Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine/Archive 1

message: Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine.  Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?--Mr-Natural-Health 13:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Does not this article just duplicate [[Alternative medicine]]?

message: This article contains mostly irrelevant information and personal opinion which is simply wrong and cannot be supported with references.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is mostly Irrelevant! 

message: IMHO this page has a few traits in its favor:
*It's a quick introduction; its about a quarter of the size of the other page.  It's handy to have a short introduction to such a broad topic.
::You do not need an introduction to an introduction. Alternative medicine could be improved however, by separating the definiton from the overview section.--Mr-Natural-Health
*This page attempts to highlight some common threads among CAM practices; of course the brevity results in a loss of important detail but its easier to absorb the detail if you start with an organizing framework, then flesh out the detail and the exceptions afterwards.
::This page fails to highlight any common threads. What is there is either unnecessary, or just plain wrong.--Mr-Natural-Health
*The taxonomy is the same one written by a center in the NIH; perhaps it could be improved, but again, all the detail about the various alternative methods are easier to understand as long as some sort of taxonomy is provided first.
::No taxonomy is necessary. There are at least 4 possible classifications systems: Method of treatment, Therapeutic benefits, Medical Conditions benefited by, and Mode of Action for the Therapeutic Effects.  Why is the method used in cam any better than anyone of these methods?  The NIH is a fact, not a reason.--Mr-Natural-Health
*This page introduces complementary medical therapies as well as alternative medical therapies.
::Alternative medicine does a better job as is.--Mr-Natural-Health
I don't know what fits best within the wikipedia culture.  In terms of satisfying the needs of a general reader, I can offer an opinion though.  I would want to have this page be the basis for an introduction to the topic, and the other page provide the detailed look that people could really dive into once they are past the introductory phase.  Whether that means a collection of pages, or just a single 30K page is something I would have to defer to others.  In the absence of a consensus to the contrary, I'd probably do it as a collection of pages.  I'll give it a shot sooner or later if someone doesn't beat me to it.
68.167.248.42 12:29, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing this page with its merge partner 

message: All I did in the 68.167.248.42 comment was read two articles and explained why I agreed with RK and whoever else that a merge rather than a redirect was appropriate.  If all that Mr. NH can respond with boils down to "don't merge, just delete or redirect", there doesn't seem to be any real discussion taking place here.  He is just being dismissive of the specific comments I made.
BTW, when I read this page, it didn't come across as irrelevant or personal opinion.  Google led me to wikipedia as well as NCCAM and Mayo Clinic's CAM pages, and all three seem to treat the subject similarly.  Perhaps it is precisely because it's similar to the NCCAM and Mayo that this page can be considered biased in some way, but when I read all of these pages I come away with the impression that the language used here is neutral without resorting to detailed pro and con sections.
A quick perusal of the discussion on the AM page points out the long (for wikipedia) history behind this topic.  My comments don't have the benefit of or the baggage from participating in all of those earlier discussions.
68.167.254.136 02:43, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  There must be a history behind this all... 

message: Although you still haven't commented on the concrete points I made in the 68.167.248.42 comment, your point seems to be that the bigger issues of the long history it took to get alternative medicine in the state it is today, and the numerous cross-links to this CAM page overshadow any reason to discuss what is of value in this page or merge it into an integrated set of pages on alternative and complementary medicine.  I disagree, but can at least understand your position given the tortuous history of the AM page.
When I look past the name calling and your apparent frustration, I can also agree that an attempt at a merge needs to be done by someone interested in doing it and sensitive to the careful crafting of the AM page.  If the original author doesn't step up to that, or someone like yourself with a long involvement in the topic doesn't do it, I'll give it a shot.  
I don't agree with the sense of urgency you have about either doing it now or turning it into a redirect; there are plenty of wikipedia examples where overlapping or parallel write-ups exist.  Wikipedia seems to get better over time, with some progress made in hours and others taking weeks, months, or I guess in the case of AM, years.  If this had been a case of vandalism, prompt action would be warranted, but this is obvious not applicable to this case, so I'd advocate a merge, and when I try, it'll be guided by the 68.167.248.42 comment.
The other thing I'll do for now is cross reference this discussion with Talk:Alternative medicine.
68.167.191.104 00:01, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  History vs. current state, and some potential points of agreement 

message: For all of these related articles, this Complementary and alternative medicine article needs to be the highest level, with a link to Alternative Medicine and a redirect from Alternative Medicine to Complementary and alternative medicine. - a medical journal editor  Healtheditor 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The information structure is important 

message: Levine2112 reverted my restoration of the long-standing redirect with this edit summary: "I don't see any discussion or agreement to do this rather drastic action... please provide before redirecting again." Actually the original redirect which I restored was instituted after much discussion and merging of the articles and was a consensus decision by many editors. I agree that my restoration was rather bold, but it was only after the sudden appearance of a merge tag alerted me to the fact that a very small discussion by a couple editors who had not been parties to the original discussions was going on, and which should not have been going on at a "dead" article. The discussion should have occurred at the current alternative medicine article, where absolutely no discussion or suggestion of a merge had occurred and where no consensus had been formed to change the situation. I was just restoring the consensus situation.
The removal of the redirect had not been done properly and I restored it. It is a serious matter to revive a dead article without the input of the vast numbers of editors who had been involved in the original discussions and mergers. Otherwise I have no special burden one way or the other for or against a particular method for dividing this subject into several articles (which could of course be done) or consolidating it into one article (which was an overwhelming consensus decision). I am just upholding the consensus until a united majority of many editors decides to reverse the original decision. A small group should not to such a drastic thing. I will start an RfC on the matter there (the only proper place to do so, since all the significant editors have been working there) to get more input. Maybe it's time to do it. I don't care one way or the other, but until then the consensus decision should be protected and I will again restore the redirect. See you at the RfC. (I'll incorporate the link here when it's done.) -- Fyslee / talk 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of long-standing redirect (and notice of [[Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC_regarding_article_status_for_this_article_and_a_dead_article|RfC]] at [[alternative medicine]]) 

message: #Quoting from the CAM article:
##The term complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for alternative medicine, complementary medicine, and integrative medicine.
##"Alternative medicine" describes practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. When some of those practices are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine they are termed "complementary medicine".
#Good hypertext document design dictates that everything is not placed just on one page.  In hypertext documents sub-topics are covered on sub-pages.
#On this topic area, complementary and alternative medicine is clearly the umbrella term per NCCAM and thus the parent hypertext document. Both Alternative medicine and complementary medicine are clearly the main sub-topics of the parent CAM hypertext document.
#Substantial article improvement has occurred both on the complementary and alternative medicine and the complementary medicine articles while you were not participating.  They in no way duplicate the alternative medicine article. 
::Yesterday, I attempted to clean up alternative medicine by removing ONLY comments and sections that duplicate these two articles.  
::The problem is the article on alternative medicine; which should be just about alternative medicine per the above definition. Furthermore, take a look at the very top of that article, regarding factual disputes.  It is a total mess!!!  I personally cleaned up all the factual disputes on these other     two articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at OxfordDefines, stated:  "If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine."  I agree completely.  Complementary medicine and complementary and alternative medicine are branches of medicine.  I will remove these temporary notices once again for a total failure to specify one or more specific problems with this very well written article.  -- John Gohde (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice personal attack.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree and have have nominated it for Good article nomination. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CAM article as a hypertext document 

message: Complementary and alternative medicine -- An extensive set of definitions, contemporary usage  of CAM, as well as the branches of CAM per the NCCAM classification system.
# It is a top-level, umbrella, or parent article.  Top-level articles always present a broad overview of the topic without getting bogged down in details that are covered in the sub-topic articles per the rules of good hypertext document design.
## Article cleanup and development for any specific branch of CAM belongs on the respective articles.
## Criticism, Effectiveness, etc should be mention if at all by referring to the respective sub-section of the respective articles that covers those sub-topics. Skeptics really need to bone up on how to write a well designed hypertext document.
# Alternative medicine -- The pro or con debate or everything negative about practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. The practice of alternative medicine is illegal in many jurisdictions.
## When not inappropriately used as slang, it is a low-level or sub-topic article.  World class encyclopedias like Wikipedia always should stress the correct definitions of terms over their slang usage.
## The professional practice of alternative medicine by non-physicians consists mostly of Alternative Medical Systems.  These are the schools of health care that are currently competing with medicine, as a replacement.
# Complementary medicine -- Everything positive and negative about practices that are are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine. There is no debate taking place on this article, since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics of the respective articles 

message: The effort is lacking any response from anyone.  A message should be placed on the pages of regular editors of this article.  I oppose a merger, since this article is a travesty of POV writing.  At least Alternative medicine has enough information to be mostly balanced.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at OxfordDefines, stated:  "If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine."  I agree completely.  Complementary medicine and complementary and alternative medicine are branches of medicine.  I will remove these temporary notices once again for a total failure to specify one or more specific problems with this very well written article.  -- John Gohde (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice personal attack.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree and have have nominated it for Good article nomination. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Unless the parties posting these notices start an extremely specific discussion that spell out in plain English precisely what is wrong with this article; these temporary notices will be coming off right away.
Nobody can respond unless the whiners get specific.
No discusion equals No notices. -- 67.62.69.162 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of comments from various editors and admins pointing out problems. Get an account or your comments won't carry any weight. -- Fyslee / talk 06:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody's comments count. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article & controversial issues 

message: Sources:
*Giguere, Nancy Alternative No More StarTribune.com December 11, 2007.  Lists the following disciplines as subset of CAM:
:*Chiropractic
:*Acupuncture
:*Massage Therapy
:*Naturopathic Medicine
With a link to National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. http://nccam.nih.gov/.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2007 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional and/or new sources for the article 

message: Just in case you are as confused as you write Fyslee, the default skin puts the list of categories on the very bottom of the articles.  In other words, the vast majority of visitors never see the category listings. -- 67.62.69.162 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be assuming I don't know how categories work. Take your insults and violations of TALK elsewhere, IOW off Wikipedia. BTW, get an account. -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Default Skin 

message: Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that has cleanup banners (such as the ones at the onset of the article) must be failed immediately, and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners, and remove them before choosing to renominate. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky talk 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the banners will be coming down within one week due to the posters of said banners failing to specify exactly what is wrong with the article.  No discuassion equals no banners. -- 67.62.69.162 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are plenty of comments from various editors and admins pointing out problems. Get an account or your comments won't carry any weight. -- Fyslee / talk 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there has only been one to date.  See the comment below.  Only specific complaints can be responded to. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the complaint, in all official form, so the tags will remain, despite the ongoing personal attacks of John Gohde.  First, the article fails to mention the total wealth of scientific evidence that states, in no uncertain terms, that CAM is a huge fraud.  Second, the article fails to utilize verifiable and reliable sources.  Third, any attempt to critique this article brings the personal attacks of John Gohde on those editors.  Therefore, the tags remain.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably don't need both  and , since the latter includes neutrality. But I agree with OM on the rationale behind the tagging. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. Done. -- Fyslee / talk 00:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Speaking of "disproven", here is a good abstract discussing the matter, in this case regarding alternative cancer therapies:
: ABSTRACT:
: Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as "unproven," suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown. Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label "unproven" is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven." -- Vickers A. "Alternative Cancer Cures: "Unproven" or "Disproven"?"Vickers A. "Alternative Cancer Cures: "Unproven" or "Disproven"?" CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54: 110-118. Online
-- Fyslee / talk 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unproven" and "Disproven" 

message: * The first paragraph leaves the average reader no better informed than they would have been before they started reading.  Having an article begin with an almost content-free paragraph really isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
* The second paragraph tries to differentiate among the terms, but really says very little.  The statement about integrative medicine says nothing about what it is, it merely states an uncited opinion about the subject.
There's nothing in there that deserves the name "Lead".  Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree. It briefly introduces the topic.  And, is followed by an in depth discussion of definitions in the very next section.  It is absolutely perfectly written as it presently stands. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the lead is to produce a stand-alone summary of the article.  Saying CAM is C + A + I is saying nothing (simply reading the article title gives you 2/3 of the info in the opening paragraph).  Anthon01's additions are have added a little, but there's still nothing in there to tell a person what I is.  You should really read WP:LEAD - or at least the quote from it higher up this page.  Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For 2/3 of the info to be true, it requires the reader to make an assumption. The statement needs to be made. Anthon01 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I'm just saying that if you can guess 2/3 of the content of the first para lead by reading the article title, it's really not adequate for our needs.  Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the lead is not presently a stand-alone summary of the article.  Looking at the overall article, I think the lead should have a very brief summary of "Contemporary use of CAM" section.  I'm not sure how the same could be done with the "NCCAM Classifications of CAM" section, nor if it should be done. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since a Wikipedia "Lead" deviates significantly from a normal "introduction" (we don't even allow a section heading called "Introduction"!), a good way to ensure that it contains what is essential is to make sure all sections are represented. If a topic is significant enough to have its own section in the article, it should be summed up in a sentence or two and included in the lead. -- Fyslee / talk 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead