Talk:Glossary of alternative medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
List This page has been rated as list-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archive 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glossary of alternative medicine article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here is how you can avoid writing stub articles

Copied from from Category_talk:Alternative_medicine_stubs. Also a similar version should be in the talk archive of this Glossary. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The glossary of alternative medicine is ideal for avoiding stub articles. All new articles about terms and concepts used in alternative medicine should always start out as a write up in our glossary. Biographies should always start out in the list of people in alternative medicine. Likewise, history articles should always start out in the history of alternative medicine aricle.

Topics that will only be one or two paragraphs in size can be easily added to this glossary. In addition, the content of the glossary of alternative medicine can, also, be easily referenced in articles (for example, Doctrine of Signatures).

Remember that a one or two paragraph write up is what our glossary of alternative medicine and our other annotated lists are for. So, please do not write stub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is nutrition included?

Is "alternative medicine" usually considered to include some nutritional approaches, e.g. "megavitamins"? Or not? --Coppertwig 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. A number of approaches could be listed under that heading. Go ahead and add it, then look through the whole page and copy those you find to that heading. (Don't delete them from their original locations.) -- Fyslee (First law) 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, I took Apparently Ilena beat me to it;) the EBM statement back off acupuncture, mostly because nobody else was being noted as such. I think as long as we don't make any assertions (pro or con), we won't have to tag this list with NPOV problems, etc. We can just leave it a list until somebody complains. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a gloosary and not a commentary. I am not even sure the of the point of this article. Certainly we don't need to define each Alt Med as each already has their own article. All we should have is a list that has been wikilinked accordingly. Then again, that list is equivilent to the Alt Med category... which brings me back to the point: Why do we have this article? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a List of Alternative medicines? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the stuff at the bottom of the page? It looks like it is supposed to be deleted sometime anyway. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And I would assume that the category "Alternative Medicine" should cover most of this article anyhow. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a Speedy delete as per Articles #5 Transwikied articles. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Has the transwikification been properly performed and the author information recorded? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the cat tag at the bottom of the page and the three boxes at the bottom of the article page? How do we know for sure? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks all set to me. Let's nominate it for deletion. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on - check this out [1] -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure if it is moved over yet, are you? -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems moved [2].

If not, I'm sure the AfD will bring to light what the next steps to follow are. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it is there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality disputed?

Arthur removed the Speedy delete, so I am assuming there is a good reason for that. Meanwhile, I see there is a neutrality tag on the top that says see discussion on talk page, which of course I don't see, so I'm starting one. So,... is there a problem with this article? -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the list and found that most everything I could think of was listed plus a few. There are only cursory explanations given for any of them, none of which draw any conclusions on efficacy either way. This is probably a pretty good list. It may be a repeat of similar information in the List of alternative medicine techniques. I think I will remove the tag. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of alternative medicine and related edits

Please discuss these edits here on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting.

Re Jim Butler's edit of 05:33 on Feb. 14:

Re the definition "a group of diverse..." versus "a broad term for any..." I don't know which definition is better. Could someone find a published definition in a reliable source and provide a complete reference? Someone mentioned in an edit summary that one of the definitions is from "NCCAM" -- could a citation be provided for that?

Inserting "generally": very good, describes the situation much more accurately in my opinion.

I oppose Jim Butler's version of this part:

  • Proponents of evidence-based medicine regard the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine as moot, preferring "good medicine" (with provable efficacy) and "bad medicine" (without it). See alternative medicine for additional definitions of CAM.

Referring to things as "good medicine" and "bad medicine" is definitely POV. Just because something has not (yet) been proven to be effective doesn't necessarily mean that it's "bad medicine" or even that it isn't "good medicine". I prever the previous version:

  • The list of therapies included under CAM changes gradually. If and when CAM therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care, they gradually cease to be considered CAM, since adoption and acceptance often takes time. The converse result, a therapy being dropped by CAM practitioners after it has been proven dangerour or ineffective, has not yet been documented.

This version is accurate, good style (as opposed to the overly informal "good medicine" etc.), and seems reasonably NPOV to me.

Everyone please comment here about your reasons for preferring one version or the other of these parts. --Coppertwig 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The converse result, a therapy being dropped by CAM practitioners after it has been proven dangerour or ineffective, has not yet been documented.
This appears to be POV and OR. It might not be, but a reference would fix that. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Coppertwig; the problem I see with the deleted version is that it gives undue weight to a minority-view definition of CAM (the one suggested by Dawkins et. al., i.e., the one based on EBM, rather than social sphere of usage, i.e. relationship to mainstream medicine). Alternative medicine has more on this issue, and for definitions, it has V RS's in the lead and subsequent sections. We should probably use those references in this article as well. The text I substituted I simply copued from alternative medicine's lead section, where it appeared editors had accepted the wording. I have no problem changing to something that sounds less inflammatory. What EBM advocates argee on is that evidence matters. "Good" and "bad" are their terms, amd indeed their POV, but it's a sig one. To convey the same idea, they also use terms lime "proven" and "unproven" which may sound more appropriate in this article.
The important point, imo, is that the term be clearly defined and due weight be given to other definitions. CAM's generally-accepted definition is not the same as Dawkins' definition. See swiftboating for more about different groups' attempts to define a term. This situation is similar; inherently political stuff.
Finally, Dematt, certainly agree re the section you flagged as OR. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What does "EBM" mean? I've put a comment on the talk page of alternative medicine about "good" and "bad" medicine. --Coppertwig 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig -- EBM is an acronym for evidence-based medicine. I replied at Talk:Alternative Medicine. I share your concerns, and thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think you're right, earlier version (sans the OR sentence) was better. Restored and put it in lead at Alternative Medicine. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know where and what reference #2 is supposed to point to? It is used several times in this article, but the actual source seems to be missing. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Recognition

Personally, I believe just being in Wikipedia gives this glossary international recognition, IMHO. I am a supporter of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This should give you an idea of just how valuable wikipedia presumes itself to be. Ansell 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fu Xi Wen

For more information about this matter, please read these:

-- Fyslee / talk 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)