Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Should the NCCAM classification system be used at Wikipedia?

The template should be changed to be a list of alternative medicine practices. Putting it at the top of each and every alt med article assumes the objective reality, and consensus among anthropologists, sociologists, and theologians, that the NCCAM classification system accurately classifies alt med practices. We can write from RS that NCCAM uses this classification system. We cannot adopt the NCCAM classification system as accurately classifying alt med. A related discussion of using NCCAM classification as structure for organizing sections of Wikipedia articles is here.[1] FloraWilde (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Radical change to template's purpose and contents

An editor has made a radical expansion and alteration of the template's purpose. It did not -- and in my opinion should not -- include either modalities of medicine that are clearly disproved, such as phrenology, or the traditional medicinal approaches of the world's cultures. Each of these is properly a topic unto itself.

In accordance with WP:BRD, I am reverting these changes and hope that an informed discussion will first take place. Clean Copy^talk 19:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Every modality of alternative medicine is already disproven — and traditional medicine was already present in the sidebar. I am all for removing traditional medicine, which may have a smidgen of evidence based practice in it, but homeopathy is essentially on the same scientific level as phrenology. The only difference is that it's still popular because it never caused the deaths of millions. Scientifically they are the same. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Be careful of WP:PROFRINGE

I am concerned by the removal of Quackery from the template heading in this edit. We need to be extremely mindful of WP:PROFRINGE in any reference to this kind of stuff. Many of the links, especially those under "Systems" are patently WP:FRINGE and that section should probably be more clearly labeled to reflect this. Maybe something like Fringe Medical Practices or Pseudo-Medicine Systems etc. The bottom line is that we need to be very careful with how we label things. There must be nothing whatever in the template that could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that this stuff is anything other than pseudo-medical quackery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned the title will be too clunky. Feel free to reintroduce Quackery to the title, I don't mind very much — it's just that "Alternative and pseudo-medicine and quackery" sounds a little weird, and "Alternative medicine, pseudomedicine, and quackery" is very long. Fringe medicine and alternative medicine are the same thing, it seems confusing to me to use both terms in the same template. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Alternative Medicine is a much more neutral term which does not clearly indicate that we are talking about patent quackery. It is the term preferred by supporters and practitioners of this stuff. I am experimenting with the template to see what might work w/o looking too awkward. I also think that acupuncture probably should be placed under traditional medicine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've relabeled the Systems section. I think that obviates the need for putting Quackery back into the template header. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was looking up the humors, and noticed that this sidebar omitted mention of acupuncture. I assume that it was edited out, as it clearly fits in the category 'fringe medicine' (although I personally use other terms when discussing it), while the Acupuncture page contains this sidebar. It is now back in the list, and will hopefully stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguosity (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit War

I am noticing an edit war over some of the wording in the template. This needs to stop and any changes that post date this version should be discussed here on the talk page. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this is the established version, before changes that led to an edit war. Clean Copy^talk 17:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The version I cited in my above comment was the last one that was discussed on the talk page and saw no opposition. The changes introduced since then, including the November 27 move have a PROFRINGE aura about them. They seem to be an effort to water down language that clearly labels this subject as fringe pseudoscience and medical quackery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Very much no, that is merely the oldest stable version. Linking that example is akin to taking an old diff of an vastly improved article and saying, this was stable, "lets return it to that". Bizarre. The fact is that there is very little literature which makes a distinction between alternative medicine and pseudomedicine, and there is considerable overlap. As such the template should wear the label of both. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you agree that a RFC makes sense at this point? Clean Copy^talk 13:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF et al. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that would mostly be a waste of time. You are trying to revert to what is a year-old version, backed by a IP-editor who has clear trolling tendencies on other articles. Instead of running this into a full-blown RFC could you explain why you think pseudomedicine doesn't belong? Before you explain that we aren't even having a discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of pseudomedicine, as the two are related and o=substantially overlapping topics. For example, homeopathy is not alternative medicine, it's not medicine at all, it's pseudomedicine. Ditto Miracle Mineral Solution, black salve, cansema, laetrile and a hundred others. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with Guy. The distinction between pseudomedicine and alternative medicine is often at best difficult. It is I think in the interests of the reader, who might be less familiar with the bases of the distinction, to include pseudomedicine, and, I think, would be a way to keep individuals who might prefer having some topic described as "alternative" medicine rather than "pseudomedicine" from engaging in edit wars over the terms, if, as I think, the term pseudomedicine is viewed less favorably by then the term alternative medicine is. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. Pseudomedicine is a subset of Alternative medicine. All of those things are considered alternative medicine. This is the proper version.-- BullRangifer (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some pseudomedicine is not medicine at all, and some includes elements of legitimate practice with a layer of bullshit over the top. It's very difficult to demarcate. The big benefit of pseudomedicine as a category is that it is less open to weaselling than pseudoscience. Obvious nonsense can be argued not to be pseudoscience because it fails the "not even wrong" test, it's so bizarre that it can't even be said to be pretending to be science, but it might very well meet the definition fo pseudomedicine. Aura therapy for example, or crystal healing.

I would be happy with a single category, "woo", but that won't work. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Title of template

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

---

The title that appears within the sidebar was for a long time, Alternative medicine. There has been a recent move to change this to Alternative and pseudo-medicine. The question is which of these phrases is more objective. Clean Copy^talk 19:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include pseudomedicine in the title. Pseudomedicine is a subset of Alternative medicine and unnecessary in the title. Most of the sources don't use that term anyway. They call those things alternative medicine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Support inclusion of Pseudomedicine in title as per comments above, particularly Guy's comments, as well as Ad Orientem's comments below. Davidbuddy9Talk 06:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Support inclusion of pseudomedicine and more broadly the current version of the template. "Alternative Medicine" is the preferred term of of those promoting or supporting that kind of thing and its use alone would run afoul of WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose using the term pseudomedicine, for three reasons:
  1. Pseudomedicine is an extremely pejorative term. It assumes that all therapeutic approaches that are not part of the conventional Western corpus are fake.
  2. The term pseudomedicine is not particular to alternative medicine, but actually encompasses both traditional and alternative approaches to medicine that don't work. The Alzheimer drug solanezumab has just turned out to be a pseudomedicine, but not an alternative medicine, and this is by no means an unusual case. (Analogy to education: there is traditional education and alternative education, while pseudoeducation would be an aberrant form of either of these.)
  3. The term is not used in the academic literature referencing alternative medicine; see Complementary and Alternative Healthcare: Is it Evidence-based? for an example of a typical discussion in a peer-reviewed journal. Clean Copy^talk 17:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include pseudomedicine, because that's what it (often) is. We have sources for pseudomedicine at our pseudomedicine article, so the assertion it's not used in RS seems odd. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  At least one of the 8-9 sources cited in that article does not actually use the term "pseudomedicine." The best tertiary source uses the term but defines it more generally, as I suggested above: "Pseudomedicine refers to treatments that claim to be working concepts of medicine that either have no objectively verifiable benefit or are incompatible with the current state of knowledge in the field of science-based medicine." (Palgrave Handbook of Child Mental Health). Another of these sources gives eugenics as its paradigmatic example of pseudo-medicine, again not really anything to do with the theme of this sidebar. Clean Copy^talk 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is that the sound of goalposts shifting? Now we've established that RS does use the term "pseudomedicine" (except for the one spurious source you've apparently found) we can see it applies it to topics such as chiropractic and naturopathy. Seems like a good reason for WP to follow suit ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, but I was unclear in my original posting and have revised it accordingly. What I meant is that the term is not normally used in RSs to describe alternative medicine. When used, it often or usually refers to something very different (ineffective medicines of any kind). A Google Scholar search brings up as its first hits topics such as concentration camp experiments, stem cell "pseudoscience", etc. Though there are usages that conform to the sense meant here, they are simply not the norm. Clean Copy^talk 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:TPG don't modify comments after they have been responded to as it makes it impossible for other to follow. Note to closer: this exchange now makes no sense: my contention that the term is usable because RS uses it stands. Alexbrn (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize for any confusion. I was not changing, but rather clarifying the substance of my original comment to preclude further misunderstanding, and thought this might be more helpful than otherwise. I have now tagged the inclusion as per the WP:TPG guideline, however; thank you very much for pointing this clause in the guideline out to me. Clean Copy^talk 03:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mixing alternative and pseudo in the title because it's awkward and seems to be trying to lead readers to a conclusion. It seems that most of the entries fall within the definition of pseudomedicine, so a better solution may be to rename the sidebar "Pseudomedicine" and spin off the last two subsections into its own sidebar called "Alternative medicine". Also, I don't understand why there are categories linked within the template. That seems anomalous.- MrX 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Quackery, pseudoscience, and pseudomedicine were added to the sidebar at the same time as the title was altered, and their appropriateness is equally open to question here. Clean Copy^talk 19:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Can you provide a diff to that change? I'm sure it would help the rest of us understand the context of this dispute.- MrX 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include pseudomedicine in the title. Violation of NPOV, as it's trying to lead readers to a conclusion. TimidGuy (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  The use of so called "neutral" terminology when referring to pseudo-scientific beliefs is flatly contrary to WP:FRINGE and particularly WP:PROFRINGE which forbids the use of Wikipedia to promote fringe theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate Ad Orientem? You seem to be saying that a navbox for alternative medicine must have pseudomedicine in the title, otherwise it's promoting fringe theories.- MrX 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrX. Alternative Medicine is one of the preferred terms used by promoters and practitioners of things which have generally been treated on Wikipedia as pseudoscience, a specie of fringe theories. Per FRINGE and PROFRINGE the customary rule is that when mentioning fringe beliefs or theories that are notable, that we avoid doing so in any way that might lend credence to them, and that a clear statement explaining why the fringe theory is not accepted and what the mainstream scientific position is be included. In the case of a side template the latter is not practical. But we should certainly refrain from exclusively using the language or descriptors preferred by the promoters of these beliefs. IMO doing so would run afoul of both FRINGE and UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. I can see that there were issues in the pre-CFCF version of the navbox. For example, it contained a link to homeopathy, which is arguably alternative medicine, but indisputably pseudomedicine. I don't think the solution to that problem is to add more pseudoscience links and then brand the navbox as alternative and pseudo- medicine. To do so creates an negative association between two different topics, and in effect, has turned the navbox into a WP:COATRACK. - MrX 21:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support — No matter what is professed on this page there is no clear distinction between pseudomedicine and alternative medicine and many of these topics fall under both. The only other alternative is to have alternative medicine as a subsection of a sidebar titled pseudomedicine, but that would be too much creating our own definitions, so that doesn't work out. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

On a different note Traditional medicine should probably be moved out. Traditional medicine in not de facto either alternative or pseudo. However it can be misused and promoted as either, but it constitutes its own group. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was advertised at WT:WikiProject Medicine at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk)

• Support inclusion of pseudomedicine, it fits with the overall contents of the template as it stands. By wikipedia standards if the topic is "alternative" to mainstream sources it is not really deserving of exclusive use of the euphemistic or neutral label. I can see why proponents of alternative medicine would feel that including the "pseudo" label implies that alternative medicine is not effective, but the question is how does wikipedia treat something that by its nature tends toward the fringe, and after all this does not imply that all alternative medicine is pseudomedicine, only that there is some overlap or connection. —DIY Editor (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include pseudomedicine, as the two are inextricably linked. Is homeopathy alternative medicine or pseudomedicine? It's not medicine, it is sometimes used as an alternative to medicine, and it is definitely pseudomedicine by any rational definition, but it's usually described as alternative medicine, which is wrong since it's not actually medicine at all. Incidentally, this also addresses a problem repeatedly discusssed in respect of acupuncture. Is acupuncture pseudoscience? The study of acupuncture usually is, but the practice is more pseudomedicine. Guy (Help!) 01:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I cringed when I saw the topic of the RFC. I bet this one never gets acceptably resolved, and as it stands it is ambiguous anyway. What is more, I don't know how far the title of the topic can be changed at this point in its history. For a start, the terminology is too woolly. And the passions are too high, so high that people are trying to settle the debate in the series title, which as it stands, one term or two, is already open to wide interpretation and question begging. People are justifying their preferences on points such as the terms that quacks hide behind. Note that the entries directly below the heading (General information, Alternative medicine, Quackery, History of alternative medicine, Rise of modern medicine, Pseudoscience, Pseudomedicine, Antiscience, Skepticism etc etc) really make it plain what the topic is broadly intended to embrace, so cluttering the Heading title is pointless and obsessive. Noting the contrasting varieties of items in the subtitles however, all the proposed heading suggestions are IMO futile and POV. I recommend that the sub-heading lists be more or less retained, but that the top title be changed to something like "Non-evidence based medicine" or "Medicine not supported by evidence" or something similarly clearly applicable both to good-faith and bad-faith expedients. It also would avoid the nonsensical term "alternative medicine", for which no rational definition exists. Any putatively medical expedient either is established medicine or candidate or experimental medicine, or it is not medicine. If not medicine in that sense, it either is quackery (incompetent or bad-faith) or ineffective or harmful (say bleeding or lead compounds or laying on of hands or the like) and it may be an alternative for lack of medicine, but it is not medicine. As for the alternatives mentioned so far in the RFC, the shorter the better. JonRichfield (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the never-ending rebranding of woo, to escape the bad odour that follows it wherever it goes. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• support per CF (in the end they are terms that are very similar/same...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Including "and pseudoscience" in the title doesn't imply that all the topics covered within are pseudoscience, just that some of them are. Some of the topics covered by the template are clearly pseudoscience, while others fall under "alternative". The new title would be more comprehensive. Joshualouie711^talk 14:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose including pseudomedicine. This feels merely like POV pushing because of the derogatory WP:TONE. Also (and IMO more importantly) it's needless blather at the top of a template that is now much larger than it needs to be. For those interested in the history, it was a small template just using the label "Alternative medical systems" or "Alternative medicine" for years, until CFCF doubled the size of the template last month and added things like Prenology and Skepticism, neither of which are medical systems. There's also a problem with including these because it sets up WP:BIDIRECTIONAL violations, as in "If this navbox isn't relevant enough to include at the top of Skepticism, then Skepticism isn't relevant enough to include in this navbox".
  CFCF, you've been making so many of these contentious changes that it feels like your edits in this area are part of an ideological WP:BATTLE to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by making sure that people know you disapprove of altmed stuff. I sometimes wish your energies were directed towards subjects that average editors don't understand as well, such as this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only say that I could not disagree more. I have made clear my rationale here and at other places, and my edits are based on reliable sources. As for skepticism, it is a much larger field encompassing much more than just medicine. There is no article at Medical skepticism as of yet, otherwise it would belong there. It could of course be added to a relevant subsection at Skepticism. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument that the tone of the template is wrong would hold more water if the Alternative medicine article didn't start with "Alternative medicine or fringe medicine are practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or only harmful," and continue with many similar statements about the fringe or false nature of it. The problem is that the article already clearly places alternative medicine in the general category of the things in the current template. I assume these debates have already taken place in establishing the not-very-flattering lede of the main article. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That article's problematical tone was introduced by the same editor who made the changes to this template that are presently being discussed: User:CFCF. Its present state should not be used as support for the template; after all, any WP article (or template) should rely on primary sources rather than other WP articles.

The Mayo Clinic website, probably the best source on the web for medical information for the layperson, includes a page on alternative treatments for most or all illnesses. They are presumably not promoting what they consider to be pseudomedicine. Clean Copy^talk 21:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment further here, but did you just say that the Mayo Clinic is the best source? Really? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote: the best source "on the web...for the layperson". Not the best source for WP. Clean Copy^talk 12:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That view is somewhat contentious, given this ridiculous special pleading. The Mayo has a department of quackademic "medicine" so is clearly not able to comment objectively on the woo it sells there. At least its plans exclude homeopathy, which is something, but the Mayo is definitely not exclusively reality-based. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: Now that you point it out, the tone of Alternative medicine does seem somewhat out of line with the WebMD and Mayo Clinic articles. At any rate I think you are correct that the state of the alternative medicine article shouldn't justify the template. I still lean toward inclusion of pseudomedicine as there seems to be some relation. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

DIY Editor—Just so you know, there are major issues with both the WebMD and MayoClinic websites. This has been discussed ad infinitem over at WP:MEDRS, but suffice it to say that neither are used as sources on Wikipedia. They have strong commercial interests and are heavily engaged in medicalization, disease mongering, and have a very lax attitude towards alternative medicine that isn't at all in line with the evidence. One serious point to consider is that our articles are chock-full of references, which you can evaluate independently (I encourage you to do so for the Alternative medicine article). Neither WebMD nor MayoClinic give you access to their sources, and at times they contradict the most prominent meta-analyses such as Cochrane. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: Out of curiosity I checked Medical cannabis to see if this template was included and it was not. That makes me wonder what qualifies something for inclusion in the topic of the sidebar - is it being outside the mainstream, or lacking conclusive scientific evidence, or some other criterion? —DIY Editor (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In general, something that is under active investigation by medical science is experimental, not alternative. Alternative medicine is a term normally reserved for those things which either pre-date scientific medicine, and are preserved primarily by inertia and political pressure (e.g. homeopathy), are based on ridiculous or unfounded principles (e.g. reiki) or were invented from whole cloth by people who then went on to found a cult around it (e.g. chiropractic). Resistance to refutation is the hallmark. Any field that accepts evidence of non-effect and changes its practice accordingly, is unlikely to be alternative. Any field that reacts to refutation by attacking the scientific community, promoting anecdotes and the like, almost certainly is. Cannabis is an odd one in that there's a culture of loons promoting it as a miracle cure for everything, and a genuine scientific inquiry into the pharmacological effects of canabinoids. Going forward you will probably see this split into two: medical use of canabinoids, and weed woo, which will become unambiguously alternative. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you might be missing the point. The issue is not whether we call alternative medicine pseudomedicine (the existence of both terms clearly says that the two may differ), but to what extent the two overlap. In fact, the overlap is very large, but demarcation is difficult. Things that have been proven not to work, are not alternative medicine, they are not medicine, they are pseudomedicine, because they have been proved not to be medicine. Things that have not been proven, but are not accepted by reality-based medicine, are alternative. But some areas such as acupuncture will be a mix of both. There is net positive evidence for acupuncture in three specific conditions, but for a large number of other conditions the evidence is net negative. Thus, evidentially, it is alternative medicine for three things, and pseudomedicine for the rest. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of pseudomedicine. Per pretty much all of the supports above. Capeo (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support of inclusion --- The reasons are same as most of the support how have stood for.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 05:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support useful addition IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons expounded so well above by Joshualouie711. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Support because of the clearly pejorative implications of the name. This is trying to sway readers into thinking that alternative medicine is akin to taking a placebo. User Clean Copyhas done an excellent job of pointing this out, providing references, and debunking other editor's posts, but that seems to be ignored. StarHOG (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion based on further research into the definition of Alternative medicine and some of the continued comments of editors here. I don't think I have ever done this in an AfC opinion about an article, but I know when I'm wrong and need to say so. StarHOG (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE as well as longstanding and very strong community consensus, we do in fact label pseudo-scientific beliefs/practices as such. It seems that what's being ignored here are guidelines and well established community consensus that we do not permit Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of fringe theories and pseudoscience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is trying to sway readers into thinking that alternative medicine is akin to taking a placebo." @StarHOG: That's not "swaying" anyone, that's a statement of scientific fact, because alternative medicine basically does the same thing as a placebo. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of "and pseudo-medicine" in title.

To all the lovers of alt-medicine- this wording strengthens the position of alternative medicine. E.g. homeopathy is pseudo-medicine/ fringe quackery. But some aspects of alternative medicine have scientific support, and the terms are not synonymous. Therefore, explicitly including 'and pseudo-medicine' makes it clear that there is a possibility of valid alternative medicine that is not pseudo-medicine. (This proposed wording is not the same as "Alternative medicine (AKA pseudo-medicine)", which seems to be what some of the opposers are arguing against. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion because, unfortunately, not all "pseudomedicine" can necessarily always be found by sources to be "alternative" medicine, even though the distinction between the two is at best dubious. We tend to have the same sort of problems with the topic of new religious movements/cults/sects, where there are a rather large number of basically synonymous words for the same topic but which, depending on the time a source was written, may or may not have easily accessible sources using the specific individual term we might use. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of "pseudo-medicine" in the title. It is openly pejorative and sounds like POV-pushing, and will be divisive. The term is poorly-defined and doesn't help our readers to understand the topic. It makes the title of the sidebar longer without bringing any benefit. --Slashme (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Everything is "divisive" to the alt-med brigade other than the pretence that their delusions are on a par with scientifically established reality. Hence the rebranding from alternative medicine to CAM to "integrative". The question here is not how to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who believe in unproven and disproven therapies, but whether alternative medicine on its own covers the subject. I don't think it does. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Violation of NPOV - Wikipedia is already skewed to the negative compared to other publications regarding alternative medicine, no need to exaggerate the problem further in the sidebar. ----

Wikipedia is not biased at all. It's reality that's biased against quackery. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to mention a subtopic in the title. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

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

1. Unlike its apparent cousins, mesmerism, anthroposophy, phrenology, and orgone therapy, humorism was the dominant way of thinking in a huge portion of the world for over a thousand years, until it was wholly superseded. It's false, but not fringe. The concept is still a facet of a few alternative medicine systems, and those are absolutely fringe, but they have their own links.
2. Outside of those systems the concept doesn't really have any presence in the same way that, say, acupuncture does. There are no cranks telling me to balance my bile or dubious academics churning out papers about the dangers of a phlegmatic diet. 165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nihlus 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with this. Note there's a discussion at FTN about it. The thread is Proposed change to Template: Alternative medicine sidebar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

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

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

Done Nihlus 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Health Fraud

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

See Quackery, and the edit shortened the title considerably, which is why it was neater. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If you look at that reference on quackwatch, it says that "the word fraud would be reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." It's never good to use wikipedia as a reference :) Oh, and I see it was you who added that wording to the Quackery article with no discussion and no edit summary, so I guess I'll fix that too. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Or you could look at the myriad other sources in the article that equate them, not just the very first, per WP:LEDECITE. There are two good books: "More harm than good" by Edzard Ernst, and Consumer Health 9th edition. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

NCAHF website says "health misinformation, fraud, and quackery", so it is not equating them. Ernst says "CAM practitioners may peddle untruths for reasons ranging from honest error to deliberate fraud.", so he isn't equating them either. You seem to be struggling to find a source that equates them, so therefore there is no justification for equating them in the title of the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave you two sources, but if you so wish for page numbers, see page 5 of Consumer health, co-authored by Barrett, which has a section titled "Quackery and health fraud" which makes no distinction. While Ernst doesn't make the tie as clearly, see page 153 where he differentiates two types of CAM peddling untruth: " honest error [and] deliberate fraud". He follows with:

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

Definitions are notoriously difficult to find in any book, but these are as good as they get. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That quote doesn't support your edit in any way, and the text on Barrett's main website which *explicitly* discusses "health fraud" directly contradicts your edit. I would suggest reverting your edits unless you can actually support them with a logical argument. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Consumer Health is a recent source written by Barrett, and supersedes the page you refer to — it makes no distinction whatsoever. I also find it remarkable that you suggest the quote does not support the equation of health fraud and quackery. Ernst equates acting without ensuring that treatment is based on sound evidence and theory, i.e. "honest error" with "deliberate fraud", mentioning both quackery and health fraud.

What is your suggested distinction between the two? Do you see the need to write an independent health fraud article, and if so, do we base it on the same sources? Carl Fredrik ^talk 00:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have acquiesced with this edit: [2], but it seems nitpicking to me. Carl Fredrik ^talk 00:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Apitherapy

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

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

There is a difference between a system of traditional medicine like ayurveda or TCM and people doing stuff with bees sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And where does it say that entries must be "systems" of any kind? Apitherapy is a traditional therapy. What reliable sources can be shown that it is not?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The other elements under "traditional" are systems: African Ayurveda Chinese Chumash European Greek Japanese Korean Mongolian Roman Shamanism Siddha Tibetan Yunani. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. It's like "English people, American people, French people, Bob". Guy (Help!) 08:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If "Bob" is reliably sourced, then where does it say he should be excluded just because he's not a "system"?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, another editor, CFCF, once again removed Apitherapy from this template while it's in discussion here. While I think that is wrong on several levels, rather than be a single voice in the wilderness, I'll accede to what appears to be consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed per BRD. Needless to say, I oppose. Regardless if Bob is reliably a human, he is not a nationality... Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved to alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar

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

Please discuss if necessary. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Why you are not providing necessary explanations for your edits? Don't make page moves without discussion and don't add misleading template titles in the template especially when your proposed changes have been rejected by consensus.[3] Unless every source in the world primarily refers "Alternative medicine" as "Fringe medicine" or Alternative medicine has been moved to Fringe medicine, you should stop making these edits. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it is time to start an RFC on this template, name, contents, what have you. "This article is part of a series on Alternative" per latest edit as I write this obviously doesn't work, and on the template page all subsections should be expanded, to mention 2 issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need that? Only including "alternative" is so bizarre that it seems pointless to discuss. As for the documentation issue, I can fix that immediately. Carl Fredrik ^talk 03:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Chemtrails

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

---

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

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Have commented there! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We're discussing whether the link should be in this sidebar here, that is a different discussion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Carl, In one of your edsums, you state that "this template is not alt-med." If this is correct, can you tell me what it actually is? The title at the top of the box, informing us what the box is about, is "This article is part of a series on Alternative medicine, pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories." Should we change it to ... Alternative medicine, pseudomedicine medical conspiracy theories, and Oh yes, we forgot, Chemtrails" -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Medical conspiracy theories — alternative and pseudo‑medicine

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

AFAICT, it's related to my edit here [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Asked for more input at some WikiProjects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't mess with the title. It's better as it. Natureium (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

CFCF, could you raise some examples of such conspiracy theories, so everyone knows what you are talking about?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham — There was a very neat link showing exactly what these were, before being removed by MrX. List_of_conspiracy_theories#Medicine Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And all listed there is in the sidebar. Chemtrails is also on that page, but not under Medicine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, I find the conspiracy theory section to be related to alt med and not out of place. But on the whole I find myself neutral on whether or not the alt med sidebar is the best way to provide such navigational content. It could also just be that some things need to be culled, like Chemtrails which I don't see much of a connection with alt med and focus on the alt med centric conspiracy theories, such as antivaxx and HIV denialism etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb — What is the purpose of the artificial separation of some conspiracy theories that pertain to treatment (i.e. "alternative medicine") from those that conspiracy theories that pertain to effects of everyday life and misrepresentation of pathology? There is an extensive literature that ties belief in health conspiracy theories writ large and belief in alternative medicine. Why keep them separate? Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

would generally agree w/ HEADBOMB--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory, with aspects that are health related. It's not a form of alternative medicine though. In fact, neither "medicine" nor "medical" appear anywhere in the article. Chemtrails belongs in a different sidebar template. - MrX 🖋 18:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX — No one is saying it is alternative medicine. What we are saying is that it is "pseudomedicine", and that there is nary a distinction between the two. The primary difference between "alternative" and "pseudo" is that "alternative" is primarily attached to treatments (although alternative diagnoses exists as well, muddying the waters). They are indisputably two sides of the same coin — and there is no good reason to keep them separated into different sidebars. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but it need not necessarily be a sidebar template. Also think a sidebar with the current title is a good sidebar to have. Titles like this [5] seems just... messy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång — To avoid those titles it may be useful to understand how there is a near-total overlap between medical conspiracy theories and alternative medicine, especially if we accept the definitions that make no distinction between pseudomedicine and alternative medicine. There is just no way that "chemtrails" would not be considered pseudomedicine. That this is the same thing as alternative medicine for all intents and purposes, does not exonerate chemtrails. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's too long. Medical conspiracy theories belong elsewhere unless directly related to alternative medicine. Natureium (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I see two more articles in this template that IMO are not obvious fits (and vice-versa): Scientific racism and Parapsychology. Both fits poorly under "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. They are not medicine related.- MrX 🖋 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Now, that is just awfully wrong MrX. They are per definition medicine-related — they are misunderstandings of the health effects of things such as race and psychology. One central point is how both scientific racism and phrenology were perpetuated by medical doctors who simply did bad science. To say that they are not even "medicine-related" is bizarre. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a relation between chemtrails/parapsychology and medicine, but the relation is to weak for it to be a good idea to include them in the Alternative medicine sidebar, is my editorial opinion (Scientific racism is weird topic, I'm less opinionated on that). Consider Parapsychology#Scope, sure, you can see a connection to medicine but it's weak, a small part of the whole. Consider also the guideline that recommends The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. And please don't start inserting the terms Alternative and pseudo‑medicine in those articles because of this discussion. The focus of this template is Alternative and pseudo‑medicine, and the articles in it should be fairly within that scope. Nobody is selling a cure of chemtrails for your bonecancer.

Can you (CFCF) accept per the comments in this thread and the old discussions at Chemtrails talk that consensus favor removing Chemtrails? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do admit that the majority position seems to be that Chemtrails are to be excluded, but I similarly do not see why it falls outside "medical conspiracy theories". Every facet of the conspiracy theory is based on the idea of substances that have specific effects on the brain (i.e. pharmacology). Per WP:Consensus there is a need for not only majority opinion, but a specific and valid rationale. To state that "It isn't medicine", when it falls squarely within pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories — at the very least admitting it to be contentious is required. It is possible there are arguments out there that can constitute valid rationales, but they haven't been presented here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You thinking valid rationales haven't been presented does not mean other editors agree on that. Your edits to the template starts to resemble a degree of WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 17:38, April 24, 2019 (UTC)

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

My response is pretty much identical to Gråbergs Gråa Sång's. Phrenology fits, but scientific racism is not a type of medicine, a diagnosis, a cure, or a medical treatment, which is what this template is supposed to be about. If you want to make a case for why they are, please do so in a logical manner and with sources to support your view. Then please wait for consensus before restoring disputed material.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Scientific racism was a misappropriation of medical knowledge and genetics with the intent to "produce pure races" in pursuit of health. It was perpetuated by medical doctors doing poor science — if it isn't pseudomedicine, then nothing is. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX — You seem to be making very sweeping changes, removing far more than what is up for discussion here. I suggest you back down and let this debate finish over the first topic first. At the very least you need to bring your new issues into the discussion, not just go removing things that have been included per consensus for years. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@CFCF: Can you link to the consensus discussions related to anything I removed (I only removed a few—hardly sweeping)? I'm still not convinced that scientific racism belongs, but I will listen to what others have to say. I am firmly opposed to including chemtrails, and I believe that "Conspiracy theories" is the wrong section header based on the contents of that section. - MrX 🖋 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Scientific racism and chemtrails are not forms of alternative medicine or pseudomedicine. What is the point of trying to add as many pages as possible to this template? Natureium (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Traditional medicine section, a few doubtfuls

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

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

There is little distinction between current and prior traditional medicine. Why would historical articles not be at all relevant? Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Leaving them out of this template does not make them not at all relevant, just not relevant enough. History of alternative medicine is relevant to this template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Traditional medicine is not defined necessarily as current. I doesn't see any basis for this distinction. While traditional medicine may have historical aspects their overall category should be medicine and in this case traditional. I don't see a reason to remove them. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The editorial reason/distinction I see is that when I click Europe in this template, as a reader I expect to arrive at a similar article as when I click African or Chinese (which both have sections on history). I don't, so why is the link called Europe? As a reader, I find this slightly misleading/annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)