WikiProject Alternative medicine	(Rated Template-Class)	Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Alternative Medicine portal v • d • e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 NCCAM classifications 2 Dianetics 3 NCCAM classifications 4 Reorganizing this template slightly 5 Acupuncture 6 Faith healing 7 Anthroposophic medicine 8 Please add a template of Academic resources.... 9 Orthopathy

[edit] NCCAM classifications

1. {{Alternative medical systems}} -- Alternative medical systems are built upon complete systems of theory and practice. Often, these systems have evolved apart from and earlier than the conventional medical approach used in the United States. Examples of alternative medical systems that have developed in Western cultures include homeopathic medicine and naturopathic medicine. Examples of systems that have developed in non-Western cultures include traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda.
2. {{Mind-body interventions}} -- Mind-body medicine uses a variety of techniques designed to enhance the mind's capacity to affect bodily function and symptoms. Some techniques that were considered CAM in the past have become mainstream (for example, patient support groups and cognitive-behavioral therapy). Other mind-body techniques are still considered CAM, including meditation, prayer, mental healing, and therapies that use creative outlets such as art, music, or dance.
3. {{Biologically based therapy}} -- Biologically based therapies in CAM use substances found in nature, such as herbs, foods, and vitamins. Some examples include dietary supplements,3 herbal products, and the use of other so-called natural but as yet scientifically unproven therapies (for example, using shark cartilage to treat cancer).
4. {{Manipulative methods}} -- Manipulative and body-based methods in CAM are based on manipulation and/or movement of one or more parts of the body. Some examples include chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation, and massage.
5. {{Energy therapy}} -- Energy therapies involve the use of energy fields.

-- John Gohde 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dianetics

Dianetics is an alternative medical system. What is the rationale for viewing it as anything else? ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is NCCAM regarded as the sole source that is acceptable for determining what is and isn't an alternative medicine? --74.132.180.62 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. There is a vast difference between an alternative medical "system" and a form of alternative medicine. The template must be kept small, and therefore it sticks to the NCCAM system of classification. If you can provide some kind of proof that Dianetics is an alternative medicine form, then it certainly qualifies to be in [[Category:Alternative medicine]]. It does contain some elements of pseudoscience, quackery, fraud, pseudoreligion, and other characteristics of alternative medicine, so it could certainly be in that category. There is room for plenty of articles there, but not in the template. To illustrate, I'll use a corollary. There is a template for continents, and it would be inappropriate to start adding countries to it. Continents can be in a small template, but not all countries can fit there. You can see the vast difference here:

{{Continents}}{{Countries}}

I can't activate these templates here, otherwise this talk page would be included, and that wouldn't be too smart! You can copy them to the main sandbox, look at them, and then immediately delete them.

That's why we also have categories. Templates and categories serve different functions. -- Fyslee 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. So I guess this is more of an issue of whether dianetics is an important enough AMS to warrant inclusion in the template, then? Do you think it would be reasonable to say that dianetics may be more important than one of the others currently on the template, such as Unani (which, according to its article, is closely linked with Ayurveda)? ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unani was influenced by Islam, that is the main difference between it and Ayurveda, which is significant enough to warrant separate articles, and therefore entries in the template. According to the article, Dianetics is "a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry", neither of which is considered alternative medicine. Further, "Dianetics is a set of ideas and practices regarding the relationship between mind and body"; I would suggest that if Dianetics is to be considered a form of alternative medicine, it is more of a Mind-body intervention, but would actually be better placed in Category:Mental health. --apers0n 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is pretty much gibberish, but they do assert that they can cure physical disease through their quasi-psychiatric processes. And the article also quotes L. Ron Hubbard that "Dianetics sets forth the non-germ theory of disease, embracing, it has been estimated by competent physicians, the explanation of some seventy percent of man's pathology." ⟳ausa کui ^× 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCCAM classifications

Wikipedia carries a fundamentally world-wide point of view. Relying solely on an American governmental body as a system of classification in the template, especially for systems that are not of U.S. origin, is a violation of this neutral and international stance. VanTucky ^Talk 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Four out of the eight systems mentioned are "systems that are not of U.S. origin," so what's the problem? The NCCAM recognizes them as such. Keep in mind that all systems get brought to the US and are practiced there. They therefore get assessed by the NCCAM. -- Fyslee / talk 04:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the systems of alt medicine mentioned (TCM etc.), it was the following NCCAM classification system (which are not medicinal systems in and of themselves) which I have removed. VanTucky ^Talk 04:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a V & RS of a system of classification that is all-inclusive and has been a consensus part of the template for ages. No need to remove such a valuable resource. Restoring consensus version. -- Fyslee / talk 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, a discussion between two users where they disagree is not a consensus. Relying on a previous consensus by default when new issues have been brought up is not okay. Second, the NCCAM is a solely American body, and by including its method of classification (which not a single other regulatory or private body uses) the template fails to represent a world-wide POV. Third, many of the classifications that the NCCAM uses for arts such as qigong, tai chi chuan, feldenkrais and yoga are very controversial. They take a stance on the healing mechanism of these practices that is only one significant view, and thus including only NCCAM on the template, and presenting it as if it were widely accepted, is a violation of NPOV. VanTucky ^Talk 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in favor of keeping the NCCAM classification. The existence of a longstanding version usually indicates that quite a few editors agree with that version. While a new consensus is always possible, chances are that it will not stick. I also think that an important change like this one should be discussed and a consensus reached before we change a template that is in such wide use. Having said that, I feel that some of your arguments may have merit. The NIH classification is, indeed, US-centric. How about making this explicit (e.g. by adding "(U.S.)" to the text)? I do not think your other complaint (only one view of several) should be solved by removing the NCCAM classification. It would be better to add other notable/well-sourced classifications (if they exist). Avb 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also FWIW, keep the current template. There are a huge number of editors, myself included, that don't actually believe in "alternative" medicine, we ascribe to scientific analysis and therefore there is medicine as science and there's folklore or faith or something else. Keeping the NCCAM verbiage at least gives a little bit of cover to claiming that these alternative medicine classifications have some meaning.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep also; the version with NCCAM has been stable and reflects a well-known V RS without endorsing it exclusively. Others could be added, but speaking as an American-trained acupuncturist with a prior career as a research scientist, I see nothing wrong with NCCAM at all, and much to recommend it. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an actual consensus I can accept for the time being, even if I still obviously disagree. I sympathize with your point about maintaining a mainstream, scientifically acceptable (at least to some degree, the NCCAM has its notable detractors in the scientific community) system of classification for alt medicine. However, I urge people to keep in mind that this system is not accepted or even well-known among many of the actual systems that fall under the NCCAM's purview. A bit of cultural sensitivity wouldn't hurt here. VanTucky ^Talk 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, things like germ theory, the scientific method and avogadro's constant are neither well known nor well accepted by practitioners of the er... systems... listed, but that doesn't, or at least shouldn't, stop us from presenting them in the light of those things. In any case the categories presented are a convenient and logical way of navigating the plethora of cam articles, and even better we have a reliable source to back that up. – ornis⚙ 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Those examples are inappropriate. They're far too generalized. The classification of, for example, mind-body intervention was created expressly and exclusively for categorization of these systems and techniques, so the fact that it is disputed and/or unknown by practitioners is much more indicative. VanTucky ^Talk 01:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A related discussion is occurring at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_22#Template:Mind-body_interventions. Many of the same arguments apply there. -- Fyslee / talk 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see nothing particularly objectionable to the NCCAM classifications. I don't know how useful they are, but it's as good of a way to link to the relevant articles as any. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing this template slightly

What do you guys think about moving the Complementary and Alternative Medicine sections, under See also, to the top of this template? It seems like those should receive prominence. II 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture

Re this change: normally acunpuncture is not considered to be an alternative medical system in its own right: it is a healing practice that is part of traditional Chinese medicine, which is an alternative medical system that is already listed in this template. The relationship between acunpuncture and traditional Chinese medicine is akin to the relationship between spinal manipulation and chiropractic. For consistency, we should list traditional Chinese medicine and chiropractic in this template, and we should not list acupuncture and spinal manipulation. Eubulides (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faith healing

Re this change, which introduced a wikilink to Faith healing: normally faith healing, like acupuncture, is not considered to be an alternative medical system in its own right: it is a healing practice that is part of a religious system, not a medical system. The NCCAM page on CAM doesn't list faith healing as a medical system, and looking in other sources I don't see anyone claiming that it is a medical system. For now reverted the change. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthroposophic medicine

Re this change: as Anthroposophic medicine says, anthroposophic medicine is complementary medicine and not alternative medicine. The NCCAM seems to agree with this, so this template is not the right place for a wikilink to Anthroposophic medicine. If there is a template for complementary medicine, that would be a better place for the wikilink; if there is no such template, perhaps one ought to be created. For now, I reverted that change. Eubulides (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is little (too little) distinction made between complementary and alternative medicine both here and elsewhere. For example, the Wikipedia article on complementary medicine redirects to alternative medicine. Usually they are grouped together; perhaps we should change this template title to "complementary and alternative medicine". hgilbert (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked; NCCAM's category "alternative medical systems" explicitly relates to both complementary and alternative medicine (see their page describing CAM). There seems to be no ground to differentiate them here, then. hgilbert (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the above remarks: the source you cite seems to say exactly the opposite of what you're saying. In NCCAM's FAQ, the question "Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?" is answered as follows:

"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."

Eubulides (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty late comment here,... but we have discussed this to death prior to the merging of the various CAM articles. That NCCAM quote is rather misleading when read superficially. Actually it doesn't propose a real difference in the methods used, only a difference in how identical methods are used in different settings. It is the setting that is different, IOW any imaginable alternative medical method or technique is considered "complementary" if used in conjunction with mainstream medicines and techniques. One will find even the most absurd and non-evidence-based alternative methods identified as "complementary" because of this definitional distinction, which is therefore pretty useless most of the time. In Britain the situation is even worse, where "complementary" is used pretty synonymously with "alternative" much of the time. That's simply because the alternative medicine movement in Britain (likely because of support from HRH, the Prince of Quacks)[1] has been more successful at affecting terminology so nonsense could slip under the radar, and into folk's consciousness as relatively innocuous. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is considered an alternative medical system: see Holistic Nursing and Annex 1 of these Model Guidelines for the EU. hgilbert (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites, particularly the EU one. I added a few more from it. Eubulides (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful of using such promotional, self-published, publications and guidelines from the groups themselves. We need independent governmental sources.

We also need to avoid link bloat in such a template. Only old, large, and very well-established systems that have long promoted themselves as complete systems for dealing with all health care needs (truly "alternative" to mainstream care) should be included. This needs paring down. Especially Neural therapy hardly deserves mention in the template (and its article happens to be an atrocious piece of advertising). -- Fyslee (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Neural therapy; I removed it. Any others? Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a template of Academic resources....

or the one of academic journal--222.64.29.57 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no reliable sources for alternative medicine. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In a certain sense that is true. The promotional ones are rarely RS, and the mainstream ones that discuss alternative medicine are usually critical, and they are RS. There are quite a few listed here:

• Alternative medicine critics

-- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that peer reviewed journals are highly critical. But almost any medical or scientific journal that is peer reviewed and also has a high impact factor have published critiques of alt med, so it's almost like the list could be huge. Oh well, I don't think it's a big issue. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NEJM devoted a whole issue to it, and its editors had incisive comments. I think this is the editorial from that issue. This is another noted editor who doesn't hide his views:

• Gerald Weissmann, Editor-in-Chief, The FASEB Journal. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, abbreviated FASEB, is a non-profit organization that is the principal umbrella organization of U.S. societies in the field of biological and medical research. FASEB organizes academic conferences and publishes scientific literature.

-- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orthopathy

Zanze123 (talk · contribs) has twice added Orthopathy to this template, claiming that it's an alternative medical system of note. I see no evidence that it's of any note. It's not listed at NCCAM, and it's not listed in mainstream sources. Google searches for the term show that it's more often used in a religious sense that has nothing to do with medicine (it means "right-heartedness", as opposed to orthodoxy which means "right-mindedness"). This template does not have room for every medical theory that might have a few adherents. I don't see any way that orthopathy can make the cut here. Eubulides (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk · contribs) has twiced removed Orthopathy before providing any discussion on the subject. OK, orthopathy is not an alternative medical system, it's not of note because Eubulides can't find information on it, NCCAM is gospel even though it only covers subjects where there are published papers and published papers are only published when publishers deem published papers 'relevant' to the journal's audience (publishers can publish whatever they like), Orthopathy only has a 'few adherrents' because Eubulides believes so, and the meaning of Orthopathy has nothing to do with alternative medicine because Eubulides says so according to one definition of what it means. Zanze123 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides is correct. He followed the WP:BRD cycle, while you began edit warring by restoring it, instead of followng the BRD cycle by discussing the problem here. This template is only for large systems with a significant following. They must be very notable. We can't list every single possible alternative medical practice with a few followers. Keep in mind this is a template, not an article or list. Don't restore it without a solid consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on Wikipedia, only warring factions. I did not begin edit warring. I made a change, which was then reversed WITHOUT discussion. OK orthopathy is not a large system with a significant following. Lol. As for what is notable. to what extent is NCCAM notable given that it is based on clinical research in published journals, where published journals first decide whether the papers are of interest to their audience before bothering to send papers for peer review, giving them freedom to not publish anything they don't want to. Zanze123 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment seems to be arguing against two Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability) at the same time. Wikipedia policies are sometimes wrong and can be changed, but that should be taken up on the policies' talk pages, not here. Eubulides (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)