Talk:Electrical devices in alternative medicine

message: This article needs some serious NPOV'ing, alas.  What are the claims of "electricity therapy," and how is it commonly performed?  What do skeptics say about the treatment itself?  This article right now is a brief history of this form of quackery, but it is not an information-providing article yet. --Modemac 12:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article deals with the quackery side (mainly pre-20th century) of electricity therapy, not electrotherapy which is briefly discussed in the article. Should the  name be changed to reflect this? The other option is to divide the article into quackery, alternative medicine and conventional medicine.-  redcountess 23:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
*Why not just call it "Electrical quackery"? Proven medical therapies involving electricity will probably have their own articles (e.g. cardioversion). -- Nunh-huh 23:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea! I'll move it now. redcountess 23:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
The novel Frankenstein doesn't actually tell how the monster is created; only the films show electricity as a part of the reanimation process. -Sean 08:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's a good name for this? 

message: The third sentence in the introduction states:  While electricity is responsible for the transmission of signals along nerves, both the deluded and the outright fraudulent have attempted to exploit the belief that the presence of electricity and conductors will have a dramatic, disease-curing effect on living tissue.  This sentence needs toned-down.  Any suggestions?  If someone is deluded (i.e. mistaken about the facts of reality), is it fair to say they are attempting to exploit the belief?  If the "outright fraudulent" (which implies purposeful deceit for some sort of gain) have attempted to exploit the belief, shouldn't the article at least cite once such example?  Edwardian 8 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
:I agree that that sentence need to be toned down. __meco 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in the Introduction

message: This article must be worked to reflect encyclopedic content, neutrality and historical references, otherwise it is a sure candidate to be proposed for speedy deletion. I assume that the intention of the authors is to inform about these devices not to warn the public about presumed fraud (which should be out of context at WP), I am trying to provide clear points to reach, sorry if I am too blunt ☤'ProfBrumby 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those devices are fraud. But it is also true that the article cannot be as is,lets see what can be done JennyLen☤ 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackery is "alternative medicine"? There is no alternative medicine, either it works, then it is medicine, or it doesn't, then it is quackery. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article must reflect encyclopedic definitions and history 

message: The article as it stands is a hodgepodge of therapies involving electricity.  The delivery modality, even the theory behind each of these procedures is highly variable.  As such, it probably should be merged with the electrotherapy article. Djma12 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have worked on this quite a bit but it seems a good idea to merge it JennyLen☤ 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The electric eel is a native of South America. What were the ancient greeks (sic) doing with them? Does it mean the electric ray, some species of which are endemic to localities within reach of Greece? — BillC  talk 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electric eels