Category talk:Quackery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 May 24. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] People in alternative medicine
There are a lot of "people in alternative medicine" who I'd think deserve to be listed here, but it'd probably be POVish, no? Gzuckier 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is a category for them, but a link to that category might be appropriate, without having one category included in the other category, (which might be inappropriate?) -- Fyslee 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Equal time
Maybe for an "equal time" doctrine, there should be a "dumb s**t" page with listing of all the allopathic treatments that arent considered quackery but kill and maim people regularly starting with aspirin... That is about as valid as just putting up a page with a lot of therapies listed under it as quackery. The only quack I would leave on this page is Stephen Barrett. He deserves to be here. But to be serious, I think this page should be removed as it is just about as valid as my "dumb s**t" page. -- 209.234.206.87 07:23, 20 May 2006
[edit] Category:Alternative Medicine
Can't see any good reason for this cat to be a subcat of Category:Alternative Medicine, since overpromotion happens in mainstream medicine as well. It's already in Category:Healthcare which covers both. Jim Butler(talk) 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reverting a revert made without discussion. Also note that Quackery is already listed under "See Also" in the main article on Alternative Medicine. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could this be renamed?
Wouldn't it be better to call this like "Medical pseudoscience" or something? The article on Quackery starts by stating it "is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits", should derogatory/perjorative terms be categories? Granted there is Category:Grammar Nazi, but is mostly a Category of Wikipedians who describe that way. Category:Junk Science is the closest to being similar, but I don't know. I mean I think there are quacks, but I also think there are suckers. Category:Suckers doesn't seem useful either.--T. Anthony 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
this category has a lot of potential for abuse, unless used very carefully. perhaps re-name controversial medical practices?***Ria777 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
loxlie: Absolutely. I'm an entirely atheist hard-line skeptic, and I think this is an abhorrent category. It's an archaic and inherently derogatory term. If used in the body of an article it would require (or immediately induce) qualification. As a category, the best it can hope for is to entrench and solidify believers in those very quackish ideas it seeks to enumerate, which is not a good thing in any sense, and certainly not in the Wikipedia spirit. Should be changed to "medical pseudoscience" at the very least, or deleted immediately. See talk page of homeopathy for an example of the awful damage this is causing... Loxlie 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to change this category to "Disputed medical practices". This would allow it to be applied accurately and (in most cases) without controversy. Any objections? --Lee Hunter 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unanswered questions
What constitutes the "medical and scientific community"? How do we know exactly what this theoretical collective "they" thinks? If there is significant disagreement or (more likely) indifference in the medical and scientific community what level of disagreement or indifference would negate the label of "quackery"? Why aren't established practices like the use of c-section for normal pregnancy (proven to be always harmful to the mother and often hazardous to the infant) considered to be quackery? --Lee Hunter 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia categorization guidelines
Wikipedia:Categorization says not to apply a category unless it is self-evident and non-controversial. The reason, according to the guidelines, is that cats appear on the article page without annotations or qualifications. In other words, you don't put something in a category unless it clearly belongs there. So if the Quackery cat needs this disclaimer to say that some of these items may or not belong, we should simply remove those articles that don't meet the standard. --Lee Hunter 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
