Talk:National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

message: I don't think that section headings like "Who we are" and "What we do" are good to include in an encyclopedia article. I generally think of an article as needing to be written from the 3rd person rather than the 1st person. I've been looking a little for recommendations around this in the Wikipedia Help section but haven't come across something specific yet. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
I agree. I assume it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. How about paraphrasing it so it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio? alteripse 01:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a copyvio (since the source is a public domain document) but neither is it encyclopaedic, so for that I put a . -- Paddu 18:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First remarks 

message: I created a section for Criticism and moved a paragraph from the opening to there. The paragraph's placement veered a wee bit close to the WP:NPOV cliff and seems better contextualized as criticism. Gobonobo 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This page seems to be mostly plagiarized, and it consequently reads like a brochure. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that a page can be largely unattributed copy and pasting, even if it is not a direct copyright violation.
It seems this issue was raised two years ago; is anyone working on this page?
938 MeV (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: The role of rigorous scientific evaluation in the use and practice of complementary and alternative medicine.
I don't have time to work on it right now, maybe later if someone doesn't do it first. Ward20 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I am thinking about Skeptical Inquirer used on this page. I think this is an RS, but clearly a journalistic type source and not peer reviewed. For claims about medicine-related studies on this page I think one should follow WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better reference of the criticism section 

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: So is this: http://geomag.gfdi.fsu.edu/tss-copa/nccam_critique.html MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh. 

message: I moved the article from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the new name for the organization National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The organization hasn't changed everything yet, so we'll just have to update some things a bit at a time as they do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Probably should update the URL to https://nccih.nih.gov at some point. The center's web pages have been updated. 
96.241.31.30 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New URL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505211246/http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm to http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added an additional study result to this table. I may add more, unless there is a legitimate objection. The only examples in this table appeared to be cherry-picked mostly from a Skeptical Inquirer article seeking to debunk alternative medicine funding. Gives the false impression that 100% of the studies produce no positive results. It makes sense to include some positive results, too. Happy to discuss. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am skeptical. This is a primary reference so not that great in WP. 30 participants and no controls. The conclusion of the article is "might improve MMT outcomes." I think I will revert the edit unless you have better.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to discuss this further. Are you applying the same standards to the other studies mentioned in the examples? Surely, you can agree that these examples are cherry-picked, coming from a Skeptical Inquirer article written with the purpose of showing results of a certain type? If we can agree on what examples should be provided, it makes sense to include/exclude certain ones, but until then, it makes no sense to eliminate one because it doesn't follow your particular narrative. I'd love some additional input.Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to imply that they have produced a significant number of positive results, you need a secondary source saying this, rather than indulging in WP:OR by cherry-picking a few primary studies. You need to find studies that secondary sources have felt worth mentioning in the context of whether the funding is worthwhile. The studies listed in the article are significant in terms of the article because they are listed in a secondary source.  And the criticism that they have failed to fund research with positive results does not just come from the Skeptical Inquirer. The same criticism is there in the article sourced to Science, the Journal of the AMA, NBC news, and even Tom Harkin. That’s an overwhelming consensus. Brunton (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. Remember that the purpose of the examples of research is not to editorialize, as in the articles about funding. That would belong in a "Criticism" section. What you are suggesting is that the "Examples" box be used to make a point. right now it's making the point that the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine wants to make. There are plenty of secondary sources for positive results, and I will be adding. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to WP. As a new editor you might also find the following articles important. 
WP:FLAT
WP:FRINGE
WP:ORIGINAL
WP:BITE
and finally, WP:YWAB
--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to be condescending. Those are not relevant to this. I would be happy to discuss the actual issue with you, though. I'm interested in hearing your response to my specific statements. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes they are. Another relevant article is WP:CRITS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: The article has multiple independent sources (not just “the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine”) saying that the results have been overwhelmingly negative. If you want the article to imply that this isn’t the case we’ll need sources for that point of view. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not discussing the article as a whole, we're discussing the examples section. Read the discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you found reliable secondary sources in the meantime which name examples for studies with positive results? If no, there is no point about continuing this discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of NCCAM research projects funded 

message: Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section?