WikiProject on Alternative Medicine

Alternative medicine pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	1
FL	1
GA	26
B	149
C	383
Start	809
Stub	287
List	32
Category	216
Disambig	3
File	6
Project	6
Template	18
NA	217
Assessed	2,154
Unassessed	19
Total	2,173
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 7,798			Ω = 4.71

While slightly battered, the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine is currently more active, successful, and accepted than it has ever been before; in the true spirit of how Wikipedia is supposed to function.

The generally accepted Wikipedia scorecard of success is shown on the chart to the right of this comment. Close to 1,000 articles have been tagged as being related to the topic of alternative medicine. And, there is also all those articles that have been tagged with an alternative medicine related category.

Over the years we have lost a number of articles and project sub-pages. But the two key lists that were once deleted, have been restored one way or the other by popular demand. Our original project scope has once again been restored to where it was at the start of 2005.

I would have to say that the core original ideas of this WikiProject have been vindicated over the test of time. While the layouts, design, color, vocabulary, and techniques have somewhat changed, Wikipedians have implemented ALL of our original core ideas.

• Major CAM related articles have a box on them that is bigger than ever.
• CAM related talk pages have our tag on them.
• A type of rating is being displayed on our talk page tags.
• The value of lists has withstood the test of time.

-- John Gohde (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheethali Chikithsa

I'm unsure if this is OR / vanity or is properly notable. I thought you chaps might be best placed to help. I'll also drop a line at WT:INDIA --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of alternative medicine

An Alternative Medicine wikiproject banner was added to "Rejuvenation Research". I think this is incorrect. Agreed? --Green06 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Homeopathic remedies

Category:Homeopathic remedies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the article on dietary fiber and I was wondering if anyone knows any ratios regarding fiber intake and nutrient absorbtion avoidance of carbs, fats etc. ie. one gram of soluble fiber will help you avoid burning ?? grams of carbs and fats. Im sure there is not easy answer, I'm wondering it there are any "rules of thumb" out there. Rambo300 (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey to you all! This is a plain question coming from a plain person. Questions being: Are you saiding that oil pulling does not work?(173.65.202.21 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

new page: Medicinal clay (request for comments)

Dear friends,

I've been interested in medicinal clays for some time, and was surprised that Wikipedia has no page on the subject. On further investigation, I found that quite a lot of relevant info is scattered around on various Wiki pages, but it's not all that easy to track down. Also, the history of using Medicinal clay is very extensive, and there's lots of info on the Net, but this was not reflected in Wikipedia.

So now I've done this new article, and put it up on my own sub-page for starters,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dyuku/Medicinal_clay

It's quite long, and I believe all the info is pretty solid. Any comments? Is my article yet ready to move into the main Wikipedia?

All the best, Dyuku (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The style of the article looks very well done. The article is fully developed. You have included a number of references. I would just go ahead and create the article. -- John Gohde (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my article, John! Actually, this is the first article that I've created from scratch, so I wasn't sure if I did everything correctly. I'm still ironing out some parts, so I'll upload it shortly. There's a lot of material in this area, and it's taking me longer than I thought. I even found some good photos! :)

All the best, Dyuku (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now created: Medicinal clay. -- Dyuku (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletions in Medicinal clay

Dear friends,

Recently, User:MastCell has been deleting material in the article Medicinal clay. Among the items deleted was the whole section about how clay is prepared for use. This is the edit in question,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medicinal_clay&diff=294470245&oldid=294470069

That section had been marked as 'unreferenced' for about a couple of days previous.

Now, my question is what to do about this sort of editing. Does anyone really believe that the section "Preparation of clay" is inappropriate in an article about Medicinal clay?

I understand that more references may be necessary for that section (there was actually one embedded reference there already), but why the need to remove the whole section? Shouldn't more time be given to supply the refs?

There was nothing in that section that was controversial in any way. These were simple factual statements summarising what any reference book will say on the subject. The material was not biased in any way.

So I'm asking for advice on how to proceed in such a situation where an editor does not seem to be acting in a constructive manner (i.e. not interested in improving the article).

Thanks in advance. -- Dyuku (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems the first step would be to simply ask MastCell - a very reasonable editor. Why not try that? Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the section "Preparation of clay" is inappropriate in an article about Medicinal clay? Dyuku (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The original editor of any article on Wikipedia does not own the article. Editing by other editors is to be expected. If references is what they want then I suggest that you try adding more references to the article. Locate the references, re-add the deleted material along with valid references and see what happens.

Personally, I cannot say I am in favor of the use of Medicinal clay. Had a very negative experience with a dirt eater outside of Wikipedia. I have never used Medicinal clay and probably never will.

Here again, you should expect all kinds of changes to be made to the article. One definitely has to support your articles, with bigger articles that obviously cover more ground are going to require more references than smaller ones.

Further articles on alternative medicine are supposed to be neutral. So you really will never be allowed to promote the use of Medicinal clay in an article about Medicinal clay. In addition, some editors seem to think that an article should go on forever. Remember that articles in Wikipedia are not supposed to be the size of a booklet. Keep your articles short, on topic, and to the point. -- John Gohde (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, John. Yes, I'll soon get the necessary references and try to re-add some material. I agree that the article came out quite long, but there's a lot more material that I've omitted. There is a lot of material on the subject out there!

I'll never think of promoting the use of anything on Wikipedia. Why should I want to do this, in any case? All this is simply to bring together relevant information that is fully verified. Of course, I'm generally in favour of using natural remedies that have stood the test of time -- just like lots of other folks here may prefer the products of mainstream Big Pharma that have plenty of harsh side-effects, and often have never really been tested independently, or long enough... Different strokes for different folks, like they say... But none of this should interfere with the objective of producing neutral material for articles. Objectivity must be the goal, no doubt, regardless of our personal preferences. Best wishes. Dyuku (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Electrical Pollution (Looking to collaborate)

After not having much success with a lot of editors that would rather deny everything then give it a chance, I stumbled upon this wikiproject. Electrical pollution and electrical hypersensitivity are topics of alternative medicine that have been readily denied (Like all alternative medicine) by the "mainstream scientific community". I am looking to make a page for electrical pollution explaining the causes, symptoms, and treatments for it, as well as rebuking the common myths that popular science throws on it. Are there any editors in this project that have an understanding of these concepts and want to help collaborate a notable and well sourced article on this (I have made a minor minor start on it over on my user page (Please do not make judgements based on this. It it 10 minutes worth of work for what will be a much larger article))?

PS: I am not here to debate the existence of electrical pollution of to convince you why you should believe in it. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The way you collaborate on Wikipedia is to post articles. The number one problem for all article writers is coming up with a good name for it. Right now, I would say that you need to find a better name. What you really got is only a stub. So, I would try posting it to Glossary of alternative medicine to see how the community would respond to it. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment request

I started the article Zanthoxylum americanum and assessed it up to start-class. I think it should be higher than that, but will not assess higher myself. Could someone please assess it? I'd also appreciate feedback on the talkpage there as to what improvements would be needed to bring it to GA-level. Thanks, LadyofShalott 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most articles in Wikipedia fall under more than one project. Botany and Category:Medicinal plants considerations would have to be the primary considerations for articles of this nature. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonghan theory

FYI, we have an article at Bonghan theory, which if I'm understanding correctly is about a hypothetical physiological system which explains acupuncture. Article is tagged with "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. ... Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days...", so please give editors their several days to work on it, but IMHO we want to keep an eye on this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Magnet Therapy (Request for Review & Comments)

The Magnet Therapy article requires a major overhaul. This article previously described using magnets as pseudoscience with little scientific backing. In recent years, major research has proven static magnetic fields affect several biological processes, most notably blood microcirculation. This effect results in relief of pain and swelling from recent injury and trauma, and improved wound healing after surgery. Substantial research is accumulating for other physiological and behavioral effects of both static and electromagnetic fields.

I have begun to re-organize this article, and have added substantial references based on this research. Though I'm not a member of this project, (I am new to Wikipedia in general), any constructive input would be greatly appreciated. Spades07 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

meaning of rasa

rasatibakshayatisarvanlohan rasaityabidiyate meaning that which digests all the metals is known as rasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.70.132 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Warburg's Tincture

Does the article Warburg's Tincture, which I have created, come under the remit of this WikiProject? thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but I added the Category:History of medicine. --Dyuku (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Vitamin C

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new section "Alternative medicine as mainstream"

Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting

Shouldn't alternative medicine be a separate topic for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting? It appears to me that that would be useful. __meco (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcement of RfC at Talk:NPOV regarding use of Category:Pseudoscience wikilinks

Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African Medicine

I'm new to Wikipedia and currently am working on the article for Traditional African Medicine for my Shaping of the Modern World class at Duquesne University and would greatly appreciate it if anyone could edit my article or give me any suggestions, especially on how to better organize it. Mitchel2 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

There's something of a debate going on at Talk:Johanna Budwig about what is appropriate to include in an article about this person (developer of the Budwig diet/Budwig protocol, which still has its enthusiasts as a supposedly beneficial diet for cancer patients). At the moment two of us take a similar position, whilst a third wants to make drastic cuts. I would appreciate the perspective of people who aren't already involved. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Category mergers

Should Category:Osteopathic medicine be merged with Category:Osteopathy? Any input is helpful. Gabbe (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Greg Caton

Please see AfD:Greg Caton (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Finemrespice (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Meditation

I request that anyone please add their support/oppose rationale to the debate regarding the lede to Meditation, in the following thread;

• Talk:Meditation#Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation

I emphasize my request for brief reasoning. This debate has a history (on the talk page); my role has simply been to try and get things on-track, to form a consensus.

I am posting here, and on the other two project group talk pages which are listed on that pages talk.

I would be very grateful for some help, to resolve this issue. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now a second discussion, to clarify; quite a simple suggestion, and it could really do with more input, if anyone can contribute to the discussion, thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Help needed for translation project

WP:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project has recently identified several underdeveloped articles that they would like to see improved:

• Vitamin E
• Triphala
• Withania Somnifera
• Asana (yoga), and
• Ayurveda.

If you're interested, please jump in. Even ten minutes' effort can help a lot, and this project multiplies your efforts out to several Wikipedias around the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with Core Synchronism redaction

A Wikipedia Administrator, whose edit description claimed to be doing "categorization/tagging/cleanup using AWB" basically removed the whole article, including LOTS of references, to emphasize his opinion that the modality, and all 'therapeutic touch' is pseudoscience. Has anyone else had an experience like this? What's the best way to proceed? An opposing view is one thing, but just destroying the page seems antagonistic. Can I roll back the edits? Any feedback or information would be helpful. Thank you! Souljerky (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit description is not misleading but simply missing. You can rollback the changes and ask for explanation why it has been stubbed. Richiez (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

His response indicates that it's "just hand-waving assertions that have no basis in actual research" and that it's a promotional puff piece. Is it not appropriate to describe the underlying principles and that it is based on Polarity and Cranial Osteopathy, which he deleted and replaced with a reference to Therapeutic Touch, which wasn't in there originally? Thanks for the help!

Dln108 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dln108 -- Would you like to roll it back with edits that address his concerns? Souljerky (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If I roll back, am i picking a fight? Souljerky (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

would be better to see how the discussion here develops. Richiez (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you! Souljerky (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment about Chiropractic

There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Myers' cocktail and cocktail therapy

So I was google'ing cocktail therapy and I found this Myers' cocktail page on wikipedia. Does anyone know how does it related to the cocktail therapy that supposedly interfere HIV's reproduction ability? Because I would have expect that there's a wikipedia page about the "real" cocktail therapy, but not Myers' cocktail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XyzphineR (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Does anyone know how does it relate to the cocktail therapy that supposedly interferes [with] HIV's reproduction ability?"

There's no connection to antiretroviral drugs "cocktails" used in AIDS therapy (which have considerable negative side effects). It doesn't seem like Myers' cocktail has any negative side effects. Dyuku (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things absolutely clear: the cocktail that is mentioned above is a mixture of antiretroviral drugs (triple therapy or polytherapy) that has shown te be more effective in treating patients than therapy with single drugs (monotherapy). Meyer's mixture is meant as an energy booster and contains minerals and vitamins. It is not unusual to call mixtures of pharmaceuticals cocktails. Another example is the Brompton cocktail. The names are usually defined by the person who formulated the cocktail or a reference to the place it was originally thought up or used. The name cocktail is of course a reference to the social drink. --JHvW (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Color light acupuncture

A new article Color light acupuncture is being considered for deletion. Could some experts from this project please take a look and advise. Its origins seem to be COI and spam, but it could it make a valid article one day? Derek Andrews (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely to be anything other than a footnote to the main article - and I imagine even that would be resisted. Verbal chat 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Main article? I was thinking this might be merged with Chromotherapy. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Colorpuncture is in my opinion not a variety of chromotherapy but of acupuncture and I think that is where it belongs. I also find it interesting that the discussion page is much larger than the actual article. --JHvW (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

new article: Vitamin D and influenza‎

There's a new article, Vitamin D and influenza‎. I tried to develop it a bit, but the author obviously knows what he's doing. Should this be listed as 'Alternative medicine'? Actually, it's almost mainstream medicine nowadays. In any case, it's drugless medicine, so should be relevant. --Dyuku (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

YES, definitely. Any use of vitamins to treat and/or prevent disease is alternative medicine. In nature, Vitamin D is usually paired with Vitamin A which has a much bigger effect on preventing Influenza, IMHO - John Gohde (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Vitamin D is not an actual vitamin but a group of vitamins, Vitamin D3 usually (but incorrectly) being referred to as Vitamin D. Vitamin A and D3 can be harmful (in some countries they are classified as poisons) when taken in high dosages. Vitamine C has also been mentioned as an influenza profilactic (amongst others by noted scientist Linus Pauling), however there is no statistical or empirical evidence to suggest any form of efficacy. --JHvW (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about new content being quickly deleted

Hello everyone- I noticed that the topic "integrative medicine" redirected to "alternative medicine." While there are many definitions of integrative medicine, it usually includes a blending of allopathic, complementary, and alternative medicine to treat a disease or condition. So alternative medicine is an element of integrative medicine. I wrote a short article on integrative medicine defining it, describing the principles behind it, recent history, and wellness circles, all which were properly footnoted and neutral. I thought that some original content that was not in the alternative medicine article would be better than the redirect.

In less than 2 hours, my page was deleted and called a "hoax." While I understand that Wikipedia is basically a free-for-all, how can I post my article so that we can at least discuss the content without having a delete-war? While I understand that the topic is controversial, having my page deleted so quickly does not help improve the content or the overall goals of wikipedia.

What suggestions do you have if I want to publish an article on integrative medicine?

Thank you! Jennifer Jenyee28 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jennifer,

You can place the article that you wrote on your user page (sandbox), and then request comments. It will not be deleted there so quickly, if at all. Also, when you're trying to contribute a new article, it's always a good idea to place "under construction" template there: {{under construction |placedby= |notready= |comment= |category= |altimage= }}

Hope this helps. --Dyuku (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed with Chemotherapy Article

Hello. I edited the Chemotherapy article in an attempt to improve NPOV in terms of showing that there is criticism of the therapy and that alternatives exist. Any help with approach would be greatly appreciated. DJ Barney (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative medicine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Alternative medicine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Infrared mammography

I read some controversy about the way Infrared mammography has been promoted in an NZ paper recently (and from a search I'm seeing similar things in the Australia). Taking a look at the article I think it needs attention. For what I understand is technique who's efficacy is still in much doubt the article seems rather positive to me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Eco-somatics AfD notification

The article Eco-somatics has been nominated for deletion. Its AfD entry can be found here. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agada

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Hi. I noticed massive blanking in this article, which is listed of interest to your project. A little further investigation shows that it is being heavily edited by several IPs who were cautioned for edit-warring on the article in 2009. Frankly, on page size alone it seems that it could use some pruning, but I have no knowledge of and little interest in naturopathy, and the content at least appeared to be well-sourced. I have restored it, but it is in the process of being removed without comment again. (Since the IP seems to rapidly cycle, it's possible that the contributor had not received my notice.) I thought that it might be worth bringing the article to the attention of the projects under which it is tagged in case some repairs may be needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

Resolved

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here[4]. PPdd (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Request for re-evaluation of Anthroposophical medicine

Request for re-evaluation of Anthroposophical medicineI did a total rewrite of Anthroposophical medicine. Both POV's seem happly now.[5] Can the article be re-evaluated? PPdd (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A model of cooperation in which both POV sides of a formerly edit warring article involving homeopathy is here[6]. So never give up! PPdd (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A model of cooperation in which both highly POV sides of a homeopathy related article are happy

In the highly edit war-prone homeopathy related articles, there is a model of cooperation in which balance was achieved not by making both sides unhappy, but both sides happy (apparently by unanimous consensus) here[7]. PPdd (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Integrative medicine to Alternative medicine

There is a new article at Integrative medicine that is largely redundant with Alternative medicine. I have started a merge discussion at Talk:Alternative medicine#Merge from Integrative medicine. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alt Med journals revisited - Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here[8]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain

This article could use some attention of some experts. --Crusio (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on sungazing

I found it really disconcerting to read the brief piece on sungazing, as I was hoping for a descriptive article, rather than one of someone who only seems to enjoy warning us against it. I find it sad that such an open medium is used by those in favor of, or against something. Wikipedia in my understanding is a tool for information, not some kind of sectarian place in which to express opinions. I am wary of any kind of "ism" that tries to tell me that something is good or bad for me, and, this "article" on sungazing to me looks like a script of someone who believes that only what can be scientifically measured is true. How sad ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.216.138 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Alliance for Natural Health article

The "Stub" classification of this article ("Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition") seems not to be an accurate assessment. Can somebody here look at this, please, and reassess? Thanks! Vitaminman (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Melaleuca alternifolia

This article contains some medical claims and criticism directed against the NEJM. Perhaps some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at it, as it seems rather unbalanced and POV. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Another editor seems to have taken care of this now, but more eyes would probably not go amiss. This is the source plant for tea tree oil. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Is the term megavitamin therapy used interchangeably with orthomolecular medicine? News Edit war at six - additional input, preferably with more sources than philosophical musings, would be appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ross Hauser

I was wondering if an article I'm trying to work with qualifies for WikiProject Alternative Medicine. It's about Ross Hauser. The article is being debated for deletion. I'm arguing that it is dificult to get reliable sources about AltMed because traditional media doesn't cover it very well. Does this qualify? It helps get information out about Prolotherapy.Savethelastbook (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Krebiozen - questionable authorship & references

It is a matter of increasing concern that a number of Wikipedia articles on Alternative Cancer Treatments, whether they are discrete agents or more sophisticated protocols, have been written or re-edited by individuals who have an agenda, rather than by genuine experts.

An example is the Wiki article on Hydrazine Sulphate. The original was written by Dr. Joseph Gold, advocate and principal user of this mainly anticachexic agent. That version exhibited some shortcomings and probable bias. Subsequently, it was almost entirely re-edited by another entity, to the strident objections of Dr. Gold, himself. There were legitimate grounds for his objections too, yet for awhile, a Wiki mediator allowed the article's second version to stand as rewritten. Here's the prime observation I made, upon examining this version #2 and comparing with Version #1: the literary style was IDENTICAL to that of a Dr. Stephen Barrett MD, whom I suspected at the time to be the probable principal of the website known as Quackwatch; and whom I knew to be a rabid anti-alternative medicine aficionado. I was able to verify about a year later that Barrett most certainly IS the principal of Quackwatch. This is a site that propagates information which mixes the factually accurate and factually inaccurate, together with assertions consistent with the public position of a cadre of completely orthodox (ie: mainstream conventional) organisations, which includes the FDA, NCI, ACS and AMA.

So when any article cites reports on clinical trials, biomedical articles or anything else of a medical nature that are produced or sponsored by these organisations, one should automatically raise an eyebrow and begin to suspect that something isn't entirely kosher. All four of these organisations have amassed veritable mountains of accusations against them for cooking trials, discrediting scientic proofs pertaining to alternative medicine treatments, propagating false information on cancer treatments, theft of intellectual property and other breaches of public trust. Furthermore, the same mistrust should also be observed in the case of the two principal medical facilities used by NCI to conduct trials. These are Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital and Mayo Clinic. The actions of senior medicos and/or executives in both of these medical organisations have been criticised as criminal in more instances than I care to fully recount - just a few are trials on Laetrile/Amygdalin, Vitamin C Megadosing (Pauling et al) and Burzynski Antineoplastons.

A third version of the Hydrazine Sulphate article now exists in place of #2. Is it better and more trustworthy?

No. It certainly gives the appearance of being more accurate and free of bias, but it's merely written more cleverly. It still cites some of the same institutions I hereby state unequivocally to be untrustworthy and in addition, it references Barrett's own Quackwatch.

So that brings me to the Krebiozen article.

Barrett's literary style once again; plus references to ACS, AMA, FDA and Quackwatch. I state that this article is a partial fraud and I (obviously!) suspect that Barrett is behind it.

Of course, Wiki cannot reflect such biased views as mine, but if Wiki claims strivance for accuracy without bias, then neither should it tolerate contributions which assert, "Medical consensus since the 1960s is that it has no therapeutic value." This is a purely subjective statement aimed directly at the psychology of "sheeople". That's political science - not medical science.

It should not tolerate statements that mix fact and fiction, like "A group marketing Krebiozen claimed objective improvement, with a decrease in tumor size of 61% of brain and spinal cord tumors, a 70% decrease of metastases to the brain, and a 48% decrease of breast cancers. The report, however, was disproven by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Cancer Institute" (with a reference citation to Quackwatch). What group claimed objective improvement? The author chose not to identify this "group". Why? (Rhetorical question...)

Further, "...was disproven by the FDA and NCI..." is false at worst and deliberately designed to convince "sheeople" that the treatment is worthless; or a deliberate omission of "... was CLAIMED to have been disproven by the FDA and NCI..." at best.

The article's final paragraph includes the partly inaccurate or challengeable statement, "On October 28, 1964, the Durovics, Ivy and the Krebiozen Research Foundation were indicted for introducing mislabeled drugs into interstate commerce in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. After a 9-month trial, the case ended with a hung jury and they were acquitted.[3][6]" Citation [3] is Quackwatch's "The Krebiozen Story", which I have yet to examine. Citation [6] refers to TIME Magazine's article, "The Krebiozen Verdict". This article states that the Jury unanimously acquitted the defendants. It quotes presiding Judge Julius J. Hoffman, "This case bristles with issues of veracity" and Foreman Juror, Adolph J Baranek, "There had been no fair test of Krebiozen. We were convinced that it had some merit, and we were not in a position to kill it without a fair trial."

Neither should Wiki accept references in support of statements that throw back to ANY of these organisations (FDA, NCI, AMA, ACS, MSK, Mayo, Quackwatch, even NIH) without stringent examination of the "proofs" provided by such information sources for accountability, veracity, accuracy, reliability & non-bias. Every single one of these institutions has a consistent agenda, which is anything but trustworthy. The NCI can (and when it suits its purpose, it DOES) design clinical trials such that if it wanted to prove pure water is toxic or that a ham sandwich can cause cancer, it COULD. Review personal statements by the likes of Stanislaw Burzynski, Linus Pauling and Kanematsu Sugiura and you will begin to get the picture of what no-good these "august" organisations get up to - all with the blessing of the FDA.

As for the FDA - it's the worst of them all. I could easily throw up megabytes of stuff on the fithy, underhanded, criminal machinations of this pharmaceutical cartel's puppet institution, which has in some way prosecuted or attempted to prosecute and put out of business every single one of the alternative cancer therapy providers that has demonstrated curative results superior to those of the orthodox persuasion. I state this to emphasise that FDA official literature is the least trustworthy of all and suspicion of such citations is the most strongly warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Where Barrett, as a self-appointed "expert" on Alternative Medicine is concerned - I might emphatically point out that this expert hosted on his Quackwatch site an article refuting the toxicity of Mercury-Silver dental amalgams. Only an idiot believes that this dental alloy is not leached into the system (both metals are readily oxidised or otherwise chemically dissociated from the alloy), where the Mercury can easily exceed safe levels in just a few short years; claims by dental practitioners to the contrary regardless. The article wasn't there for very long - he removed it. Whether that was due to unfavourable public reaction or some other reason remains unclear.

I realise that it's impossible to expect Wiki to police input from the likes of Barrett on the strength of identity alone - indeed, the articles are posted anonymously - but the material content is another matter.

K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Mad Prof

Wikipedia's policies require articles to present the mainstream, dominant medical view as being the mainstream, dominant medical view. We do not pretend that every perspective on this (or any) subject are equally valid. We do not reject or downplay high-quality, mainstream sources like the National Cancer Institute or peer-reviewed medical journals merely because they are "mainstream", and this is an "alternative" treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

K.J., your post contains a lot of accusations against Stephen Barrett, and it may be worthwhile to take a look at our policy on making assertions about living people. Wikipedia isn't the right venue to attack Barrett, or any living person, on the basis of your personal opinions. As to your complaints about the content, it's important to understand that Wikipedia seeks to create a serious, respectable reference work. To do that, we rely on sources which provide scholarly, reputable information. Major medical and scientific bodies, such as those you disparage, generally fall under this heading. More to the point, our coverage should accurately reflect serious, informed opinion and knowledge in a given field. If you don't accept the NCI, the American Cancer Society, or the medical community as appropriate sources for encyclopedic medical information, then I think you need to consider whether this particular project is a good fit for what you hope to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, WhatamIdoing,

This is a reply to your response re: Krebiozen article - questionable authorship & sources.

I do not take issue with dominant mainstream medicine being presented as the dominant mainstream in medicine. That is what it is.

I DO take issue with factually questionable data and sources of demonstrably questionable quality. When I said that there is a veritable mountain of criticism against the aforesaid four institutions, plus others mentioned, I used the word, "veritable". That does not mean "virtual" or "practically/almost" as it is often contextually used. It uses the Latin root "Veritas" - "Truth". It is verifiable - another word that uses the same root. Neither is it mere opinion, or heresay that I refer to - but court cases, science journal reports and heaven knows what else - all factually verifying the stink that suffuses the atmosphere surrounding the the dominat medical mainstream.

It doesn't matter what is dominant. You are NOT here to mediate encyclopaedic facts on the basis of the weight of political numbers as you seem to suggest. If you believe you are, then you are in the wrong job. Encyclopaedic fact is also what it is and you ARE here to mediate that - or rather, to ensure the protection and application of that principle as far as reasonably possible. Fact is incontestable. That may be stated in a manner that clearly indicates it is incontestable. If it's contestable, it's not fact; and unfortunately, there are a few too many informational articles on alternative medicine agents and therapies at Wiki that present highly contestable "facts". Mainstream spin on medicine and particularly its spin on alternative medicine is in fact contestable and therefore should be presented precisely so.

Regrettably, you exemplified NCI as a high-quality source. Factually incorrect. It is nothing of the kind. Please do not presume in future to describe it as such to someone such as I, who is exceedingly well exposed to the activities of that institution and the fundamentally faulty medical paradigm it adheres to. Neither are any of the other aforesaid institutions to be considered high-quality informational sources, although neither I, nor anyone, should expect Wiki to take that for granted and blindly refuse to accept citations to them. But I did state that it should endeavour to examine them closely for... need I quote?... veracity etc..

And with exceedingly good reason.

I do not seek to challenge presenting mainstream medical views. I DO seek to remind Wiki that they must not be presented as fact, at the expense of the real thing. The Krebiozen article is factually faulty and that directly results from the bias and the agenda of the author - nothing more, nothing less. This is one of the fundamentals - the recognition of ulterior motive - that you must be alert to.

To put it all another way, if your explanation of Wiki policy is strictly correct (which I prefer to doubt on principle), then Wiki's policy is fundamentally faulty and indeed, not so very encyclopaedic as it SHOULD strive to be.

Please consider that and please also consider that your comment in reply to my former post unfortunately overlooked a couple of those key issues - ironclad factuality in particular. Further, please consider that I am aware this is not an easy role you have, if I correctly presume you ARE a Wiki Mediator. Yet, I might respectfully point out that a difficult role is not for the faint-hearted. The heart should be in the right place and equal to the task, or do its beating somewhere else. And Wiki cannot hope to keep a reputation it doesn't CONTINUE to earn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk • contribs) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have accurately described Wikipedia's policies to you. Whether they are faulty is a matter of opinion, but I can assure you that my description is accurate. As MastCell said, you may not find Wikipedia to be a congenial environment because of this fact. There are other wikis that are more supportive of your perspective; to give one example, I've heard that www.wikisynergy.com is more friendly to people who are skeptical of mainstream medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing,

Thanks for identifying Wikisynergy. I'll check that out. Geetings also to Mastcell, to whom I'll respend in the next.

That said, I still fail to comprehend that policy, since WIkipedia DOES purport to be the encyclopaedic division of the Wiki Project. So either it's truly encyclopaedic, or it's not. The system REQUIRES citations and that requirement must stand for a reason. The only valid reason is VERACITY.

Please allow me to construct a hypothetical scenario. Realistically, it is not one that will become reality within my lifetime, but ultimately it will, because it must do so. That will be according to the political axiom that empires rise and fall. It's merely a matter of time.

In this scenario, the future outcome is one wherein the currently dominant stream of (allopathic?) medicine hereby termed "Orthodox" throughout to avoid confusion between persuasions, is ultimately supplanted by the "Alternative" stream. Wikipedia, consistent with your description of policy, will have been allowing the tone of its articles on medicine to reflect the Orthodox view, in essence because it's been the dominant stream until this hypothetical point in the timeline.

Think of it! Not all of a sudden, but gradually - Alternative medicine has become the new, dominant mainstream. Where does THAT place your "mainstream" articles? Little by little, they lose their perceived credibility against the political weight of the new emerging medical age, until they're next-to-worthless.

What do you do?

Keep the articles intact? Do that and Wiki becomes a dinosaur. Unacceptable.

Change with the times? Do that and Wikipedia becomes a hypocrite, a bit like the American film industry's cowboys/cavalry and indians outlook. Unacceptable.

Maintain an alternative or underground division, such as Wikisynergy? Do that and you can compare Wiki with American bankers in the late 1930s to early 1940s, when they financed both Axis AND Allied war efforts. Unacceptable.

Or go with the last choice by sticking to facts and keeping articles completely unbiased by openly treating opinion of ALL perspectives as precisely that? Do that and Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia. Unassailable.

And let me quote: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." That's Wiki's own text and it's precisely what I'M saying to you. That is not compatible with the policy you have described to me. It CANNOT be. It is not acceptable to provide citations as proof if the documents or sources thus cited are themselves of unsatisfactory quality; and if you closely examine multitudes of citations used in Wiki articles about alternative medical agents or therapies, you WILL discover a frighteningly large percentage of them fail to meet the standard and actually fail to verify ANYTHING except the author's perspective (for example, Barrett citing material in his own Wiki articles from his own website, which are also of his own authorship). Peel the onion and you WILL find that it has layers. K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When things change in the real world, Wikipedia will change to reflect them. In the meantime, we have a policy against looking into our WP:CRYSTAL balls and pretending that we know exactly what, how, and when such changes will occur.

We don't actually have any reason to think that Barrett is editing Wikipedia. There are many people who share his opinions and many more thousands who have read and believed his website. His writing style is not difficult to mimic. But even if he were, there is actually a rule at WP:CITESELF that permits people to cite their own publications (within reasonable limits), so this would not necessarily be a policy violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Krebiozen - questionable authorship & references

Greetings Mastcell,

One cannot dispute that information sources such as NCI, ACS, FDA and so on are "information sources"; nor that they are well regarded in some sectors of the industry. Yet I say again that very significant volumes of that material are factually invalid. It is just as easy to cite peer reviewed science journal material (and there are Petabytes of it) that would discredit assertions made by these organisations as it is to support them. Therefore, it merely comes down to WHICH peer reviewed journal reports you choose. At the end of the day, it is the fundamental biology that harbours the true answers - not the opinions of a bunch of peers, for they, too, are susceptible to personal bias and personal agendas.

Whilst I could get into conspiracy theory in support of claims I make against veracity of citation material from the aforementioned sources, that would be grinding a political axe and is plainly inappropriuate in this forum. Owing to the volume of information I have, or can access in support of my assertions to the aforesaid effect (namely the "disparagement" of those organisations) I also consider that to be inappropriate in a forum where my posts are already considerably longer than those of most other members. And grinding that axe is not my purpose here. My purpose is to challenge the factuality of such articles as may be authored by pro-orthodox contributors who happen to be careless and selective with their facts and as such, are misinforming Wikipedia's public. Dr. Barrett is merely my prime suspect - he may not be alone and probably isn't alone.

Basically on that score, I simply urge Wiki Mediators to look beneath the surface and to be more discriminating when it comes to regard for cited reference material. I draw your attention to what I said about Dr. Barrett referring to his own articles on his own website to illustrate just one case in point. Either Wiki strives to be as factual and authoritative as possible, or it pretends to be. You must appreciate that there is a clear distinction.

I also agree that personal disparagements against other living individuals on a Wiki site is likewise inappropriate. However (and I don't accept that I'm splitting hairs), the claims against Barrett are, if you re-examine them, NOT personal, apart from the fact that they identify him by name. Well, alright - I do note that I described him as "a rabid pro-orthodox aficionado". In hindsight, I'd prefer to retract the word, "rabid". Otherwise however, they express NO opinion of what he is perceived to be in terms of his character. They instead state facts about what he does - his actions. And they state a general inference, to the effect that on the basis of his literary style and the same consistent set of reference citations used in the articles discussed or alluded to - that he is suspected of being the author of those Wiki articles.

Dr. Barrett's actions as I have stated them are not opinion. I say again - they are not opinion. They are verifiable. I would also point out that Dr. Barrett himself has been known to disaparage the professionalism of a multitude of scientists and doctors including some still living, though that may not be strictly true at Wkipedia. However, among them are some of the most highly decorated and lauded on Earth by their peers. Let's start with three who earned five Nobel Prizes in Medicine between them; and another who was nominated seven times. Let's further add at least one more, whose brilliant work paralleled mainstream electromedicine in the form of MRI and other diagnostic devices of much later advent; and whose devices were commonly used in American hospitals until the early 1940s. Why they were thrown out during that time becomes a matter of opinion, so that can't be pursued here. But Dr. Barrett asserted in plain language and I quote from an article he certifiably wrote: "The bottom line is that radionics devices have no value for diagnosing or treating anything." In view of the extensive modern usage of "radionics machines" like HIFU, MRI and also in view of the experiments recorded on YouTube in which a Beam Ray type Rife Machine successfully did precisely what Dr. Rife claimed for his original devices, the ONLY conclusion to be drawn is that this statement in particular is patently false. If that were an isolated case, then it should be overlooked as an aberration. But it is not. It is stock standard fare, consistent entirely with Barrett's style of reportage. How that reflects on his own prefessionalism and personal character is something I absolutely do not need to state. People inevitably drawn character inferences of their own, regardless.

How you can favourably regard that kind of reportage and the citations selectively used to support the claims is frankly quite beyond me. The articles in question contain mixes of fact and fiction, selectively designed to promote a definite viewpoint in the medical field, where there definitely is a polarisation of people and their views.

I readily concede that Wikipedia may not be suited to a person of my particular orientation. In doing so, I can only indicate also that it implies Wikipedia simply isn't reliable and authoritative enough to continue using as a reference resource in my ongoing researches.

K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC) K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Krebiozen - self-authorship citation

Thanks WhatamIdoing for the further explanation.

I would hope this will be my last post on this particular sunject, as I have made the point clearly enough.

I do agree that nothing should prevent Barrett or any of his peers from editing at Wikipedia. Neither should self-citing be prohibited if it is within reasonable limits. Also, I would hardly expect Wiki Mediators to use their crystal c]balls to ascertain WHO authors Wiki articles.

The core issue is veracity - factuality.

It is for that reason that the adjustments Wiki would make to "editorial style" over time to reflect the dominant public view is somewhat disappointing. Encyclopaedic articles on medicine (which is a SCIENCE, contrary to the way it is treated by many who work within its bounds) are supposed to be scientifically factual - are they not?

Since when does weight of peer opinion equate with that?

Circa 1968 in my first year at secondary school, a lady science teacher conducted an experiment before her class, of which I was a bewildered member. She very carefully weighed a rubber balloon and metal sealing clip on a scientific balance. She then inflated the balloon with her own expired air, sealed it with the clip and very carefully weighed it again. There was a difference in the two readings, of course - the inflated kit was heavier. This experiment purportedly proved that air has mass. I was flabbergasted. The silly woman actually proved by default that Helium has negative mass, 'if you accept the validity of the experiment's design.'''Italic text

Do you see my point where it applies to peer reviewed clinical trials and related material? You would NOT believe how much of this kind of rubbish I have found in my searches - that is, unitl you go searching for it, yourself.

K.J.MacGiolla Comghail (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Spiritism

ALL YOU SAY HERE ABOUT SPIRITISM IS PLAIN WRONG. You are confusing Spiritism with mediumship and xamanism. Spiritism does not perform Medical acts. It's simple to check waht is Spiritism, in the site of the World Spiritist Council - spiritist dot org. Cheers. A. A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.102.186 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 05 October 2011 (UTC)

Balanced Reporting Required

I see a consistent trend in supporting mainstream opinions about medicine on this website. In particular, I complain about how the article about Dr. Max gerson talks about how the NCI and independent body could not evaluate the results the Dr. mentioned in his book about cancer cures for 50 patients as described in the quote below:

"Gerson's records lacked the basic information necessary to systematically evaluate his claims. The NCI concluded that Gerson's data showed no benefit from his treatment.[1] The therapy is considered scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous."

The uninitiated in the field of the controversry as to what constitutes medicine vs. what the mainstream AMA/FDA based postion as to what constitutes medicine is, will simply take this at face value and look no deeper into the situation. The problem is the AMA and the NCI etc have vast wealth and power to suppress what is detrimental to their goals. This isn't conspiracy theory it's simply a fact of life. Just examine court cases having to do with business related suits. There are attack arguments on both sides. In order to makes ones own decision as to what is true a balanced report should be made.

In the article about Dr. Gerson, it would have been nice to see some counter information as to what exactly the NCI found that did not allow them to "systematically evaluate" his claims. Further, what did the Dr. or his followers have to say about it. Simply making the statement that the Dr's records lacked basic informaiton is not enough because it gives the opinion that that is the final word on the subject! Dr. Gerson was a well respected doctor who devoted his life to this research and deserves better. Louis138.163.0.44 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We are naturally limited to whatever the published reliable sources choose to say. If no newspaper, magazine, or other publication chose to publish exactly what the faults were in Gerson's recordkeeping, then there's nothing we can do about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexander technique

The article about the Alexander technique needs work.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.

There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the care taken (or not taken) to approach the handling of alternative medicine in the article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

adding Zero Balancing

Hello. I am new to Wiki and have created an article on a touch therapy system called Zero Balancing. I would like to add it to the "Types of Massage" template. Do I need permission to do this? Or can I add it myself? Thank you! (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

You can add it yourself to Template:Massage types. Just copy the formatting that the others use, and be sure to press the "Show preview" button before saving the page, to make sure that it looks right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

UK professors of complementary medicine

Perhaps someone from this project could have a look at this list. I'm not sure the subject is notable enough for a stand-alone list and also the inclusion of some people is perhaps not warranted. George Lewith, for example, although he has published extensively on the subject, is professor of "health research", not "complementary medicine". Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an original synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Prod was contested, I'm putting it up for AfD [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Antiflatulent and Carminative

There has been a merge request of these two pages without comment for a couple of weeks, but I'm not sure I have the knowledge to merge them correctly. Actually, as I look into it, I begin to wonder if this is even a good idea; carminative being part of this project makes me think perhaps a carminative is a natural alternative to a (pharmaceutical) antiflatulent. Or perhaps this is just a matter of marketing. Can anyone enlighten me? --BDD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The OED is worth a moment's reading: [10] bobrayner (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So carminatives aren't accepted by modern medicine? This connection to humourism isn't indicated at carminative, at least. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the request due to lack of interest and knowledge. Others are free to take up the cause. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Feedback for a new article on BodyTalk

The article is currently in my namespace. I am concerned about potential deletion, but I do believe the topic has become sufficiently notable, for better or worse, as demonstrated by the references in my draft of the article (most of which are more recent than the last deletion in 2007). Any contributions or suggestions would be appreciated. -Hugetim ^(talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Feedback for a new article on Herpes Nosodes

The article [11] is getting badgered and deleted by those who do not believe in homeopathy, even though there is evidence to support nosodes and links to relevant studies provided. Please support the article as the studies for herpes nosodes bear significant promise for those suffering from herpes. Wikipedia is meant to be an objective source, however I am finding a serious amount of opposition to any article posted for natural treatments on the site. Support from Alternative Medicine contributors will be greatly appreciated on [12]. NatureisScience2 —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine Instead of Alternative or Complimentary?

I'm relatively new to health research (my background is both academic and business, but I've developed a personal interest in health research due to my own health issues). Nonetheless, I am finding very little support for the terms "alternative medicine" and "complementary medicine" though they have traditionally been the terms used to describe the gamut of healthy practices and healing arts that fall outside of the scope of the medical doctor. More and more I'm finding people using the term "Integrative Medicine", and it appears to be much more accepted than either alternative or complimentary because it doesn't appear to set up a dichotomy with western medicine, but rather seeks to integrate western medical practices with both newer (and sometimes much older) healing arts and practices. What would you all think about either adding another WIKIproject for Integrative medicine, or adding Integrative to this topic (as in "Integrative and/or Alternative Medicine")? CJ (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just another bullshit euphemism. It should be added to the alternative medicine article if you can give us sources. If it is found to be substantially different from alternative medicine, it should get it's own article. But let's start small. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

CJ Answers

Do you mind if I ask what you mean by bullshit euphemism? Do you have a problem with any health practices like exercise, nutrition, physical therapy, massage therapy, yoga, tai chi, aerobics, acupunction, chiropraticy etc. - just because they fall outside of the strict definition of western medicine? I am talking about practices that have sound scientific evidence that they improve health and wellness - not faith healings or magnets. Another term that might be applied is Mind-Body Medicine. I can provide thousands of sources from medical journals, NIH studies, and pubmed. But again - I wouldn't consider any of these ALTERNATIVE or COMPLIMENTARY practices. I consider them integrative practices. Or even just Wellness.

I'm happy to start a new project using one of these terms - but only if there is no great objection from those who have been working on the Alternative Medicine project. While I'm willing to start small, I'm afraid the topic is large, and getting larger considering the amount of research that is being conducted on it now. CJ (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sub-project: botanical pharmacognosy?

What about a sub-project that deals with pharmacognosy and ethnopharmacology. Would that fit better under project medicine instead, since pharmacognosy is about modern scientific studies too? This is to make it easier to document traditional medicines (Ayurveda, Amazonian, etc) that are passed down verbally and not written down. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

botanical pharmacognosy - 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternapedia

Alternapedia describes itself as "the online encyclopedia where researchers, educators and practitioners in naturopathic and other forms of integrative medicine edit and create the encyclopedia entries." I am not suggesting this as a source for Wikipedia articles, but its information might give editors ideas for improving Wikipedia's coverage of some topics.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It talks about bias in Wikipedia articles, which in some cases happens. Why not remove the bias here, as well? If there is a publication on pubmed giving evidence, that should be enough to keep it here, whether or not it is low impact. Aside from that, Alternapedia would have to have a different protocol on references to have much more information. I wonder where there are good sources to find out about alternative medicines that are in use but not widely published. They didn't come from thin air, and they are taught and mentioned in books. Many must be theories that haven't been put through the complete scientific process. Discounting something without practical evidence in many cases is also unscientific. Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One avenue of research is Open Directory - Health: Alternative.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

Requested page move from Alternative medicine to Complementary and alternative medicine initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver article

As per goals of WikiProject Alt Med's goals:

To help stabilize controversial CAM articles.

To support the use of the highest-quality sources, not merely the sources that support the "right" conclusions.

May I suggest to take a look at the article? I think it has to be completely rewritten. Popular press sources, speculative opinionated commercial Quackwatch, FDA letters 10+ years ago to specific websites has got to go IMHO. Ryanspir (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look and found nothing glaring. Maybe try WP:BOLD? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are 20+ PUBMED indexed sources and scientific + news releases of Univ of Leeds of UK. Nothing from it got included either. Ryanspir (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate Review Requested

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Usage of acupuncture in the military for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage of acupuncture in the military is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors

Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Wikiproject Traditional Medicine

The goal of wikiproject traditional medicine is solely anthropological, differentiating it from alternative medicine. Something cannot be the alternative when it is the traditional. Further more many of the topics covered by this project would be of no interest to an anthropologist as they are entirely modern. Coverage on Aztec, Mayan and even Korean medicine is far less than encyclopedic. Such pages should meet a standard of review and feature information on an assortment of organisms found within a cultures traditional territory. Only two actual species of plants are mentioned in the article for Korean medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The others on his list are:

• Astrology (basically dead)
• Parapsychology (only 1 member)
• Paranormal (not very active)
• Alternative views (not very active)
• Skepticism (not very active)
• Homeopathy (dead)
• Creationism (not very active)
• Cryptozoology (not very active)
• Pseudoscience (dead)
• Mind-Body (never got off the ground, 1 member)
• Occult (redundant with respect to wikiproject paranormal, not very active)
• NLP (dead)

It is not obvious to me that alt med belongs in a group with pseudo-religious stuff, but perhaps other people will feel differently. The Homeopathy and Mind–Body groups might be good candidates to merge here, though.

What's needed is for people who are interested in this subject to add their personal opinions at the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoreligious? Cryptozoology? Astrology? Skepticism? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Astrology: believing that the location of the stars affects your life. Paranormal: believing in ghosts and ESP and the life. Occult: believing in magic.

I am not saying that all of these items are religious, but that some of them are, and that it doesn't make sense to merge AltMed (e.g., whether herbs like St. John's wort treat depression) with projects that are interested in fortune telling, ghosts and magic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Alt Med covers a lot of pseudoscientific medicine topics. Perhaps this project could re-purpose in some way to avoid that overlap, say Herbalism? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping scopes are not your enemy. Successful projects tend to have a 'natural' scope. Putting herbalism and homeopathy together is a natural scope, even if homeopathy is pseudoscience and herbalism is not (a grouping that is routinely made by reliable sources, even). Putting homeopathy and ghost hunting together is not natural, even if they're both pseudoscience (and a grouping never made by reliable sources). Unnatural scopes don't promote working together as a team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. Some items can be merged together, but others are completely different subjects. Homeopathy doesn't belong in this grouping. Creationism needs to be merged into a religious wikiproject, not with these others. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary WhatamIdoing, you will find that grouping in books that give lists of pseudoscience, or books in relation to skepticism etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges

Article for deletion discussion that may be of interest to Wikiproject Alternative Medicine for article Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fasting spittle

This poor article is need of a lot of attention if anyone is interested. I took the liberty of tagging it with this wikiproject. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AFD: Cymatic therapy

I stumbled across an AFD for Cymatic therapy, and with all the sub categories involved I couldn't figure out if the alternative medicine project was getting notified... so here you go. Krushia (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

AFD

The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for Alt-Med / CAM topics

Is anybody aware of some specific pages of notability guidance for Alt-med topics? In the few years I've been involved with WP I've seen a lot of new editors wishing to contribute articles about CAM topics. Often they find the WP:MEDRS guidelines difficult to apply, sometimes even questioning the applicability of "medical" guidelines to something they see as a non-medical intervention. I've also noticed a lot of difficulties in evaluating sources, in particular which sources might count as high-quality. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS will apply where medical claims are made either in terms of therapeutic benefit or mode of action or where any biomedical content is included. For medical sources, go to pubmed and search for review articles (meta-analyses, etc) published in the last five years or so on your chosen topic. Read WP:MEDRS as this guideline applies to all medical content on WP whether alternative or not. As regards notability, that should follow the general notability guideline and will require significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Many alt med topics will also fall under WP:FRINGE. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FiachraByrne, that's the advice I usually give to editors. I was just wondering if there's a way we can be more helpful. I've spent many hours explaining WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS to Alt-Med/CAM proponent editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You have my deepest and sincere sympathies. Maybe for notability, you could direct them to search [0=im_field_terms_archie_topics%3A948&f[1]=im_field_stage%3A3 here] and here. But there's no short-cut to proving notability and alt med isn't different in that respect from anything else - you need reliable secondary sources that give decent coverage and google news, books, scholar or a bricks and mortar library will really work as well medical databases to establish notability. If it's not covered in pubmed, however, there will be no basis for the inclusion of any medical related content (although sociological, historical, anthropological and religious aspects, etc, could be covered). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Traditional Chinese medicine}}

FYI, a cleanup request for Template:Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been filed at WT:CHINA -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What are the definitions of "alternative medicine" by "major world health organization[s]"?

At Talk:Alternative_medicine#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".

I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The section dealing with terminology in that article covers most of the major definitions (although perhaps complementary inadequately). The lead is a different beast but the major problem is that there's no accepted definition of CAM/Alt med. The definition in the lead is verging on original research but it's ok although it privileges a particular, if fairly mainstream, perspective. What kind of alternative would you offer? (For full disclosure, I wrote the terminology section some months ago (never quite finished it) although it may have been edited since then.) FiachraByrne (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Human body

Hi, there has been significant restructuring of the human body, human physiology and human anatomy articles over at WP:Anatomy, making the Human body article the main, offering opportunities for future expansion once significant information is available.

There is currently not anything on alternative views of the human body, such as those from TCM, if you are willing to add a section that doesn't make any medical claims (as per WP:MEDRS), only giving views of the human body that would be most helpful. CFCF (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of alt-med beliefs about the human body would bypass the need for WP:MEDRS? bobrayner (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-medical ones perhaps - if they were signalled as culturally specific beliefs? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think something is wrong with this paragraph ...

I believe this paragraph has an error:

Aflatoxin, a extremely potent carcinogen and major cause of mitochondria damage, and hence all bodily processes including skeletal muscles, has been shown to be inhibited by whey protein and ginseng extract.[27] However, the amount of aflatoxin within whey protein itself, was shown to be reflected by the amount in the unprocessed milk used to make it.[28]

I am not sure what they were trying to say, but it does not make sense. First, it says that Whey inhibits the carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin. Then, it insinuates that there is actually aflatoxin within whey itself. So, whey contains aflatoxin, and whey makes aflatoxin non-carcinogenic at the same time??? That is what this appears to say. It needs to be better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.5.5 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - prohibiting primary sources

"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" was added to wp:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Are there any opinions about this? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Buteyko breathing - my personal experience

I have suffered wth asthma most of my life and I am now 80 years old. I came across the Buteyko Method of breathing in 1998 when the BBC published their boolet QED abd also ran a TV series on it. I have found it the best reliever of Asthma and every Asthma sufferer should be aware of it. I have recently read of two deaths of young students "from Asthma". But I was taught when I was 20 that "Nobody dies of Asthma" only the so-called medical cures for asthma cause death. Every time I feel that an asthma attack is building up, I start my Buteyko breathing and it subsides. I went to an ASTMA CLINIC at my doctor's surgery, but no mention was made of the BUTEYKO Method. The medical profession should teach it in all their Asthma clinics and it would save the NHS Billions of pounds. The excuse given is that it is not scientifically proven to be a cure. But then neither is Ventilin or all the other Asthma Inhalers prescribed. All they do is give temporary relief. But the emphasis is on the word temporary. After a time the patient becomes totally dependent on the inhaler and is frightened to leave the house without it. the Buteyko method is free and you always have it with you. So what is it. Basically it is learning to completely exhale and then hold your breath for as long as possible. In my case 20 seconds is enough to bring relief from an Astma attack. The common belief about Asthma is that you cannot breathe in. But the real problem is that you have not trained to exhale properly. the reason you cannot breathe in is that your lungs are full of bad air. Once you have trained to exhale you are on the way to long term Astma relief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.102.78 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Alternative_medicine#Pseudoscience_category_being_added_again

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Alternative_medicine#Pseudoscience_category_being_added_again. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Joining the Alt Med taskforce

I was wondering how I could be involved and join the alt med taskforce. Tharyanp ! 21:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Tharyanp,

Welcome to Wikipedia. "Joining" really just means that you help out with the work. Improve articles on alt med topics, keep an eye on this page for anyone who needs help (or to tell us what you've done that you enjoyed), and do your best to improve information on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am new here and need help with to correct a possible vandalism

Hello all I decided to finally create an account since I see a lot of vandalism happening to the subjects I have a interest in. I was researching Holistic Medicine and was redirected to Holistic health.. the page seems to have been changed to the point that there is no real information for Holistic health and the only sources that are cited besides one leads to Quackwatch. Why would a article on alternative health point to only resources to Quackwatch and organization that is opposed to any kinds of alternative health?

I do not really have the knowledge or know how to fix it at this time I have only really done basic editing on wiki in past like linking to other articles. I also do not think I have enough knowledge in this area to write a full based article on it which is what it needs. I do a lot of research though... on topics I care about and well I used Wikipedia a lot as a jumping of point to topics like Herbalism,Alchemy,Paganism,Spirituality.. just to name a few. That is why I am here It makes me said that a great resource for knowledge that I care about is being intentionally vandalized and deleted. Just because it goes against what other people believe, Knowledge should be free no matter how Alternative it is. I hope some one can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkMystik1 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Sometimes you can find useful information in old versions, by looking in the page history. But remember, Wikipedia is supposed to represent the mainstream views as being the dominant mainstream views, and minority viewpoints as being the less popular/generally rejected/unscientific/minority views (whichever applies).

Generally speaking, the first step in improving an article is to find a good book on the subject. The best sources are usually independent "overviews" written by people who aren't trying to make money or get famous and published by a reputable publisher (not self-published by the author via a vanity press). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Attention needed at Postural_Integration; possible fringe article

This article's sources are all primary, with 11 of the 12 being from the founder's writings. This is a very fringe form of bodywork and I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the secondary source books I'm consulting for another bodywork page, Rolfing. It is in the list of types of massage at the bottom of the Rolfing page, but I think it should be removed from that list due to be quite obscure. Google didn't produce much useful information, either, nor did it produce local practitioners. I'm hesitant to rip into this page myself, being a newbie and not being sure how to handle an utter lack of sources. Thought you might be interested. Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null Article

The Gary Null article is getting hammered. It started out as a biased article, I started adding to it to make it objective, more balanced, and give more information. Apparently I have a conflict of interest because my dad did his radio show in the 70s and 80's. Any editors wanna pick this up and develop the article? Its getting hammered by several editors who rather than look at facts just keep reverting the article. I am not interested in counterattacking or sanctioning these people, but they seem very interested in counterattacking and sanctioning me.

If you want to help, add useful, accurate information to his article. hello 02:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Would like feedback on Dahn Yoga Article

I have been working on the Dahn Yoga article on occassion for a while now. I don't know much about the group, but it appears that members have been editing and whitewashing the article on and off since it was created, which piqued my interest. An unregistered user recently added a sentence stating that all the lawsuits against them had been dropped or dismissed; the "source" is a press release by Dahn Yoga itself in PRNewswire. I was unable to find an objective source regarding the status of these suits. Is it appropriate to undo the edit by the unregistered user? Also, I will probably not be back on Wikipedia regularly, is there some way to watch the page in case those affiliated with the group return to edit it again? -Lciaccio (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Concern about Naturopathy article

I want to express my concern about the article Naturopathy.

My impression from the article is that the chief concern is to warn readers against naturopathy. I do not dispute that there are concerns about naturopathy that need to be raised. However, I think the article is dishonest in that it does not recognize that some modern naturopaths are working very hard to apply scientific, evidence-based methods to treatment of medical problems. In other words, the article tars all naturopathy with the same brush.

For one example, the very first sentence of the article ties naturopathy to belief in Vitalism. It may be true that some current naturopaths believe in vitalism and it may also be true that the historical roots of naturopathy trace back there. But to suggest that all modern naturopathy is based on vitalism is a gross distortion and a slanderous statement in my opinion.

I have raised my concern in a comment in the article discussion page but I suspect that the editors who watch the page may be more concerned with warning people against naturopathy than with issues of fairness. (If so, that is their right.) It is this suspicion that leads me to raise the matter here in the hope that other editors will take a look.

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm feeling a little overly discouraged about this sort of dispute today, but it's really difficult. Our community does have some editors that are dedicated to make sure that anything that can be tarred as "quackery" gets painted as black and evil as possible. We also have some editors who believe that because a minority believe in Science, or at least say that they do, that the whole field is instantly cleansed by them.

I suspect that what you need is a couple of secondary sources published in mainstream (even anti-naturopath) academic medical journals, written by mainstream MDs with not even the faintest hint of a connection to or sympathy for naturopathy, saying that most modern naturopaths don't believe in whatever nonsense its original founders believed in, just like most modern MDs don't believe in the nonsense that their original founders believed in (which wasn't the scientific method, as you probably already know). That's a tall order, but if you can find sources like that, then that will help you in discussions with those editors who aren't True Disbelievers™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the NCCAM classification system be used at Wikipedia?

A discussion of the propriety of using NCCAM classification as a basis of Wikipedia article organization is here.[13] FloraWilde (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Zangfu

Template:Zangfu has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Alternative medicine articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. The category currently contains International Society of Acupuncture, and I don't know whether this category will become populated with other articles after a while. Iceblock (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine

There is a (so far limited and dated) discussion about merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine at Talk:Folk medicine#Merge. I would like additional input from this Wikiproject, please. – Maky ^« talk » 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC notification

Hello everyone, there is an RFC that people from this project may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. Thank you for your feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Recently Deleted AltMed/Alchemy Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcanum corallinum.

I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place to mention such things; if I am incorrect in my placement please feel free to remove. As you can see from the page discussion it is unclear that a consensus was reached; I clearly do not believe that one was. Instead of leaving the page and beginning a discussion on redirect/improvement/alteration, it looks as if a simple vote count was done. There is now a dead link from Maslama al-Majriti to Arcanum corallinum. I bring this to the project's attention because I feel as though a valid piece of knowledge was summarily lost. Thanks very much. WookieeV (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRV Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for all of CAM

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture closed by motion on 12 January 2015. The result is that all articles and all edits about complementary and alternative medicine, "broadly defined", are now covered by Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.

• If the article is about CAM, then discretionary sanctions apply.
• If the edit is about CAM, even if the article is about a different subject (for example, if you're writing that Joe Film uses an herbal supplement), then discretionary sanctions apply.
• If there's even a hint or a question about whether the article or subject is about CAM, then discretionary sanctions apply.

As a result of this definition, every single article supported by this group is likely subject to discretionary sanctions now.

If you're not familiar with this system, this is a "one strike and you're (maybe) out" system that applies to everyone, as a result of the bad behavior of other, previous editors. If an editor causes even a small problem at an article, and the editor has already been officially warned about the existence of the sanctions (this message doesn't count, because no one could prove that anyone else read it), then the editor can be blocked or otherwise punished by any uninvolved admin. Discretionary sanctions are supposed to be applied against editor behavior, not against editor's beliefs or viewpoints. For example, if an editor reverts the same material twice in a CAM article, then it is not supposed to matter whether the editor is pro-science or anti-science, or pro-altmed or anti-altmed.

In general, my advice is that editors proceed with caution and that they use formal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution whenever there is any concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article San healing practices (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC taking place now on COI for alt-med practitioners

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Atsme^☎️📧 13:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Probiotic treatment for bacterial vaginosis

I edit regularly for Project Medicine and have come across the interesting trend that conventional medicine is now endorsing probiotic treatment for bacterial vaginosis. This seems to conflict with most of the content and references that now exist on this topic and on all the probiotic topics in general. I guess what I want to discuss is the move of probiotic treatments into the area of conventional medical treatments. There will be some resistance from both sides, I suppose, but the medical journal review and systematic review articles are now in consensus about the benefits of probiotic treatments for gastrointestinal problems and for bacterial vaginosis. I would appreciate any insight or advice on how to proceed. At this point, I plan on identifying these articles/topics with both alternative medicine and project medicine talk templates. I would also like to apply the med ref search template to probiotic talk pages. This template leads to medical journal articles that are considered the best sources in project medicine, although I don't believe citations are as strict in alternative medicine. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is consensus, what is the problem? In any event, it is now known that the health of the human microbiome is vital. Probiotics of various types and concetrations are being used in the management of chronic sinusitis and fecal translplants (eating shit?!) is healing all kinds of chronic disorders including diabetes. Our bodliy bacteria are a new frontier for restoring health.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The veracity of the info is not the problem. What I'm talking about is how best to work with the different projects. Bfpage from my mobile phone and signed in   Bfpage |leave a message  18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda RFC

A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether [[Category:Pseudoscience]] should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC

A Request for Comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? is taking place here. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Therapeutic horseback riding listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Therapeutic horseback riding to be moved to Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This looks like WP:OR... is it?

([14]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hello WikiProject Alternative medicine, You are invited to join the Essential Oils WikiProject, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to the study and improvement of Essential Oil and related articles. To join the project, just add your name to the participants list. We're so glad you're here!                       – Ilikeguys21 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Help improving the Bowen technique page

I would like to improve the content on the Bowen technique page and would like to ask this project for help. I'm studying Bowen so I have an interest, so does that automatically exclude me from being able to edit it? When I compare it to pages of other complimentary therapies it doesn't have much content - main missing area being Theory. If I update this will it be automatically rejected? Can anyone who has successfully edited a complimentary therapy page help me? Many thanks.

Megan9999999 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The key is finding sources which are WP:FRINDependent, and (for biomedical claims) which conform to WP:MEDRS. I actually think our article is pretty good, given the out-of-the-way good sourcing on this niche topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response, my main concern is that there is a lot of History and not much on how Bowen is practiced today, or the current theories on Bowen. I was looking at other alternative therapies and they seem to have a lot more detail on the Practice or Theory sections, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watsu There is a lot of published theory and practice around Bowen, however none of the references for these theories would be independent, but other alternative therapies reference sources that aren't independent - and also anyone writing a book on Bowen (or any other modality) is unlikely to be independent, so I wasn't quite sure how to approach adding in more detail and references without seeming biased. Megan9999999 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Is anyone able to help or advise? I don't want to make any biomedical claims I just hoped to add in some or the current theories for Bowen. I also want to take out bits that aren't current e.g. I spotted that the sentence " He died as an unlicensed practitioner of manual therapy" doesn't come from the reference cited. Nor does " yet the technique as it is commonly practiced today cannot achieve that volume." Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan9999999 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am working on SuperHumans Project.

I am working on SuperHumans Project. From the traditional Indian medicines of Ayurveda and Rasashastra, I have found some formulations to make the homo sapiens to the SuperHumans. I have seen nice results in my clinical trials. If anybody want to join me on this project you can contact me for sure. Dr. Milind Chatrabhuji, Suvarna Ayurveda, Shop No. 10, Chandravilla Flats, Near Atmajyoti Ashram, Ellorapark, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Call me at plus Nine One Eight Triple Zero Four Five Nine Seven Three Two. or Email me at milind.chatrabhuji at gmail dot com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.163.255 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

coverage of reflexology

As a student of reflexology I was truly shocked at how biased against alternative medicine this description is. . I tried to add a comment to address this imbalance and add a link which provides evidence to support reflexology and was blocked as they said my comment was not 'neutral'. Well excuse me but their article is not neutral either . While mainstream pharmaceutical medicine may be very biased again natural medicine- we are taught that natural medicine can COMPLEMENT mainstream medicine and are trained to advise our clients to in turn tell their doctor if they are receiving reflexology. We are taught that we never offer reflexology as an alternative to GP prescriptions but only to complement their treatment. Thus if their symptoms improve perhaps the dosage of their medication can be reduced. Onre of my case studies led to my client being able to gradually reduce her anxiety and depression medication to the point where she felt well enough to come off them altogether. It is well known that pharmaceutical medicine can and does cause side effects which in turn can lead to a prescription for more pharmaceutical medicine to deal with the side effects..overloading our bodies with chemicals leads us away from our natural equlibrium. Anyway heres the link they did not accept: http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/reflexology/what-does-research-say-about-refloxology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.93.34 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Salvia hispanica listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Salvia hispanica to be moved to Chia (plant). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine to be moved to Yoga as exercise. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Alternative medicine participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: Category:Cannabis and health and Category:Medicinal use of cannabis. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dualism (philosophy of mind) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dualism (philosophy of mind) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Archive 2/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Alternative medicine, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WP:CHIROPRACTIC

Just started a new wikiproject. Since some people on this project might be interested in joining, I figured I'd post here. WP:CHIRO. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Quackery involving radioactive substances listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Quackery involving radioactive substances to be moved to Radioactive quackery. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

British School of Osteopathy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British School of Osteopathy to be moved to University College of Osteopathy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Dongui Bogam listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dongui Bogam to be moved to Dongui bogam. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Alternative medicine categories at CfD

Please see the discussions at Wikipedia: Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 28. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

British School of Osteopathy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British School of Osteopathy to be moved to University College of Osteopathy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

British School of Osteopathy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British School of Osteopathy to be moved to University College of Osteopathy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class

I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" this article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

420 Collaboration

The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pneumatology (Christianity) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pneumatology (Christianity) to be moved to Pneumatology. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

Section makes a lot of medical claims, and I think it's poorly supported and violates WP:MEDRS. I removed it, and then it has been added back. Discuss here:

• Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ad_and_MEDRS

Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk:Alternative_medicine_sidebar#Medical_conspiracy_theories_—_alternative_and_pseudo‑medicine

If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Chelation therapy

Does this article fit in the Template:Alternative medicine sidebar and vice versa? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a legitimate therapy which has an illegitimate use in altmed. So, not clean. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Was that a no? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Gaia, Inc.

See also WT:MED#Mayo_Clinic_Complementary_and_Integrative_Medicine_Program

The Gaia,_Inc. page has had a lot of additional activity over the last months (I think partly because of an increased advertising campaign). If any WP:ALTMED folks would be willing to add the page to their watchlists, an additional set of eyes on it is always useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alfredo Bowman listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Alfredo Bowman to be moved to Dr. Sebi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WHEN DID WE GO BACK TO 1960 & LET THE RIFE NAME AND CREDIBILITY TO CURE BECOME QUESTIONABLE AND CRIMINAL?

The RIFE MACHINE description is an OBVIOUS FEAR MONGERING article that belongs someplace pnline with the others...

   NOT ON WIKI! if it is not removed or altered then WIKI is the equivalent of an enquirer magazine or snopes style producer of information. 

SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA!

   RIFE FREQUENCIES SAVED MY FAMILY MORE THAN ONCE! I MEAN I WOULD BE DEAD BECAUSE NO DOCTORS KNEW WHAT WAS WRONG WITH US.

HAD I STUMBLED HERE BEFORE LEARNING ELSWHERE I WOULD NOT HAVE LEARNED MORE AND HELPED SO MANY MORE WITH MY KNOWLEDGE. REDSKYWALKER333 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC) NEEDS NO CITATION AS MY WORD ABOVE COMES WITH NO ILL MOTIVATION. I AM KNOWN FOR MY HONEST NATURE AND CREDIBILITY. THE POSTER OF THAT ARTICLE WILL FIND IN A BATTLE SUCH AS THESE

  OVER RIGHT AND WRONG

 LIKE IN THOSE DISNEY MOVIES THOSE QUALITIES LIKE THE RIFE MACHINE IM 1960 ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE POWERFUL THAN THOSE POWERS OPTAINED FROM MOTIVATIONS OF GREED.   

SO REFER TO THAT PLEASE

Little Representation on Eastern Alternative Medicine

Ws1351 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Johann Lahodny

Hello, everyone,

Any help to improve the quality, reliability and Wikipedian compatibility of the article on Johann Lahodny would be particularly welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, — euphonie ^breviary 03:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

An in-depth debate on this topic has been ongoing for several days now. To access its interactive content, simply click on → this hyperlink.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 07:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about in/excluding sources on Talk:Orgone

Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Quantum healing could use a little revision

Quantum healing could use a little revision.

(e.g. per WP:EPSTYLE)

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:A104:257E:E9B1:84A5 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey Tail Mushroom / Trametes versicolor

I am requesting additional editor's input on discussion and recent edits to Trametes_versicolor from an alternative medicine perspective. Please see edit history and talk page. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Spirit listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Spirit to be moved to Spirit (animating force). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ephedra listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ephedra to be moved to Ephedra (medicine). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed redirect of Peter A. Levine to Somatic experiencing.

 Discussion ongoing...
Talk:Somatic experiencing § Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing ––Formal ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)