Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: Should complementary medicine and alternative medicine be merged with complementary and alternative medicine?

RfC was recently postponed due to the need for further discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. See:

• The RfC is temporarily suspended

Please contribute there instead, not by continued voting, but by preparing a proper RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine. The question for the RfC is, should the three articles be merged?

There is already some discussion of this topic here: Talk:Complementary_medicine#Scope_of_the_article:_To_merge_or_not_to_merge and there was a previous RfC that was only discussed by two users here Talk:Complementary_and_alternative_medicine/Archive_1#merge_proposal_for_complementary_and_alternative_medicine_articles and closed due to lack of attention. There is also extensive debate over the terms on this page. Would this topic be better served by creating just one complementary and alternative medicine article and creating a section in this article discussing any differences between complementary medicine and alternative medicine or are these fundamentally different concepts?

Comments by involved editors

Proposal for keeping articles separate. I believe that this is worth considering. I think each topic deserves a separate lead. The focus here is on the project and the reader. How do we help them understand these concepts. Separating them will help prevent the reader from conflating the three together. Merging will create a massive article, difficult to read through. My apologies for the lack of development in this proposal.

• CAM - discuss the broad concept, as we are already doing here of CAM, including definitions, comparisions Comp, alt med, conventional, migration, research, and the current evolution of the concept of CAM. Alternative medicine should be briefly covered with a focus on it's current relationship to CAM. No need to rehash alt med in CAM beyond a brief mention of the most predominant forms of alt med, IOW, those that are actively being utilized by CAM practitioners and/or being scientifically researched.
• Alternative Medicine - discuss the history of alt-med up until now, and consider mergeing the History of alternative medicine with the Alternative medicine page. Alternative should focus on systems that are being utilized instead of conventional medicine
• Complimentary Medicine - discuss complimentary medicine today. Examples of how it is being used today, both by conventional practitioners in conjunction with an alt-med practitioner and exclusively by conventional practitioners can be included. For instance, we can discuss consumers self-prescribed use of herbal medicine in conjunction with allopathic therapies, with and without the knowledge of an allopath. Anthon01 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok we'll take the self prescribed herbal medicine example. Is herbal medicine considered part of alternative medicine when it is used instead of taking a conventional drug? If so, how would you suggest that we avoid redundancy when herbal medicine is mentioned in both pages but in different contexts? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. This is how I would suggests to include both without redundancy. RS that address the main point of each article predominates the decision of whether an item should be included or not.

• Comp Med - herbal gets included only if we find RS discussing the use of herbal remedies in conjunction with conventional medicine by alternative and/or allopathic practitioners . We talk about the prevalence of their use, in what cases they are used, anectodal & scientific research discussing their use etc ... but only if these RS refer to alt-med use with conventional medicine.
• Alt-med - We talk about how herbs are used as a substitute to conventional medicine, again looking to RS. There is no need to talk about comp med side of the issue. Here we discuss general use of herbs in prehaps a few sentences, and can include brief mention of significant studies. Details of any herbs extensively studied could be linked to the appropriate page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What if one RS shows instances where it is used with conventional medicine and another discussion finds cases where it is used to replace conventional medicine? De we have two discussion for the same herb in two different contexts? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You would have two different discussions about the same herb, not the same discussion.

• Complementary - conventional therapy + herbal, that is the synergy.
• Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better, (eg. side-effects, cost, duration of treatment, etc) ...

No need for redundancy. Anthon01 (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why the main article needs to be in WP:Summary style. The questions you're addressing here would go in the article about the herb, not in the article about alt-med or complementary med. There's no way all those individual treatment comparisons can be done in the top level article(s). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about a single article or three. I agree that there is no way in a top level article to include all those comparisons. However a brief summary, perhaps 1 sentence, of significant research could be included with a link. Anthon01 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with James that a merged article should stick to the WP:Summary style, and any specific details about particular therapies be done in their own articles. I'm not totally excluding the possibility of inclusion of the type Anthon01 is suggesting, but I think we should plan and intend not to do it. Let's cross that bridge if we come to it at all. Instead we should use lots of wikilinks to specific articles. Categorization (at the bottom of the article) will also help those who want to find every type of therapy classed as alternative or complementary. We need to stick to definitions, history, legal issues, controversies, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - In my opinion, this is nothing, but an attempt to merge these articles. Therefore, either place the required merge banners in the respective articles or kindly remove the word "merged" from this section heading. Furthermore, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia. And, what you are attempting to do is to put this original research of yours into articles in Wikipedia so that it will compete with authoritative organizations, such as NCCAM. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep articles separate! - It is the best way to put an end to, once and for all, to this issue which keeps on coming up over and over again. There is more than enough material to write a complete article on each topic, without duplicating the other articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I should altert everyone that there is an NCCAM page that differentiates the terms http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/. I'll even quote it for you:

Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?

Yes, they are different.

* Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.

* Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor.

So according to NCCAM the only difference is whether or not conventional medicine is also used. Who thinks this distinction is enough to support three seperate articles? When the NCCAM discuss the types of CAM they group them together "What are the major types of complementary and alternative medicine?" So how is it OR to follow NCCAM's lead and group CAM together? Also, any other sources you would like me to quote? I wouldn't want to give the impression of trying to compete with authoritative organistations so I think it's only fair I allow the wikipedia community to review all of these sources and let them make up their own minds. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See complementary medicine. That article clearly shows that an article bigger than a stub can be written on that topic. Just because NCCAM might not have a better page on it means absolutely nothing. But, I will check to see if NCCAM has a better webpage on this topic. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So first you accuse me of OR and demand me to use the opinion of an authoritative organisation, giving NCCAM as an example and now that I quote it, NCCAM isn't enough? Tell me, what reliable source should I be using? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering your position on the Energy therapy Classification I rather doubt that quoting any organization would do any good at all. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So is there some reason you are not answering this question "What reliable source should I be using?" JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing at complementary medicine that couldn't be more profitable merged here, or pruned/moved elsewhere for OR/WEIGHT reasons. I don't see the benefit to readers in having separate articles on suhc poorly differentiates topics.--Jim Butler^(talk) 06:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge. The sooner, the better, so we can again have useful information in one place and avoid POVFORKing. By definition, CAM is a single set of therapies, which in turn may be differentiated into alternative or complementary depending on whether or not they are practiced, respectively, apart from or along with mainstream med. They are two sides of a single coin that flips depending on the individual(s) practicing them. --Jim Butler^(talk) 10:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but either post the proper merge banners in all of the respective articles or kindly cease with your very private discussion. A very public discussion is required by any motion to merge. -- John Gohde (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok this will be done. JamesStewart7 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The public discussion, officially starts over of this moment. And, the count for conducting a public discussion a reasonable length of time, starts over at the moment that you posted the banners on the respective articles. Happy New Year! -- John Gohde (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that the alternative medicine article has a very long history. For that reason alone, it should not be merged. Likewise complementary and alternative medicine has a fairly long history which documents that editors want to see an article on CAM. Hence, in order to avoid a never ending series of edit wars; it is perfectly obvious to me that both articles should exist. The only question to be resolved is whether a separate complementary medicine can exist that is bigger than a stub. The answer is yes, because such an article currently exists.

To resolve this never ending issue once once and for all, all three articles have to independently exist. We have an opportunity to resolve this problem. And, I say KEEP all three articles separate and independent of each other. Just edit them to avoid duplicate content. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. The degree of overlap between the three pages is excessive and difficult to synchronize as new references are added. How would one determine whether a particular therapy is "complementary" or "alternative"? Would we continually monitor the NIH CAM page and when they approve something, move it from alternative to complementary? But they are just one source. What if some doctors start using a treatment that has not been completely proven, how many doctors have to use it before it changes from "alternative" to "complementary"? If the articles attempt that differentiation, there will be a constant churn of modalities and references from article to article. There are also problems with confused talk page discussions where threads get lost between the different articles or multiple discussions occur in parallel, adding effort and diluting effectiveness. The issues of research, scientific method, criticism, legal status, regulation, etc, interconnect for the three topics. By merging the article we can address them in one place. In doing the merge, we could organize the article with sections for each where it's appropriate to separate alternative from complementary, but in situations where information may move from one to the other, the related references will easily move along with the text rather than needing to be moved between articles. Overall, much better to merge them into one clearly sourced summary style page, with an overview and sections common to the whole field, including sociological and legal aspects, and then short sections for individual healing modalities with links to their separate articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree! Criticisms of individual branches of CAM belongs in their respective articles. The overview articles should remain overview articles. And, plain old good hypertext document design dictates that the subject is simply way too big to fit in just one article. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that any merger would involve the removal of redundant information and a summary of similar but slightly different but heavily overlapping information. There is a fair bit of this eg. "Use of alternative medicine alongside conventional medicine" section in alternative medicine and well, half of the complementary medicine page. Also following from what Jack-A-Roe was saying, there are rather large POV differences between the three pages. Compare the rather lengthy criticism section on the alternative medicine pages to the complete lack of such a section on the other pages.JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature? A merger is not a replacement. And, any attempt to merge any material into complementary and alternative medicine can be contested by anyone. Furthermore, a consensus has to be first reached in talk on a section by section basis, at the very least. Any wholesale replacement attempts can be reverted by anybody for failing to first reach a consensus in talk. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS and the WP:RFC process. It might take a while to get enough input from people so we can find the consensus, but once it's found, if it is in favor of for a merge, then the merge can be executed according to the consensus. That's the purpose of the RfC. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Three separate articles, albeit with some inherent overlaps, seem to be the only way forward from the inherent POV pile of partisan bias, pseudoscience, pseudoskepticism, WP:OR, bile and *total* confusion of the previous all-in-one-train-wreck. I would favor Stub or Delete before Merge (again). Although I have been known to be willing to sink time into sorting out technical controversy, I have avoided the all-in-one combined CAM article and its precursors from well over a year ago when I recognized the merged version as a piece of hopeless, insensible, irresolvable dreck. The technical, social and political differences, as well as the resulting different priorities, between complementary and alternative versions of the same CAM areas are notable and important threads to maintain. A single combined article will definitely be too long and too generalized to be understandable to average readers as well as insufficiently accurate. With WP:V, actual GF, and NPOV articles, it might be sorted out this time. If this is a Merger vote, it needs to be formalized.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that this discussion was not created according to the correct procedures (formalizing merger vote) can you please just correct it for me. I have little experience with these types of things. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly favor the merge plan, but I do also relate to your concerns. I was thinking if it was merged as one article it could be done in WP:Summary Style to avoid the long article overload you're describing, with the modality details in separate articles and keeping the legal/regulatory issues in the main article. Whichever way it goes though, many of the issues you brought up will likely continue to need attention. As far as formalizing the merge vote, I don't have experience with that... is there a specific procedure for that? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for TheNautilus: I can certainly relate to your aversion to the massive problems entrained in CAM, CM and AM. At the same time, what is it that could be said in any one of those articles that couldn't be said in the others? Beyond the very basic sphere-of-practice differentiation, or a mention of various CAM definitions, which overlap so much they virtually beg to be put under the big "CAM" umbrella (as the most authoritative source we have, the Institute of Medicine, has done)? I agree with Jack-A-Roe above that however it goes, it will still be (for awhile) a contentious mess, so my inclination has been to at least avoid the POV-forking and have a grand, solitary mess, and then fix that. Then we could work to keep the CAM article as VER and big-picture as possible (per WP:WEIGHT), with links to lists of various CAM's. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I am in favor of keeping all three articles separate and independent of each other and editing them to avoid duplicate content. -- Vitaminman 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to decide either one of two things here. Either we merge the articles or we come to a consenus as to how exactly we will avoid duplicate content. Vitaminman how would you suggest we avoid duplicate content? JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, the articles need to focus less on health modalities and more on the specific ethos/belief system of each term (i.e. Complementary, Alternative, etc). "Complementary" practitioners - generally speaking - see themselves as complementing the regular healthcare system, whilst "Alternative" practitioners see themselves as an alternative to it. Remember too that the term "Complementary medicine" is a relatively new one, historically speaking, whilst the term "Alternative medicine" has been around for a lot longer. -- Vitaminman 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that is an interesting suggestion but this is the current coverage of that in the complementary medicine article "The term 'complementary' has come into regular usage in the last 15 years,[5] commonly understood as complementing conventional medicine. Practitioners often label complementary medicine as such because they beleive that it complements more of the needs of the patient than conventional medicine" and I see nothing like this in the alternative medicine article or the complementary and alternative medicine article. So do you have enough reliable sources on which to base two seperate articles on? JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that there are indeed enough reliable sources on which to base two separate articles. -- Vitaminman 10:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to offer an example? JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - these are from today's news:

New laws to govern alternative medicine

These treatments may have their place, but we must not be foolhardy

Alternative but exciting!

-- Vitaminman 11:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per discussion above. WE are dealing with distinct (albeit related) subjects. There is enough information to have separate articles which don't overlap too much. Complimentary and Alternative are clearly distinct and CAM has become a popular umbrella term with context unto its own. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Though I am not a 'regular editor' my view is to keep them as separate articles primarily for the reasons given above: above all, the two subjects are sufficiently different from each to warrant them being kept separate. Alternative means an alternative to mainstream chemical medicine; complementary often means a rag-bag of stuff with no philosophy just thrown together for use by chemical medicine people pretending to use anything that might work short-term and throwing away the philosophy, while also pandering to fashionable middle-class bourgeois intelligentsia who might like some alt med. Western Acupuncture is a prime example of that approach. It is thus unholistic plundering and a misappropriation of complete systems and their annexation and subordination by devotees of imperialistic chemical medicine. My ten cents FWIW Peter morrell 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is temporarily suspended

Please contribute there instead, not by continued voting, but by preparing a proper RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the Difference between Alternative and Complementary Medicine?

The difference is both significant and quite easy to figure out.[1] Also see complementary medicine -- John Gohde (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm the content of that link states the exact same reason as the NCCAM page " And most importantly they are used in an adjunctive fashion along with, not instead of, mainstream therapy." They expanded on it slightly "especially dangerous because they are usually offered as literal alternatives to mainstream care." so maybe we can expanded the definition of complementary medicine to "used with with conventional care or promoted as being adjunctive to conventional care" I still haven't heard anyone point out any differences other than whether or not conventional care is also used. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is a difference. In the US, the most authoritative description, or at least the most often quoted one in these articles, seems to be the one on the NCCAM NIH web page. But there, as James Stewart noted above, the difference is simply whether a treatment is used together with conventional medicine, or separately from it. Many therapies fall within both of those; there is no point at which a great blessing of a particular therapy is made and it becomes complementary rather than alternative. An example is acupuncture and medical acupuncture. Both of those articles refer to the modality as "alternative". But acupuncture is often used along with conventional medicine for pain management, and often the patient's doctor is aware of it or even suggests it, when there is no better solution available. So is acupuncture "alternative" or "complementary"? Who decides that, and when? What kind of reliable source would be used to assure it's listed in the correct article?

This is a gray area; even the NIH has trouble with it. I've read their webpage and their articles about the different modality groups. They do not specify for any of them whether they are alternative or complementary. They group them all together in the combined title of CAM, as we should do here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is totally besides the point. Both AM and CM have different definitions. And, there is enough material to write a complete article on CM. That is the only thing that counts. Criticisms of individual branches of CAM belong on their respective articles. -- 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs)

There are some useful definitions on the University of Pittsburgh's Alternative Medicine homepage. Vitaminman 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The real difference

The real "difference" has nothing to do with the remedies or methods themselves, since they are exactly the same in every way but one - the setting in which they are used, which is also what the definitions are stating.

The statement ((a personal opinion by one MD - Cassileth BR. (see below!) - in a short Q&A)) quoted above by JamesStewart7 that "alternative" methods are "especially dangerous because they are usually offered as literal alternatives to mainstream care," has nothing to do with the methods, but the setting. Keeping people from using EBM care that can save their lives, and instead offering them methods that may be innocuous or worthless, can cost them their lives. That's what happens when alternative methods are used as an "alternative" in the strict sense. When the same methods are used alongside ("complementary") mainstream care, an MD is involved and the person is also receiving care that has some form of proven benefit that has a reasonable chance of helping them, even if the alternative therapy isn't doing anything.

This may sound rather simple, but it's actually more complicated. One of the few research studies that has compared what happens with cancer patients who use mainstream cancer care and those who use it in addition to alternative care (IOW the "complementary" model), showed disastrous results for the complementary model. An excellent and large Norwegian study clearly showed that, of those cancer patients who use alternative treatment methods while undergoing mainstream cancer treatment (radiation and chemotherapy), more of them die, and they do it sooner than those who use mainstream treatment alone. For them, using the complementary approach (IOW using alternative medicine at all in this case) is a clear disadvantage:

• "Does use of alternative medicine predict survival from cancer?" Eur J Cancer 2003 Feb;39(3):372-7

Risberg T, Vickers A, Bremnes RM, Wist EA, Kaasa S, Cassileth BR. (also quoted above)

Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Tromso, Tromso, Norway

This study examines the association between alternative medicines (AM) and cancer survival. A national multicentre study was carried out in Norway in December 1992 to assess the prevalence of AM use among cancer patients. One of the aims of this study was to assess the association between AM and long-time survival. In January 2001, survival data were obtained with a follow-up of 8 years for 515 cancer patients. A total of 112 (22%) assessable patients used AM. During the follow-up period, 350 patients died. Death rates were higher in AM users (79%) than in those who did not use AM (65%). In a Cox regression model adjusted for demographic, disease and treatment factors, the hazard ratio of death for any use of AM compared with no use was 1.30, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.99, 1.70; P=0.056), suggesting that AM use may predict a shorter survival. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the negative association between AM use and survival. AM use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use=2.32, 95% CI, 1.44, 3.74, P=0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher. The use of AM seems to predict a shorter survival from cancer. The effect appears predominantly in patients with a good PS.

PMID 12565991 [PubMed - in process]

• Alternative medicine use by cancer patients associated with shorter survival

POSTED 03.19.2003

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The mortality rate among patients with cancer is higher in those who use alternative medicines than in those who do not, according to a report in the February issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Terje Risberg, of the University Hospital of Tromso, Norway, and colleagues examined the use of alternative medicines by cancer patients at multiple centers in Norway, and assessed the effect on long-term survival. The 515 patients in the study were followed for 8 years.

Three hundred fifty patients (68%) died during follow-up, according to the team. Alternative medicines were used by 112 patients (22%). Of these, 88 (79%) died during follow-up, compared with 262 of the 403 patients (65%) who did not use alternative medicine.

In an adjusted Cox regression model, the hazard ratio of death associated with alternative medicine use compared with no use was 1.30 (p = 0.056). The investigators observed no differences between different types of alternative medicine.

"Alternative medicine use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use = 2.32; p = 0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher," Dr. Risberg and colleagues report.

The investigators believe this is the first study to show a negative correlation between alternative medicine use and survival. They express doubt that the effect is causal, since the alternative methods used "seem rather innocuous," and surmise that alternative medicine use may be a marker of some other unrecognized prognostic factor.

Even though the analysis controlled for disease severity, Dr. Risberg and colleagues suggest that alternative medicine use may reflect patients' perceptions of their prognosis. "Indeed," they write, "patients may estimate the gravity of their situation more accurately than their physicians."

This results in a now documented 30% increased death rate among cancer victims who also use alternative medicine, not in those who use alternative medicine alone. The sure way to be more certain of dying, and of doing it quicker, is to use alternative medicine alone. That's what happened to my mother and my mother-in-law. They used alt med and then sought conventional care only after it was too late to save them. The purely "alternative" approach gets the old-fashioned results, a close to 100% death sentence for those cancer patients who use it exclusively. Just look at what happened to nearly all cancer victims 50-60 years ago. They all died of their cancer, with very few exceptions. Nowadays far more live longer with their cancer, and far more are cured and live to die of other diseases or simply of old age. [Italicized words added later for clarity. See comments below.]

BTW, the two references above are V & RS and can be used at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, and at the risk of being accused of being pedantic, either they all died, or some of them lived. In other words, "They all died, with very few exceptions" is both factually and grammatically incorrect. My point? Simply that it never was - and still isn't - true that anybody who doesn't receive orthodox med. treatments for chronic disease is condemning themselves to death. -- Vitaminman 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're responding to a grammatical issue, though Fyslee's actual point does not hinge on that wording. Antelan ^talk 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the clumsy wording. I'll fix my comment above to make clearer what was my obvious meaning. -- Fyslee / talk 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is being edited on a daily basis

The fact that people are constantly editing this article speaks for the need to keep it independent from the alternative medicine article. And, if you are going to have a separate alternative medicine article, then you are going to have a developed article on complementary medicine. It seem clear enough for me. Wikipedia is big enough to support the three separate articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I've edited the CAM articles recently and I do not feel my edits "speaks for the need to keep it independent from the alternative medicine article". I'm also of the opinion that I'm of a better authority to speak of what is intended by my own edits than anyone else. Also most of the recent edits have been part of various POV disputes and there have even been disputes involving differing opinions about the scope of the article (John Gohde you were even recently involved in one such dipute about the mind-body medicine section of the complementary medicine article) so I really fail to see how continual editing is really proof of anything. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing of articles on a world class neutral encyclopedia is always a group project. And, I fail to see why this particular article would be any different from let see, the tampon article for example. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How to differentiate the complementary and alternative medicine articles

This seems a necessary discussion that will both influence whether we should do a merger and the appropriate course of action if a merger is not performed. As of now, only one user (Anthon01) has made clear suggestions as to how we may avoid redundancy between the articles. I am creating this section here to avoid clogging up the RfC and to make the discussion more readable. I invite all editors who oppose the merger to provide their own suggests as to how me may differentiate the articles.

Anthon01 states, using herbal medicine as an example: You would have two different discussions about the same herb, not the same discussion.

• Complementary - conventional therapy + herbal, that is the synergy.
• Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better, (eg. side-effects, cost, duration of treatment, etc) ...

No need for redundancy.

Others have countered that this violates WP:Summary style. In response Anthon01 states "However a brief summary, perhaps 1 sentence, of significant research could be included with a link". I contend that such content does not actualy exist in herbal medicine. The term CAM is used throughout the article and there is no discussion of herbal medicine use with conventional treatment as opposed to without conventional treatment. This is the closest the article comes to such a discussion "Herb drug interactions are a concern. In consultation with a physician, usage of herbal remedies should be clarified, as some herbal remedies have the potential to cause adverse drug interactions when used in combination with various prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals." The utility of the herbal medicine example may also be limited here as other alternative medicines eg homeopathy may not produce any interactions with conventional medicine.

I predict major problems with the creation of an article based on combined conventional medicine/complementary medicine use due to a lack of RS in this area. Take a look at the complementary medicine article. Virtually all the RS that refer to complementary medicine only are just defining the term. There is a small section about how comlementary medicine is often used with conventional care but this same section states (with a RS as support) that doctors are often unaware of conventional treatment. Hence, I see no way that the majority of doctors could plan a treatment program around using complementary and conventional medicine together in a constructive way. Furthermore, I see no RS stating that the majority or even a signficiant minority of doctors actually prescribe complementary medicine. The pallative care section discusses combined complementary medicine and conventional medicine use but one of the references (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/kel10295_fm-2.html) seems to use the terms complementary medicine and alternative medicine interchangeable, "Palliative care has a working relationship with what has been variously called “alternative”, “complementary” or “traditional” healthcare". The other reference in ths section (http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/suppl_5/S15#SEC5) also does this "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment modalities..." The one reference that uses the complmentary medicine term exclusively (http://www.webmd.com/balance/tc/complementary-medicine-mind-body-interventions) is in the mind body section and I do not consider this a reliable source. It provides no references for any of its assertions. It is a popular science/health magazine type website that includes unscientific quizzes such as this one "http://www.webmd.com/content/tools/1/diet_readiness_quiz" and the article was not written by a doctor although there is a primary medical reviewer who is a doctor. So although Anthon01 makes a reasonable distinction, we do not seem to have enough RS to support such a distinction. If such RS do exist they are not referenced in the current complementary medicine article.

The other suggestion was this "Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better". Phrasing the content of the article as "Which is better?" seems to be an invitation for a POV battleground so I think we should largely avoid such an approach. Nevertheless, this does seem to be the approach the alternative medicine articles has taken. The content of the article is largely splite into a support and criticism section. WP policy states that we should avoid such a layout (Template:Criticism-section), but this seems to be the natural result of defining the article scope as "which is better?". There are other problems with this suggestion. Many of the criticisms listed in the alternative medicine article could be applied to both complementary medicine and alternative medicine. For example, there is no reason that the "lack of proper testing" or the "safety" criticisms would apply to alternative medicine only. These are in fact the largest criticisms of the area. If we restrict these criticism to the alternative medicine article and do not mention them in the complementary medicine article this makes the complementary medicine article a POV fork. There are only two criticisms that would apply to complementary medicine only or alternative medicine only, "Danger can be increased when used as a complement to conventional medicine" and "Delay in seeking conventional medical treatment". Given that the majority of the criticisms apply to both complementary and alternative medicine it seems much simpler to tackle both types of CAM together. The next problem is the length of the support section. Only this is referenced "Advocates of alternative medicine hold that the various alternative treatment methods are effective in treating a wide range of major and minor medical conditions, and contend that recently published research (such as Michalsen, 2003,[16] Gonsalkorale 2003,[17] and Berga 2003[18]) proves the effectiveness of specific alternative treatments. They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991,[19] and Linde 1997". That much content is not enough for a whole article and again these claims could apply to both complementary and alternative medicine.

It seems that most suggestions to keep complementary and alternative medicine section have major POV fork issues with the complementary medicine article giving a far more positive review than the alternative medicine article. This seems inappropriate as basically the same treatments are used in each case. Both the complementary and alternative medicine articles state that aromatherapy, chiropracty and osteopathy are part of CAM. Unless someone can establish that these treatments somehow become more effective when used in conjunction with conventional treatment (and it is not just the conventional treatment which is effective) then both the complementary medicine and alternative medicine articles should give similar evaluations of the topic. Even in the articles current form there are POV issues. Why does the crticism section only appear in the alternative medicine article when it may also be applied to complementary medicine?

I invite all editors with suggestions as to how we may differentiate the various CAM articles along with examples of particular RS that fall under the scope of particular articles here. I'd also like to here some suggestion as to how we may avoid POV fork issues if we are to keep all three articles seperate. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have tried to address most of your points in this post. I will have a few more comments later today.

• The CM and AM articles are in need of much work. My point was to present a frame work within which those articles could be edited or rewritten as three separate articles. A "complementary medicine " search on PubMed brought up 1665 articles and a google search on the same, limited to the nytimes.com site showed 2200 hits. A "alternative medicine " search on PubMed brought up 3484 articles and a google search on the same, limited to the nytimes.com site showed 6500 hits. Certainly there will be much overlap but I think we might find enough data to write separate and informative article.

• "Which is better" was 'one' suggestion as to content that could be included in the article. The "which is better" that you are talking of is different then what I proposed. "Which is better" is a valid discussion as I have seen some peer-reviewed (PR) articles that compare the effects of drugs vs. herbs for a particular condition. We wouldn't be including our own judgement but the results of research that compare the two. Comparision of efficacy are appropriate when avaiable and helpful to the reader.

• The AM article is roughly half criticism, 3 printed pages, and most of the criticism could be summarized in a few (3-5) sentences. POV battleground is unnecessary. IMO, the article should discuss the topic and criticisms, in a manner that makes the reading of the article informative and and at the same time, enjoyable to the reader. Criticism of CM and AM may overlap and where they do, we would include them in both using RS of course.

• The review of CM and AM should be based on what RS say about each. Treatments used in CM may differ from treatments used in AM. When then same tx is used in both the results may vary based on synergy, or lack of it, of the AM tx with or without the conventional component.

• I am not certain what this means They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991,[19] and Linde 1997". That much content is not enough for a whole article and again these claims could apply to both complementary and alternative medicine. Please clarify. --Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree will the points being raised by Anthon01. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that last point was unclear. The following quote constitutes all of the referenced content of the "support" section of alternative medicine

"Advocates of alternative medicine hold that the various alternative treatment methods are effective in treating a wide range of major and minor medical conditions, and contend that recently published research (such as Michalsen, 2003,[16] Gonsalkorale 2003,[17] and Berga 2003[18]) proves the effectiveness of specific alternative treatments. They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991,[19] and Linde 1997"

These same claims could be applied to complementary medicine (just swap the word alternative for complementary and change the relevant numbers). This poses two problems for the split. The length is a problem as if we break up the content and place parts of it on seperate articles then we do not have much information on each article. The applicability to both complementary and alternative medicine is also a problem as it is unclear which article these claims should be placed in.

"Criticism of CM and AM may overlap and where they do, we would include them in both using RS of course." This is half the reason the merger was suggested. We don't want large areas of redundancy.

"Certainly there will be much overlap but I think we might find enough data to write separate and informative article." I don't. We also have an article for each type of CAM eg homeopathy. The vast majority of those hits will have the word alternative mentioned in say an acpuncture article. So such content would go in the respective articles.

"I have seen some peer-reviewed (PR) articles that compare the effects of drugs vs. herbs for a particular condition." And I'm also betting that herbalism is the only area in which this is done. I'm also confident that most of these trials compare the whole herb to a particular extract. You can't take the efficacy of one herb and generalize it to the whole area of alternative medicine or even herbalism either. Also, most of the arguments against CAM are that it has not been adequately tested. Only products that have had at least some testing (but perhaps still not adequate testing) may be admitted into this process. Furthermore, perhaps only even products that have demonstrated some efficacy may be admitted into this process (people tend to do placebo trials before drug comparisons). Therefore, this would really skew the POV of the debate.

"Treatments used in CM may differ from treatments used in AM." I have not seen a RS for this. In fact I haven't seen a reliable source for any of the distinctions mentioned so far. People can go on all day about how AM and CM are really different and how there are all these references out there but until someone can actually point to one of these references, I'm going to continue assuming they don't exist. Btw Vitaminman pointed to a few above but what I gathered from those references is that complementary and alternative medicine are the same thing but in one case conventional medicine is used, which has little bearing on either treatment. I need to see a reference that goes beyond this difference.

Also Anthon01, suggesting that we greatly reduce the criticisms section (without moving the points elsewhere) isn't really aleviating my (and probably anyone else's) concerns that the CM article is a POV fork of AM. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is criticism overkill in the AM article. The point of criticisms is to inform the reader. You don't have to list every criticism that you find in every RS in the article, in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary. The article is more criticism then anything else. Anthon01 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is essential to WP:NPOV which states "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" so I think we do have to take all steps necessary to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. You never actually answered how we would deal with the problems listed in WP:Fork either. Currently the CM article avoids negative facts and the alternative medicne article highlighting them. This is the only way we would avoid a POV fork "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view," yet people are suggesting that CM is not a POV (general philosophy or special term) but an entire medical practice so I don't see how this would apply. JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with specific therapies, that should be done in their respective articles. That will save alot of problems. WEIGHT is important, and since CAM (both sides of the same coin) is by definition fringe and not fully accepted, that automatically means there will be (and there is!) lots of discussion and disagreement between CAM supporters and mainstream medicine. That's an undeniable fact that also underlies the very reason we are even discussing this matter. Let the V & RS speak. The history of CAM is defined by disagreement, controversy, and criticism on both sides. The mainstream side says there isn't enough evidence, that the methods are quackery, and often either dangerous or lacking effect, and the CAM side says that the mainstream is guilty of conspiracies and killing people. There always has been and still is intense competition. That can't be deleted or kept out by claiming "criticism overkill". That's what history and the sources tell us, and we have to tell it like it is. -- Fyslee / talk 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fylsee: I generally agree with what you are saying. My point is that the level of detail in the criticism section of the AM article is overkill. I am not opposed to including criticism just the level of detail and sheer word count. You could say the same thing without turning it into three printed pages of text. Much of the criticism on that page could be summarized. If we were to remove the criticism section of the article and merge all that into the rest of the text of the article, you would have an article that is 3/4 criticism in terms of volume of text. That would come off as an endless stream of criticism. Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I hear you! I have websites (which I hardly ever edit anymore, they just sit there), and I have always tried to stay on-topic and maintain one POV. Other POV don't get equal treatment. In that regard Wikipedia is very different, and it has been hard for me and many other webmasters to get used to. We aren't used to accommodating other POV, especially if we consider them to be wrong. Well, here it's very different. Many articles have no criticism at all, simply because they are uncontroversial subjects. Here we are writing articles about some of the most controversial subjects in the health care arena, and that is reflected in the sources and therefore the articles.

If you or I were to make our websites on these subjects, they wouldn't have this type of coverage, but here NPOV and WEIGHT require it. I don't see any way we can avoid it. We are actually writing from the trenches in a well-documented war between the established health care system and those who either want to get "in", or who want no one controlling what they do. It is a war between paradigms too. It is the implementation of Marilyn Ferguson's (read that article here) bestselling classic [http://www.amazon.com/Aquarian-Conspiracy-Marilyn-Ferguson/dp/0874774586 "The Aquarian Conspiracy"] (no secret at all), and it is getting resistance. It can't get anymore controversial than that.

I stated above that we are writing "from the trenches," because as editors here we have to put our own POV aside while writing articles (although talk pages do get seasoned with them...;-). We become neutral "journalists" documenting the bullets and shells flying over our heads from both sides, and we write home about what both sides are doing. The only way to avoid so much criticism in the article would be to create a POV fork, but that is not allowed here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: The other way is to summarize. The critical POV will still be there only in won't make up 3/4 of the article. For instance Angell commentary

"Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, states that "...since many alternative remedies have recently found their way into the medical mainstream [there] cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted."

could be summarized as

"Angell discounts the alternative and conventional classifications, suggesting the the only classifications should be proven and unproven."

Anthon01 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to admit I don't see it as a problem, as explained above. With a merging of the articles it will be even less visible. Her statement is especially interesting for several reasons: her status, her total rejection of "alternative" as a legitimate class of medicine, her explanation that proof is what counts, not identifying labels, and her explanation of how effective medicine becomes accepted, regardless of its origins. That quote says an awful lot. -- Fyslee / talk 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which don't you see as a problem? The current text or the summation that I have posted here. I present this as an example of how to summarize in order to diminish the word count but still get the criticism in. So are you ok with the article consisting of 3/4 criticism? Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with it, and WEIGHT would require it, since the scientific POV has prevalence, and because of the very nature of the subject, which is defined by controversy. The percentage would be lower if the articles were remerged. As to the quote you are dealing with, it has so many important elements that it shouldn't be summarized. -- Fyslee / talk 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that we temporarily withdraw RfC

Too many issues remain unresolved. Suggest we withdraw the RfC until we are clear about what are differences are. An RfC should be clear about what is it asking. An uninvolved editor will have a hard time shifting through all this data and making a recommendation; I would think the number of comments would be severely limited by our lack of clarity. We should discuss this issue here first so once the RfC is reposted (if necessary) we can clearly and concisely list our POVs pro vs. con. Assuming we agree I would also recommend that our pre-RfC discussion follow a format where successive comments are posted under the last comment to make it easier for us to follow the discussion, as much as possible. The multiple sub threads in one section makes it very difficult to follow the chronology of this talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok we'll take RfC down and leave merger up. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Another attempt to bypass an RFC? Will we end up just having to repeat ourselves? -- Fyslee / talk 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. The purpose of an RfC is to attract more editors, to break-up logjams when it's just a small group of editors on an article. Seems to me the RfC should stay active until there is a consensus about whether or not to merge the articles. What's the hurry? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Do you both think that the RfC as it stands should be reinstated? I suggested postponing it, because as it stands the RfC just states should it be merged or not without providing clear arguments for or against. Arguments for or against seem fractured and are still evolving. Fyslee, you've been here a lot longer than me. If you believe that it should remain active then I will support it.

However, the RfC summary says

There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine. The question for the RfC is, should the three articles be merged?"

This is not an accurate summary of the situation. We all know that CM and AM treatments are the same except that CM is a small subset of AM. I think the summary should edited to reflect the real difference of opinion we are having. Anthon01 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Another exception to CM = AM is when CM is used in conjunction with conventional medicine (COM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I assume you mean CAM, rather than COM? In which case it isn't an exception. CM is when AM is used in conjunction with conventional medicine. CAM just includes both settings. -- Fyslee / talk 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading these articles for a while now and don't see the difference between the topics. The articles on CM and CAM are almost identical, and the article on Alt-med is mostly criticism. If the articles were merged, there would be 2/3 the total number of words.

If you don't feel the RfC was stated clearly, it's fine with me if you want to re-state it more precisely. I just didn't understand the idea of removing it, since it seems like more editors with new perspective could be helpful.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well why don't we all try and create a list of questions that we won't the RfC to address so that we may reinstate it. I conceeded that the RfC may be removed because the merger is staying up and the RfC did not attract any outside editors anyway. This may be partly due to a lack of clarity on the talk page. Perhaps asking directly whether AM anc CM should be merged is not desireable as it requires an understanding of many of the issues involved and hence will not be commented on by uninvolved editors. Maybe we should ask a question that, if a positive answer is given, will mean a merger is desirable eg. "Is complementary medicine a POV fork of alternative medicine?" I originally stated this because "There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine" I thought that was the primary dispute. Anthon01 states otherwise. If this is not the dispute can someone please try to explain to me exactly what the dispute is then? I think the RfC should go back up ASAP but it needs to be rephrased in a way so that outside edtiors can address it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. This is an RfC I wrote that I thought was easy for an uninvolved editor to follow.[2] I present it here as an example. The topic at hand is more involved, but the format makes it easier for the non-involved reader to review. I will write some thoughts about the issues of the RfC a little later. I must concede that I am beginning to lean in the direction of a merger. Anthon01 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The more I look through article and edit histories in preparation for Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2, the more I see of previous discussions related to merging, and who has said what. It's all very interesting and gives a much deeper understanding of why the subject has been discussed so much before, and why various editors have brought it up, including totally uninvolved editors who have simply popped in and commented on the similarities in the articles that made merging a natural solution. -- Fyslee / talk 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC is therefore temporarily suspended

Yes, I do want the RfC to remain active, but since there are doubts about the summary, it should be rephrased. Let's create a mutually agreeable sammary and then use it and start anew. We should probably use the proper template this time - {{RFCsci}} - (I think that's the closest to our topic area) from here: Request comment on articles. Let's do it right this time.

Our statement should probably include a disclaimer, IOW what we are already agreed upon, so we don't rehash that matter. Anthon01 summed it up above: "We all know that CM and AM treatments are the same except that CM is a small subset of AM."

Let me try a disclaimer (what we are no longer discussing) and a summary of the dispute, and then everyone comment, agree, disagree, and then let's synthesize a mutually agreeable result before calling in outside opinions. The template will do that by automatically placing the RfC here.

Suggestions for new RfC (do not edit this)

1. Basic agreement: (This is not the subject of this RfC.)

"The term "Complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) is an umbrella term for Complementary medicine (CM) and Alternative medicine (AM), and incorporates Integrative medicine and various subjects such as herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and diet-based therapies. As such the term CAM is not about a new or different topic than CM or AM. Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods, except that CM is a small subset of AM. It is the setting in which these methods are used that constitutes any difference, not the treatments themselves."

2. Basic dispute: (Shall we merge these four articles or not? State "Merge" or "Don't merge", and then present your reasoning in a civil manner, following the principles outlined here and here.)

"Are there so many overlaps and similarities in the four articles Complementary medicine, Alternative medicine, Integrative medicine, and Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), that it would be best that they all be merged into one article, leaving redirects at the three blanked articles, or are the differences so great as to warrant four separate articles? (HISTORY: These four articles have previously been merged into the Alternative medicine article.)"

3. Time limits: I suggest one week before the RfC is closed by an admin. It is not a vote, and an admin should make a judgment call based on the quality of the arguments.

4. Format: Similar to an AfD (Articles for deletion).

5. Formalized "canvassing": Instead of risking lots of private canvassing, let's do it properly. We place a formal notice on project spaces, the talk pages of all four articles, and maybe some other talk pages. Please suggest projects and talk pages.

(end of 'do not edit' section)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now let's assume the RfC hasn't restarted yet, and we are making preparations to start it again. What do you good people think of the above? Feel free to suggest better formats, templates, rewording, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not sound reasonable to me at all. Any move to change the rules of voting at this late stage of the motion to merge is not ethical. Any vote, whether for or against, should be counted regardless of the wording used to cast the vote. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John, you seem to be forgetting that we have taken Anthon01's suggestion at the beginning of this very section seriously, and that you backed him up on it too. Just read the back and forth discussion and you will see why we have ended up where we are now. Therefore the RfC actually IS suspended and any votes will need to be repeated when it is opened again. Don't worry, no votes will be "ignored" since they will certainly be repeated. Before reopening the RfC (and we're going to do it properly this time by getting much wider community input), we are trying to make sure we are all on the same page, which is what my comments immediately above are about. Just use the Template for discussion below and let's get on with developing a format for use in the upcoming RfC. To prevent confusion, I'll move your comments (which are improperly interjected above) below and you and others can continue there. Please AGF in this matter as I am not attempting to manipulate anything or anyone by moving your comments. They just need to be placed in the proper spot. -- Fyslee / talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my comments above are besides the point now, since John has now been banned for one year. -- Fyslee / talk 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree about the AM/CM and AM+CM wording of any RfC. Fyslee's moving my attempt(s) to discuss this, new section below.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Template for discussion (just copy, add your comments, and sign):

1. Basic agreement:

2. Basic dispute:

3. Time limits:

4. Format:

5. Formalized "canvassing":

---

John has just been banned for one year, so I'm striking this section, which can still be read. -- Fyslee / talk 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by John Gohde:

1. Basic agreement:

2. Basic dispute:

Strongly opposed. Being that all votes against the merge have used Keep rather than your arbitrary and totally awkward suggested Don't merge, it would be totally unethical to ignore any votes against the merge. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only 3 articles. Integrative medicine is not an article, although just like complementary medicine there is absolutely no reason why it could not be made into an article, beyond the fact that some editors keeping on deleting it. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Time limits:

4. Format:

5. Formalized "canvassing":

---

1. Basic agreement:

The term "Complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) is an umbrella term for Complementary medicine (CM) and Alternative medicine (AM), and incorporates Integrative medicine and various subjects such as herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and diet-based therapies.

As such the term CAM is not about a new or different topic than CM or AM but rather their relationship and utilization with conventional medicine. Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments may be the same AM treatment methods. CM is a subset of *all* AM but may be quite distinct from standalone AM treatments. The setting in which these methods are used, and the combination of convnetional and/or alternative methods, often constitute any differences, rather than the individual treatments themselves. In other cases, CM and AM may have similar rationales but much different specific treatments, particularly in biological therapies.

2. Basic dispute: (Shall we merge these four articles or not? State "Merge all", "Merge some (which?)" or "Don't merge", and then present your reasoning in a civil manner, following the principles outlined here and here.)

"Are there so many overlaps and similarities in the four articles Complementary medicine, Alternative medicine, Integrative medicine, and Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), that it would be best that they all be merged into fewer articles, leaving redirects at the blanked articles, or are the differences so important or notable as to warrant four separate articles? (HISTORY: These four articles have previously been merged into the Alternative medicine article with poor results and long acrimony.)"

3. Time limits:

I suggest 10 days before the RfC is closed by several experienced admins & editors with *strong NPOV* and science b/g (Gleng, where are you?). It is not a vote, and several admins should make notes as to their thinking based on the quality of the arguments.

4. Format: ditto

5. Formalized "canvassing": :ditto as above, plus affected subject articles For more suggestions and discussion, i suggest long answers further down below please, short comments and *difs* to any longer answers placed immediately below.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Disagreement about CM treatments are the same as AM treatment methods

I have to disagree about "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods," except that CM is a small subset of AM. In orthomolecular medicine, the most commonly presented complementary orthomed version for cancer (after Hoffer) is radically different than a strict alternative version, although the complementary version could conceivably approach the alternative version loads *if* the conventional chemotherapeutics weren't doing their job (otherwise, too much cytotoxic "success", no matter how selective for just cancer cells, can overload the patient containing significant cancer mass(es) with toxic debris from decay of too many necrosed cells at one time). Hoffer's complementary regimen is likely to be oral vitamin C, say 12-50⁺ grams per day, along with oral B50, espcially niacin and selenium, coQ10, so on[]. All-out-alternative, one might be talking the complementary version at 100+% plus intravenous vitamin C: 30 - 200 grams/day (2,3,4x/wk) with perhaps 45-120 milligram/d loads of vitamin K₂ (MK-4), tocopheryl succinates + gamma, delta tocotrienols, R-alpha lipoic acid, and other adjuvant extracts among other components.

In many cases, night and day different: complementary mega- versus alternative Mega-doses with more aggressive, advanced orthomed substances. In many cases fullbore orthomed treatment + fullbore favored conventional treatment would *not* be feasible but might still be favorably combined as complementary, lower doses: e.g. for hyperlipidemia: niacin fullbore - ok (conventional too); statin fullbore: conventional ok; statin fullbore + some niacin - ok, newly recognized for conventional pharmaceuticals (new patent); and fullbore niacin + some statin: long proposed *cheaper* alternative for pathological hyperlidiemia (too cheap); but fullbore niacin + fullbore statin is likely asking for percentages of trouble. Ditto complementary vs alternative orthomed and conventional medicine - *complementary orthomed treatments are not, and often absolutely should not be, the same as the alternative orthomed treatments for the same problem.*--TheNautilus (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)^{updated 16 January 2008}

I moved the comment above to this section as it is a very specialized ("esoteric"?) discussion without much relation to the attempt to prepare for a resumption of the RfC. Even if the above OR is true, then it is an exception to the rule. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, Fyslee. These are source based research, not OR. [http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Control-Without-Diet-Solution/dp/0966256875/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8575348-9736818?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200488013&sr=1-1 Statins, niacin & combos]; Complementary orthomed cancer treatments from Abram Hoffer's books, eg.[http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-Cancer-Discovery-Recovery-Controversy/dp/1550820788], and the alternative orthomed cancer treatment components, Brightspot, J Orthomolecular Med & TLDP This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.-Jimbo The AM vs CM treatments discussion also appears to apply to naturopathic & orthomolecular modalities in naturopathic medicine and chiropracty too. Perhaps other biologically based AM/CM treatments, too.

I have tried to clarify my statements, above. At orthomolecular medicine, I have a lot of flak with less informed others' mischaracterizations from their not recognizing orthomed (OMM) conventional trmts, OMM complementary trmts vs fully alternative OMM. (1) many think orthomolecular medicine is definitionally alternative medicine where, in fact, conventional, molecular medicine slowly absorbs the orthomolecular position, often when forced by events to do so - the debate would how many treatments are both orthomed and conventional are there (more than most think). (2) orthomolecular medicine draws upon mainstream research, or vice versa without acknowledgement. (3) there are significant differences between complementary and alternative uses of orthomed. (4) Orthomed is often fundamentally misrepresented, unwitting or not, by its opponents who constantly try to redefine OMM to suit their POV, ignorance & criticism and ignore decades of opportunity to improve the accuracy of their discussion & reportage, (4) overgeneralized statements by opponents who mistake various sources on deliberate overdoses and earlier megadosage medical treatements with (long known ~25-60+ years) less or non-orthomolecular versions of nutrients. (5) even some wannabe proponents & reviewers may be too eager to label (or agree to) everything orthomed being "alternative" when that is clearly not the case on a number of nutrient uses, as mentioned by editors of Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine , and its pioneers (e.g. Hoffer, Pauling).--TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar arguments may apply to complementary vs alternative uses of the herbal, and perhaps nutritional, parts of naturopathic medicine (naturopathy appears less aggressive on purified nutrients than alternative orthomed but more aggresive on herbal extracts). Also, remember some of the chiropractors are interested in parts of naturopathy and/or orthomed (eg. David G Williams). --TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is still a branch of orthomolecular medicine (and may therefore be more suited to the orthomolecular medcine article) but this is interesting none the less. Anyway do you have a reference for this? How about we replace this "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods, except that CM is a small subset of AM" with "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments involve the same AM treatment domains (eg acupuncture, orthomolecular medicine), except that CM is a small subset of AM"? JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my edits and comments above help, a short OMM book online[3].--TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

TheNautilus, your comments are very much appreciated. The main point (as originally intended) was, as JamesStewart7 has stated, that it is still the same methodologies generally known as "alternative" that are being used, and the reason they are called "complementary" in the different setting is that they aren't fully accepted as mainstream (yet). The finer details of slight adaptations made by certain practitioners would be good for the individual articles, such as your comments on orthomed. If what you say is true, and I don't have any reason to doubt it at present, then we're dealing with definition creep where the legitimate part of an alternative therapy is being used by more conventional practitioners in a conventional setting, and proponents of the alternative therapy are claiming their therapy is being used. But by changing the setting and the basic understanding behind the alternative use, we are dealing with a new situation. Using an illustration from my domain of physical medicine, "joint manipulation" vs. chiropractic "adjustments" come to mind. While they are superficially the same treatment, the reasons for their usage are lightyears apart, and the Palmerian philosophy is totally gone (and never was part of it as it preceeds Palmer) from the conventional use. Chiropractic "adjustments" of subluxations remain alternative, while joint manipulation has an alternative and a conventional usage. These types of differences can be elucidated in their relative articles (spinal adjustment and joint manipulation). "Adjustments" without "subluxations" are not chiropractic, and are not an alternative or even a complementary treatment form, but are joint manipulation, a mainstream treatment of certain joint problems without the "alternative" pseudoscientific baggage. I suspect the same thing is happening in orthomed, where orthomed is taking credit for some things happening in mainstream medicine, and vice versa, without giving credit, as you state above. Maybe no credit should be given, as in the case with manipulation vs adjustment.

JamesStewart7's wording above seems to clarify the difference and is a great improvement. -- Fyslee / talk 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

orthomed is taking credit for some things happening in mainstream medicine Some things in mainstream medical research happen to be very orthomolecular in the nature of their answer, e.g. for vitamin D₃,the human form, mainstream research shows that the RDA from the 90s (200 IU) is essentially an order of magnitude too low and these results are more rapidly accepted in OMM with certain caveats.

These "little" differences are considered life and death in many cases, perhaps measured in large fractions of a normal lifetime. Or more graphically, Hoffer's complementary cancer regimen for supplements might be a number of small handfuls of pills taken across the day, whereas the full blown alternative might additionally be dripping several bags per day directly into one's chest as well as more pills (usually they would try to keep it to one IV bag in an arm vein). These are not small differences, accuracy over sweeping generalizations (and deprecations) needs to be favored, starting with descriptions of classification.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My use above of the term "definition creep" may need explaining. Many alternative methods are combinations of things, some of which may have aspects of potential usefulness, but they are associated with aspects that are considered pseudoscientific, quackish, or otherwise unscientific or unethical. The good part is what has a possibility of getting accepted at some point in time, IF it can be separated from its origins. We need the pearl, without the garbage heap. Unfortunately for the public, some of alternative medicine is what has already been disproven and thrown on the garbage heap of medical history, and then revived by alt med practitioners and even conmen. It has already failed all tests.

We are dealing with alternative methods in two settings: used purely "alternatively" and used "complementarily". If an alternative method has some plausibility of legitimate usefulness (IOW not a whacko, quacko, bizarre notion), it may - even before sufficient evidence has been produced - begin to also be used in a complementary setting. It is then an alternative method that can also be labeled "complementary". (This may or may not be considered a sign of greater legitimacy, since the definition of "complementary" has little or nothing to do with scientific evidence of effectiveness, only that it is being used in conjunction with mainstream medicine. In this sense, which realities demonstrate time and time again, literally any form of alternative medicine can be termed "complementary".) But it may be a sign that more doctors are considering it somewhat useful, or that more doctors are caving in to pressure, or that more doctors are scientifically illiterate. There are many possibilities.

If an alternative method that is also complementary is tested thoroughly and a portion of it without the associated mumbo jumbo and pseudoscientific philosphy - IOW only the legitimate part - is well-proven using good research, that part then ceases to be alternative or complementary, but is now EBM and will be gradually accepted. It is improper to continue to call that part of the method C and AM, even though that is what usually happens. Definition creep occurs when such improper labelling continues to be used in an attempt to give legitimacy to the rest of the hocum that was associated with the method, IOW that part of what is left behind in the alternative and complementary version. It is an attempt to shoehorn the garbage into the mainstream. No, such a ploy should not be accepted, since in its original setting it is still alternative and dubious.

The same (good) portion can be labelled alternative when in its original (illegitimate) setting, or it can be labelled mainstream when purified and well-proven. Using my illustration from above, just because joint manipulation has some apparently limited usefulness in mainstream medicine (with such usage starting long before Palmer), doesn't mean that chiropractic adjustments of non-existent subluxations are no longer alternative. Far from it. The mainstream has continued to use (and resumed usage) of the useful part, while chiropractic has retained it in an illegitimate setting that has led to all kinds of problems. In this setting, definition creep occurs when it is claimed that chiropractic is mainstream, is not alternative, or that chiropractic adjustments are mainstream. More on this... -- Fyslee / talk 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing different areas and, again, impartial Science and Medicine are *not* synonymous. Some CAM, like many orthomed treatments, are born based on science results that have significant political and economic stakes, where the "mainstream" institutions (govt, charities, universities, med'l professions) have studiously avoided EBM on simple experiments with extremely large stakes for ~60 years, 70 yrs if you count the hominid testing stage. The mainstream medicine & pharmacology is considered more objectively as an aggressive commercial and economic competitor in some of these discussions, with demonstrated lapses and structural problems in science, rather than as automatically *the* impartial judge of all "science". And there are a number of sources floating around on this issue.

, but they are associated with aspects that are considered pseudoscientific, quackish, or otherwise unscientific or unethical. The good part is what has a possibility of getting accepted at some point in time, IF it can be separated from its origins. We need the pearl, without the garbage heap. Unfortunately for the public, some of alternative medicine is what has already been disproven and thrown on the garbage heap of medical history, and then revived by alt med practitioners and even conmen. It has already failed all tests.

Well, the human species is more uniform in behavior than we sometimes like to admit. Medicine as the institution, itself has had a lot of problems with achieving timely, incisive, impartial science on new science based modalities, where the subterfuges on the Piltdown Man persisted for less time than a number of old medical "chestnuts" of "disproof" that have less basis than Enron stock, to this day. I think that non-scientific usages, like "pseudoscientific", "quackish", "ploy" or even "unethical" interfere with objective thought for both WP editors and readers.

medicine can be termed "complementary".) But it may be a sign that more doctors are considering it somewhat useful, or that more doctors are caving in to pressure, or that more doctors are scientifically illiterate. There are many possibilities. That needs to be discussed in the CM article length without the distractions of the rest of the AM article.

"complementary" has little or nothing to do with scientific evidence of effectiveness, only that it is being used in conjunction with mainstream medicine. Sounds like a natural discussion item in the separate CM article.

A reason to have separate CM, AM, CAM articles is to eliminate, or at least make more identifiable, contamination and overgeneralizations whether pseuoscience or pseudoskepticism. Also "alternative" is often the bludgeon of a rampant non-scientific "skepticism" at WP that certainly has disrespected those parts of CM and CAM that have enough plausibility, or at least safety, to merit some kind of co-exisitence with conventional medicine.

All though there can be a lot of overlap CM<-->CAM<-->AM, it is the *differences* that need to be discussed, described and kept separate, in different articles - I don't think that the specific alternative therapy article links are sufficient to properly handle this problem. That also invites a widening of the pseudoscience-pseudoskeptical arguments to the individual subject articles again, where frankly, there's has been enough of that "stuff" already; CAM, CM AM need to be accurately discussed in their own articles. Science usually advances with higher resolution, more precise descriptions and sharper thinking, not just dumping the same old crap in one big blender like the previous monolithic "alternative medicine[, pseudoskepticism]" article.

I'll make no bones about it. For the health of Wikipedia, it editors, and perhaps the larger readership, I am hopeful that most of the contagion of vitriol, pseudo-whatever, and POV can be somewhat containerized with the "alternative medicine" article itself and made more specific to a narrower part of the spectrum after the broad generalities.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm having a bit of trouble understanding you but are you trying to say that mainstream and CAM medicine are of equal scientific standing but CAM is pushed into the fringe because of bias from "govt, charities, universities, med'l professions"? Or are you trying to say that mainstream medicine is actually not evidence based? That's what I gather from the first paragraph but I am not sure whether I am interpreted you correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a rather large push towards Evidence-based medicine in most hospitals? Are you also saying that medicine under the term "complementary" is perceived as more legitimate/efficacious than "alternative"? That seems to be what you are saying here "medicine can be termed "complementary".) But it may be a sign that more doctors are considering it somewhat useful, or that more doctors are caving in to pressure, or that more doctors are scientifically illiterate." It seems to me that a large reason for your opposal to a merger is POV reasons "That also invites a widening of the pseudoscience-pseudoskeptical arguments to the individual subject articles again, where frankly, there's has been enough of that "stuff" already; CAM, CM AM need to be accurately discussed in their own articles" wheareas I would argue that you are advocating a Wikipedia:Fork by doing. Wikipedia policy states that viewpoints should be referenced in proportion to the number of reliable sources in the article so it is completely valid to include such scientific (or as you say pseudoscientific) arguments as long as they can be reliably sourced. I also find this suggestion impractical for this article "Science usually advances with higher resolution, more precise descriptions and sharper thinking, not just dumping the same old crap in one big blender like the previous monolithic "alternative medicine[, pseudoskepticism]" article". You would have to break it down to the individual CAM domains eg acupuncture to do this. Even grouping into "complementary" or "alternative" creates the same problems. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. When I said "pseudoscientific", I meant it in the rigorous sense and was not being redundant on "pseudoskepticism". As I have said before, I felt that the earlier solo altmed article was (and is) a poor result, an overgeneralized mishmash where "small" differences can be very important to readers, a battleground for both extremes - including "PS vs PS", but heavily dominated by edits that have varying degrees of pseudoskepticism.

are you trying to say that mainstream and CAM medicine are of equal scientific standing but CAM is pushed into the fringe... There is a good, general argument for not allowing heavily (& financially) involved parties or groups to a case to also dominate as judge, jury and executioner, as seems to be the proclaimed relationship of some of the more reactionary elements inside medicine & pharmacology about declaring conclusions in medicine as "science", where a number of recognized, outside scientists & scholars observe these same conclusions to be bad science, severely biased, and/or highly self-serving. Historically, continuing to the present, there are major cases in CAM where all those groups mentioned above, contrary to any informed expectation of the public that financially supports them, studiously failed to acknowledge (or avoided) or to meaningfully experiment with potential therapies that have huge societal implications, e.g. IV C, now ~60 yrs, all the while (erroneously) marginalizing Nobelists and a number of doctors, collectively averting their eyes from the obvious "next experiments" *for decades and major fractions of a century*. Niacin in dyslipidemia also has bordered on being one of those stories off and on, even though it is probably the earliest therapeutic recognition of the orthomolecular pioneers in conventional medicine.

Rather than a Wikipedia:Fork, separate articles are about achieving the 5 pillars of WP, including NPOV, where there are groups of editors engaged in pontificating about (and censoring) subjects/articles they obviously know very little about, (pro)claiming the "scientific view" in the face of stark staring scientific lapses that are not really arguable in the light of facts and scientific methodology, rather basic demonstrations of bias in their source material, as well as being sometimes heavily economically involved in their POV. Frankly, I see the single altmed article as a form of pseudoskeptical or QW style censorship.

It is easy to demonstrate the rather one-sided result pushed at WP on "alternative medicine", which mostly reads like 'essencia do QW-SRAM ', sites not scientifically reliable sources at WP. For instance, after several years now of combat, er, NPOV editing, WP's "alternative medicine", this article's "mainstream" views contain *16 lines* based on a *single article* from a highly opinionated site and journal, SRAM, (self)claimed to be the voice of mainstream science and medicine on alternative medicine. In fact, the SRAM publication has been refused the merest recognition for such an 'unquestionable mainstream bulwark', where Medline turned it down 4 times straight. Hmmm, some mainstream authority. Emeritus Prof. David Hufford (sociology & bioethics), on faculty at both Penn State U and U Penn med school, cites Sci Review Alt Med as sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias", as published in J of Law, Medicine and Ethics,2003.

From a readership point of view alone, there is a strong need to have well focused, shorter discussions of these common terms for many WP articles without having to swallow the last century or two of various alternative medical conflicts, wholesale, or to hunt and extract mere scraps of (likely biased) information from an overgeneralized, not really scientific, one sided POV.--TheNautilus (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok skipping over your other arguments and going back to those which relate directly to the merger proprosal (discuss SRAM etc on the alternative medicine page): "(pro)claiming the "scientific view" in the face of stark staring scientific lapses that are not really arguable in the light of facts and scientific methodology, rather basic demonstrations of bias in their source material, as well as being sometimes heavily economically involved in their POV" This is not an argument that seperate complementary medicine, alternative medicine and CAM articles do not constitute a WP:Fork. In fact it reads like you want to keep what you consider "scientific lapses" out of the article. Now lets look at what a fork is "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." So it seems to me that you don't like the content of the page(s) as they contain "scientific lapses, bias" and such so you want to create (keep) another article. Sounds like WP:Fork to me. This may be an argument that the article would not be a fork "Frankly, I see the single altmed article as a form of pseudoskeptical or QW style censorship" provided you are actually arguing that such "censored" content would fit on say a complementary medicine page but not a CAM page. On the other hand, the belief that "censored" (which I read as "removed in content disupte") material should be placed on another page but not the CAM page, only adds to my argument that you wish to create a fork. Please point to such material so that we may evalute whether it fits under the broad heading of CAM.

In short, if you are saying that it is necessary to have, for example, a complementary medicine page because of say the POV present on the alternative medicine page (eg SRAM source) then that only substantiates any argument that there are content forks. In order to demonstarte that the complementary medicine, alternative medicine or CAM page are not content forks you must demonstrate that three seperate articles should exist irrespective of the POV of the articles and that the articles do not exist merely to express differing POVs. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I categorically reject the POV argument as a false light and I think you skipped too many points. 1. CAM, altmed, CM, (and integrative medicine) are not identical terms (note the treatment of QW, SJB, NCAHF which have more overlap, less notability and less daily internet/economic traffic by orders of magnitude) 2. CM, AM, CAM are each notable terms, that concern a large percentage perhaps even a large majority of the population if some of the surveys are correct and need their own clickable article perhaps with an intelligible synopsis or overview less than 500 characters 3. the altmed subject and article is too lengthy and too confusing in nature, it needs to be better "conceptually chunked" with some parts better addressed in associated articels.

The separate articles need to exist to better follow specific threads of thought that are to generalized and mangled in an already conceptually overcrowded article, with disparate components albeit some similar and related components, that need careful treatment of content threads and separation of the disparate parts.

In short, if you are saying that it is necessary to have, for example, a complementary medicine page because of say the POV present on the alternative medicine page (eg SRAM source) then that only substantiates any argument that there are content forks. No, I am expressing the problems associated with *both* content and structure, where a lot of the content problem appears permanently reinforced by a bad (and I believe a biased) structure (i.e. the structure is a permanent cause / aid to poor content).

you must demonstrate that three seperate articles should exist irrespective of the POV of the articles and that the articles do not exist merely to express differing POVs. Given the poor result of 2-3 years of constant edit warring, demonstrably poor results and fundamental disparities, the burden to show merit should be on monolithic lack of differentiation to show that format has any credibility left at all, much less it's inherent combination of things with irreducibly different aspects (e.g. specific treatment differences, different legal status in different, nameable locales, etc). But to briefly answer: 1'. CAM, altmed and CM are not identical terms 2. they are each notable terms, that concern a large percentage perhaps even a large majority of the population if some of the surveys are correct. and need their own clickable article perhaps with an intelligible synopsis or overview less than 500 characters. 3. I consider it a form censorship that makes clear thought on already ill-defined, nebulous, tumultous (related) subjects more blurred, difficult and obscure, if not impossible. Thought conflicting with, or diverging from some POV of the claimed mainstream becomes, potentially, literally unthinkable, at least so far as understanding and clear thinking is dependent on words. to be cont'd--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked, CAM is just tautology!

It is just a term that the medical science uses in order to try to quantify non-scientific and non-medical medicine. This page should be written from the POV of the field because that's the best tool for explaining the topic. Large portions are problematic for science to deal with. Thus the scientific perspective of the field should be treated with care and perhaps seperately. If there is a claim that something is a pseudoscience it should be verifiable and not just a statement of a critic. If falsification is not provided it is just an opinion and not definitive science. The definitions are wide since it is a flexible term because it depends on the context and culture. The field is criticized by many, so if certain ideas are falsified or there are verifiable science on this it should be provided. The view of the different sciences on any subject is welcome. To me CAM seems to be the scientific venture into assessing CAM, and can perhaps become an article about exactly that; the science of understanding CAM. Currently it is black-white and this polarizes the language to treat it as if there is just one scientific perspective that has the right to give a subjective statement on any subject. This perspective is that alternative sciences and treatment has a lot of quacks. That is true, but not all CAM is quack. Hence, it should be treated due. Sorry, but I feel this debate is polarized by radical skeptics. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you voted on the merge proposal, above? -- John Gohde (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My study of basic logic tells me that when somebody makes the statement that all of complementary and alternative medicine can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be a total fraud. Statements of that type are automatically false based on pure logic alone. The problem is that that is precisely the kind of statement some of the current crop of editors have recently made.

Unfortunately, one can not make these type of shocking statements without getting stomped on by these same editors. Tons of research has proven many kinds of CAM to be effective. Unfortunately, these articles will never be allowed to reflect what modern research has shown time and time again. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you say that aspects of CAM has been falsified by science? And is there a higher degree of mistreatment (or whatever the term is for treatment that makes people more ill) in aspects of CAM than there is in medical sciences?--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read a lot of research studies. The closest that I have seen would come under the category of vitamin research. Here, is one example.[4] And, my letter to the editor. [5] At one point, I was tracking new research for about 6 months. Nutritional supplements can certainly can be used to effectively treat a very large number of specific health conditions.

Over at complementary medicine I was prevented by one editor whose name starts with James from adding a clearly favorable study that cited two separate research studies to support their conclusion that mind-body therapies produced favorable results in a large number of different medical diseases. Totally without justifications as far as I was concerned. Then there was the nonsense about banning cancer research because I suppose the favorable results were way too impressive for that dude to handle. If complementary medicine is not about treating cancer patients in need of pain management, then what is?

In my opinion, a big part of the problem is that you have editors editing here who know absolutely nothing about the topic that they are attempting to edit. But, they know all about stomping on people who do. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone is stating CAM is pseudoscience doesn't that make them a critic so it seems impossible to give a statement that it is pseudoscience that is not "just a statement of a critic". As this article is about all of CAM and not the specific domains I think comments directed at the whole field are necessary so I don't see how we can discuss each topic invidually. We are required to make statements of all CAM for this article. It is simply not practical to consider every field individually, that is a job for the articles on each field. Non-medical medicine is somewhat of an oxymoron and we're not going to rewrite the page from someone in the field. Both POV's should be presented with appropriate weight given in proporition to the number of RS. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we are dealing with CAM, AM, and CM in general, per WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, it would be a violation to characterize these general terms as pseudoscience. Being that as a whole group, CAM, AM, and CM are more along the lines of medical theories which have a substantial following, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, they seem to fall under the "questionable science" section of the guideline and thus the binding ArbCom ruling supports that these should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience nor should they contain information to that effect. For that reason, I removed they reference to the pseudoscience articles in each of these articles "See Also" section. Perhaps there are some individual practices and methodology within CAM, AM, and CM which are obvious pseudosciences or generally considered pseudoscience, but - as JamesStewart7 alludes to above - we should deal with those on the individual article level rather that this general category level. IOW, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That should be done on individual articles with references that justify it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't at all agree that complementary and alternative medicine are tautological. Complementary medicine includes aspects of medicine that haven't yet completely made it into mainstream medicine, but which can effortlessly be merged with mainstream medicine. Chiropractic treatments or massage for chronic back pains would be an example. Alternative medical treatments run the gamut of therapies from those I believe work to therapies that are incompatible with mainstream treatments, and, not infrequently, common sense. "Urine therapy" comes to mind. Merging the huge fields of complementary treatments and alternative treatments is little different from insisting that all of wikipedia's biographic articles must be merged into a single article entitled "famous humans." AM and CM are huge enough as it is, and merging them would put therapies that are slowly being proved and adopted by medical science (acupuncture) on equal footing with therapies such as imbibing one's own urine, energy healing and more. This would be much to the detriment of wikipedia readers intent on understanding these topics.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A question to everybody

Yes, I feel that criticizing fringe science is a special case of the "what colour the bikeshed should have". Basically it is easy to have an opinion on fringe science because it generates friction against the established sciences. I would prefer that the energy that some people put into this could be put into becoming informed skeptics instead of acting as radical skeptics. However you didn't answer my questions. This is a question to everybody. I would love if the article was written from the POV of those established in the science of CAM, whilst the scientific view on the subject is treated by itself. CAM is ultimately incompatible with hard sciences and using the POV of science is like using the POV of Republicans (since it is mainstream) in the Green Party article (which is fringe). And I think the researchers within CAM is probably the most informed skeptics of the field. At last, yes I am concerned for misinformation, but I feel that uninformed skeptics are removing verifiable content in a high speed. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble as to what the question is. Does Wikipedia currently have any experienced / published medical research editors? Yes, there happens to be at least one (ie, User:Sbharris). Does Wikipedia have any researchers who either specialize in or treat the topic of CAM research fairly? I am not familiar with any. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't be an expert in something that does not exist.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Boldly merged where no merge has gone before

OK, I merged Complementary medicine into this article.

The discussion seemed to have subsided, and the separate pages did not make sense to me, so I went ahead and merged them.

But if other folks don't agree, I don't mind if it's reverted pending further discussion.

Regarding the article at Alternative medicine, I did not merge that one because it seems like it might be better separate, for the following reason:

That article is about the alternative approach specifically. This article (CAM) is about the use of alternative approaches together with conventional medicine, and also is mostly a regulatory/categorization system, rather than an overarching term for many kinds of non-evidence based therapies.

There's so much info in the other article that combining them might make this one too large. Also, there is this article: History of alternative medicine that is mostly unreferenced, but it could be merged into Alternative medicine, and if so, then that would become a quite large article, making a further merge here more unlikely.

But, I'm not averse to it, those are just the reasons I did not do it as part of this process.

Some of what's here might be duplicated; I tried to avoid that, but it might take a while to prune it into shape.

I hope this is a positive change, if not, it's OK with me to revert to the separate version if that's how consensus goes - though I don't think that's a good idea; Also, there's still the question about whether or not to merge alternative medicine here. I think it should stay separate, but I think a case can be made for either merging or not. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus for the Merger. In fact as I look at it, a brief, true integrative medicine article to track that concept may be useful to readers trying to sort this mess out in their own minds and a real on the ground, NPOV encyclopeidic view of its evolution and actualities.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the merge is a good plan, but I'm not going to argue about it.

If anyone wants to see the merged version, it's at this link: CAM with Complementary medicine merged. There were some other cleanups and improvements I made after that merge, so if anyone wants to restore those, they are welcome to, but I'm not going to do much on these pages until the issue is decided, because it's a waste of time to do work that is reverted. Good luck! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

..........................

Quick .02 here:

I have not read all of the discussion, but most of it, and I am inclined to agree with TheNautilus. Here are a couple of key points that he made, and my comments on them:

BEGIN QUOTE: "A reason to have separate CM, AM, CAM articles is to eliminate, or at least make more identifiable, contamination and overgeneralizations whether pseuoscience or pseudoskepticism." END QUOTE

Yes, great point. Conflation of things properly distinguished is more of a problem, IMO, and causes much more mischief, than the opposite problem (that would be, putting too fine a point on things, and insisting on making distinctions without differences). The latter problem -- the "fine-pointedness" problem -- is something of which academics are sometimes guilty, but in this context (Wikipedia) it is not a concern at all. Rather, the former -- the "cavalier conflation" problem -- is the one to take special care to avoid. It is a major cause of sloppy thinking. The fact that a few pedantic academics err too far in the other direction does not change this.

BEGIN QUOTE: "Also 'alternative' is often the bludgeon of a rampant non-scientific 'skepticism' at WP that certainly has disrespected those parts of CM and CAM that have enough plausibility, or at least safety, to merit some kind of co-exisitence with conventional medicine. All though there can be a lot of overlap CM<-->CAM<-->AM, it is the differences that need to be discussed, described and kept separate, in different articles." END QUOTE

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly.

To fuse is too often to CONfuse. Be very cautious with attempts to fuse.

Alan2012 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, there is a good argument that they never should have been de-fused in the first place. Alt-med and comp-med are actually the same set of modalities. The only thign differentiating them is whether or not a given treatment is used alongside conventional medicine: be it yoga therapy, crystal healing, therapeutic touch, reiki, massage, acupuncture, rolfing, homeopathy, aromatherapy, listening-to-side-2-of-Abbey Road-therapy (one of my favorites) or anything else. When I say that, I am following NCCAM, a highly authoritative source for defining these terms. See here.

I have no problem with this article incorporating the various points mentioned above as long as we can source them. What I don't see is anything other than original research or uncited claims justifying having separate articles. I'm wondering whether editors who believe there should be separate articles can cite such sources. Thanks, Jim Butler (t) 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my discussions above. They may (often) overlap, they are not identical, they have important differences in chem- & biologically based cases; the fused version has been a hopleless POV & edit blackhole; there is a need to directly access the specific terms. There may be a need to track acceptance, kind of acceptance and/or degree of acceptance at complementary medicine. To the extent that some therapies can be tracked, moving from fully alternative to complementary to conventional, that may a significant function too.

From NCCAM: "Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?" Yes, they different...--TheNautilus (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is that quote:

"Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.

Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor."

The only difference is used "together" rather than "in place of"; but that says nothing about the actual treatment modalities. In the second example, they mention the special diet for treating cancer, used in place of surgery. But cardiologists often recommend the "South Beach Diet" for heart health to their patients. So, the modality of a "special diet" in one case is alternative and in the other is complementary. Absurd! NCCAM doesn't even try to define ways of determining which treatments go into each category, they are quite vague, and no other sources clarify this distinction either. So we have three separate articles instead of one or two, based on one vague statement by one source?

I concur with Jim Butler, separating the topics is original research, because there are no reliable sources to show which category any particular therapy goes into. How many doctors need to use a treatment before it changes from "alternative" to "complementary"? There are no citations for that, in general, or with specific treatments.

Just about every reference I've found so far that uses the CAM definition, describes that term as being used by the NIH (ie, NCCAM). Most sources use the terms "complementary medicine" and "alternative medicine" interchangeably. Here's a couple sources showing them as synonyms:

• Eisenberg,, David (2003). Exploring Complementary and Alternative Medicine. National Academies Press. pp. p1. "complementary (aka 'alternative') therapies may be defined as..." {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

• Polman,, Alan J (2001). Multiple Sclerosis: The Guide to Treatment and Management. Demos Medical Publishing. pp. p80. "Definition of Alternative of Complementary Medicine... Many terms have been applied to a wide variety of approaches... commonly used terms are alternative, complementary, unconventional, integrative, holistic..." {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

More can be found. As far as sources defining the difference, maybe someone can find those, but I've not been able to. CAM may be a legal construct to allow alternative treatments to be used by conventional doctors; that's just a guess at this point but it might be possible to find sources on that by looking at legal or regulatory material. If so, that could be the basis of a separate article, to address the legal issues. But for the modalities, the terms are used interchangeably and the pages should be merged. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Way I see this, there's no good reason not to merge. It's the same type of practice; the name just depends on outside factors. In fact, I think we might be approaching the point where we could make an interesting section on the evolution of the preferred name. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are other views of complementary medicine nwill eed to be (re)presented: (1) this one is somewhat distantly related to your views, but a much more neutered, auxiliary and less threatening to *displace* any current biomedicine, ever, but rather an additive (second class) auxiliary, based on one of QW's favorite faculty, Barrie Cassileth, Alternative and complementary therapies differ importantly, and the distinction between the two is crucial for clinical oncologists. "Alternative" or unproven therapies are treatments used independent of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. ...They can provide symptom control and noninvasive palliation with minimal side effects, improve patients’ well-being and enhance cancer medicine[6] (2) complementary (or integrative) medicine may represent an intermediate stage of alaternative medicine becoming conventional biomedicine, as with alternative biologically based recommendations & therapies as they (may) attract adequate acceptance/EBM or other rationalization (e.g ca 1993 for daily vitamin D, conventional nutrition: 200 IU mostly D2, orthomed: D3, 500-1200 IU; +15 years, current mainstream research seems to be headed toward 1000-2000 IU D3 for high northern latitudes - rationalizing much of their differences, where now using 1000+ IU might be somewhat "acceptable" but still not (yet) recommended by conventional medicine about nutrients for ordinary people.)

I think editors that claim alternative treatments are always the same as the complementary ones must not have any concept of essentially double dosing, where parts of an biologically based alternative treatment protocol functionally overlap a conventional one - where an element(s) of one or the other, conventional or alternative, must be removed, changed althogether, or significantly adjusted to be used together in the complementary version. So far I have seen nothing like an acceptable standalone "Alternative medicine" article in the last 2+ years that could do justice or adequate utility for the CAM and complementary medicine articles that I perceive need to be in place. Any such merged article needs to be developed in a sandbox with near unanimous agreement before (thermonuclear) fusion (or an utter fizzle) occurs, again.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Proposed mergers?

No clear consensus seems to be forming here regarding the proposed merge of these three articles. I suggest that we list it at WP:Proposed mergers. What do you all think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I betcha the result will be more of the same, but good to solicit feedback in case consenus erupts. I strongly support the merge, but if it doesn't happen, it's not too bad -- now we have "Main article: Complementary and alternative medicine" at the top of both alternative medicine and complementary medicine. That seems uncontroversial and should stick. If readers see that, then we're cool, and can do our best to make sure that the separate articles contain unique information and not just duplications or POV forks of the main one. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The articles should be merged, they're confusing and overlapping as they are now, and there are no solid sources differentiating them. Merger or not, I like Infophile's idea of adding a section on the evolution of the terminology. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to merging the articles. The overlaps are much less important than the differences. I have mentioned the dangers of mistaking high dose alternative treatments even with safe biologically active components for other complementary versions with realistic examples, potentially "double dosing" biological treatments that may interfere or overload pts in some way. Sometimes it is not a 2,300 ton vessel's hull that dictates performance, notability, or (sub)surface location and condition, of a ship, as much as a "small difference" like a hole(s), with a ~0.001% areal extent, in it ...hole the size of a fist or, even less, "86'd". Also I perceive that variations in the definitions of "alternative" and "complentary" should be explored in separate articles to reduce confusion. Because of the number of articles that reference these terms, shorter, more focused, separate (less combined and confused) articles for readers on each term makes a lot sense to me. As for the current quality of the articles, no one is going to invest too much in an article with uncertain prospects and active adversaries to it until after such a threat is aborted. I have surveyed some references for changes but I have a long way to go to try to sort of the various definitions, discussions and rationales for an orderly presentation that would provide better context for different groups' (ab)use of these terms. One thing that I think will involve substantial effort will be to go and dig out the archives of merged, purged and deleted earlier versions of the CAM, CM, AM articles & talk pages to sieve all that like an oyster making a pearl. (and we know where the oysters' flavor comes from...)--TheNautilus (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to close(or table) these merger discussions with the result: no consensus? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, why not leave the question open, or invite more input? Was it ever posted at proposed mergers yet? I don't know if that was done. What's your thought on the merge, do you support it or prefer to not merge?

So far, we see:

Oppose merge:

• TheNautilus
• Alan2012
• Levine2112

Support merge:

• Jim Butler
• Infophile
• Jack-A-Roe

Did I miss anyone? That's only 5 people, not enough to make the decision. I don't know if it was ever posted at proposed merges or not, but if so it did not get much attention.

As it is now, there are two almost identical articles at CAM & Complementary Medicine. There's no reason for those to be separate. And Alternative medicine, well, that could remain separate, but if so, then CAM/Complementary, should focus on the regulatory aspects, since the treatments are a direct subset of Alternative Medicine. There are no CAM modalities that are not Altmed, it's just a question of if some doctors use them also, and that's not a science question, it's just a question of individual practice choices, or choices by patients to avoid doctors advice or not tell their doctor about a particular use of a treatment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's wait a little longer. Though, I think you need to recount support/oppose votes above. And you can add myself to the "oppose" list. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added you to the oppose list. I had only counted starting in this section that was started after the merge was done, and then undone by TheNautilus. I figure that started a new phase of the discussion, because the prior comments included disruptions by at least one person who's been banned, making it hard to see what would have happened without the disruptions. If we did go back and count those, we might add JamesStewart7 and Fyslee to support of the merge, but those prior discussions are confusing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a merge of all three, my suggestion is: Merge CAM and Complementary, and focus on regulatory and prevalence aspects but not specific modalities; keep AltMed separate and discuss the modalities overview in that article. I wouldn't mind merging all three, but that's not the way I did it that resulted in this current section under discussion.

Would you mind offering a short comment about your reasons for wanting to keep them separate? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I too late (puf puf)? I completely support the merger of complementary and alternative medicine for two reasons, or one reason with two sides. First, the articles themselves say there is no difference between the two other than context. Now, a single article CAM would not exclude therapies not currently in use in a complementary context, neither does the CAM umbrella article take much space to define that simple difference (although it takes rather a while to get around to it). And so, this being the case, and noting the arguments advanced against the merger, these arguments look to me like arguments for maintaining a POV fork. The result is highly confusing - and confused. No brainer, MERGE! Redheylin (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't too late. Make your voice heard here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to put this. I am very much against a merge/redirect because complementary is NOT the same as alternative. Those therapies/approaches regarded as complementary (e.g. osteopathy and chiropractic) usually have a substantial emprirical evidence-base that supports at least part of their approach/interventions (e.g. spinal manipulation for back pain) over and beyond standard care. This has led to principal recommendations in national guidelines recommending their care for specific conditions (back pain in this instance), which by most definitions, makes them non-alternative. This is where the distinction lies and it is a real onw. What is more, the rationale used by these practitioners (comp med) is entirely consistent and compatable with standard biomedical models (compare this with traditional Chinese medicine which is completeley at odds, and therefore alternative by definition. Because of this I am removing the diversion. I agree the complementary medicine article needs work, but let's not remove it from the face of the planet just because it is not yet good enough - it eventually will be!Davwillev (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge. Simple logic and a comparative examination of the linguistic usage amongst their key proponents are enough to show one that the word "complementary" clearly does not mean the same thing as the word "alternative". In short, one complements whilst the other thinks in terms of presenting an alternative. To give but one of the innumerable examples that one could cite here, does anybody really think that Matthias Rath would want to be cited as presenting a complementary approach to pharmaceutically-based medicine, as opposed to an alternative to it, for example? As such, if these articles were to be merged, without a consensus re. the WP:SOURCES to backup such a bold merge, it would clearly constitute WP:OR. Vitaminman (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

CAM redirect

Hi, I read through all of the discussion I could find and there was no consensus I could find. Furthermore, do remember that those contributing to the discussion are actually few in number, so don't assume a consensus of a few to represent the wider public.

IF a redirect is necessary (and I personally do not think it is), then both complementary medicine and alternative medicine articles should divert to the complementary and alternative medicine article. To ensure that content is not lost, we should respect the contributions of others (some valuable and some less so) and copy content across for folf to edit down to a reasonable structure and volume.

I will undo the redirect if this isn't discussed. Regards.Davwillev (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved this from my user talk page. I have no clue why individuals think it necessary to discuss articles on my user talk, but I always delete them. Anyways, this has been discussed, and dealt with awhile ago. Discuss before further reverts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion was here.[7] TimidGuy (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TG. I left a note on Ludwigs2's page, since he was the one that lead the effort. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ludwigs2 hasn't been editing since his block. TimidGuy (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. I don't agree with his edits or his style, but I do appreciate what he's done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did a lot of work on that, following the discussion in which a half-dozen editors consensed the merge and the redirect. If there is a concern about the choice of main article title, continuing the discussion at theAltMed talk page link provided by TimidGuy would be the best way proceed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Davwillev, you are too late. This was very thoroughly discussed and unanimously performed. You are going against a strong concensus. If I have any reservation about what happened, it is that leaving a short definition here would have possibly prevented what we are seeing, and it's not to late to do that. We could replace the redirect with a short definition of what the term CAM means, with links to the appropriate articles, although the Complementary medicine article has also been merged and is now a redirect. We could do the same there if necessary. We did all this to get rid of lots of duplication. Continues below in next section. -- Fyslee / talk 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How convenient for your POV, Fyslee. Probably many didn't even know about that vote since Levine, Alan2012, myself etc expressed our counterviews strongly here as has Vitaminman. Biologically based complementary treatments often necessarily have to change to allow for interactions, that may be favorable or not. I saw no satisfactory replies here. The vote over there seems like a stacked consensus. As I have said before, that Alternative article has manifold problems that combination just aggravates fundamental problems & differences but seems to supports the QW pov well.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, the discussion to which you referred was not exactly thorough, but even if a merger was necessary, one user (JackaRoe)decided that Alt medicine be the parent article. This point was therefore not agreed using consensus. My main gripe is that CAM should be the parent, as it is the preferred, internationally recognised term. Hence, many internet users would search for the term (as they might 'alt med' or 'comp med'). I really don't want to get into editing battles with anybody but the current setup is illogical. I will happily settle for a remerge at the CAM article.Davwillev (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Far more than JackaRoe were in favor of the final solution. I personally favor leaving something instead of redirects, as I have suggested below. -- Fyslee / talk 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace redirect with a short definition?

What do you all think of leaving a short definition here (as mentioned above), instead of the redirect? This should help to diminish attacks on the redirect. I'd prefer this to deleting the edit history here and salting it. That would be too drastic, since the edit history is valuable. I will provide a suggested text shortly, so please reserve comment until that's done. -- Fyslee / talk 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested replacements for redirects

This is the last version of the LEAD from the article before the merge. It contains the definition we need and the necessary links:

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for complementary medicine and alternative medicine. Typical examples of CAM approaches are herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and diet-based therapies. Definitions of CAM vary with culture and time and can change with scientific evidence. CAM therapies have been criticized by scientific researchers.

If we do the same with the redirect at the Complementary medicine article link, we will also offset further attempts to delete the redirects and improperly restore the merged articles. A suggested wording, using the same process as above, provides this text from the last version of the LEAD there:

The term complementary medicine refers to nonconventional treatments used in addition (complementary) to conventional medicine prescribed by a physician.

The term complementary medicine was widely adopted to describe systems of health care and individual therapies that people used as adjuncts to their conventional health care. "The term 'complementary' has come into regular usage in the last 15 years, commonly understood as complementing conventional medicine. Practitioners often label complementary medicine as such because they believe that it complements more of the needs of the patient than conventional medicine.

"Complementary medicine" is often categorized together with alternative medicine using the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine or CAM.

Both of them should be followed by a sentence explaining that "further information can be found at Alternative medicine."

What think ye? -- Fyslee / talk 07:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well mirrors and serves Fyslee's pov, almost seems a shame not to have the QW redirect too.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no POV issue here. Please take your violations of TALK and your personal attacks and innuendos elswhere. Keep in mind that no content has been lost in the merge process, TTBOMK. -- Fyslee / talk 09:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)