Talk:Alternative medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloraWilde (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 31 July 2014 (→Possible disruptive editing: Here is the latest example.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Vital article


Lead criticism paragraph

This is fully supported in the well-sourced article body -

The scientific community has criticized alternative medicine as being based on misleading statements, quackery, pseudoscience, antiscience, fraud, or poor scientific methodology. Promoting alternative medicine has been called dangerous and unethical. Testing alternative medicine has been called a waste of scarce medical research resources. Critics have said "there is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't", or "Can there be any reasonable 'alternative' (to medicine based on science)?"

FloraWilde (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And belongs in lead per FRINGE. It was removed again. I have restored it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this sentence in the lead?

Resolved

This sentence is in the lead, "The term alternative medicine is used in information issued by public bodies in the Commonwealth of Australia the United Kingdom and the United States of America." with references to articles that use the expression.

  • The sentence is not supported by the cited sources. The articles cited may use the expression, but they do not report that they use it. So it violates WP:Synth and WP:OR by going beyond what is in the sources. It is about the sources, not in the sources.
  • It violates WP:UNDUE because it gives undue weight to three countries.
  • The information is trivial. It does not deserve prominence in the lead, or even in the article. Any Wikipedia article title is used by some body in English speaking countries, or it would not meet WP:notability. This sentence would be instantly deleted in any other article at WP. This is a separate violation of WP:UNUDE, in that it gives undue weight to trivial information. FloraWilde (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
collapse extended discussion of likely resolved section

It is an unusual sentence to be in the lead, or anywhere in the article. *It is not accurate - "alternative medicine" is an expression, not a term.

  • It is not supported by the sources. The sources do not say the expression is used by themselves.
  • It is WP:OR, since no he source says it is a "term" used in information by those same source.
  • It selects in a biased way, three countries with literature on the article topic that mention the topic in their literature, but ignores all the other countries where it also appears.
  • Furthermore, the sentence provides almost no valuable content for a reader. Each and every article title at Wikipedia is used by some source. So if the sentence is appropriate in the lead in this article, a similar sentence would be appropriate in the lead of each and every article.
  • Even if it should be in the article, the lead is not the place for it.

Each of these reasons is sufficient to delete the sentence. I will delete the inaccurate, unsourced, WP:OR, biased, content-free, misplaced sentence, unless there is reason given to keep it in the lead. FloraWilde (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unduly peremptory, especially as relying on a spurious point at variance with common language usage, and not even amounting to pedantry. The lead is just the place for a succinct summation of what is expanded at some length in the article, which has been scrupulously sourced. Please try not to be unduly combative, it doesn't help. If you know of sources from countries other than those cited you are welcome to add them. Normally, we try not to put sources in the lead, which is a summary of main content, but it can help when an article's editing has been contentious, particularly when attacked by persons who have not taken the trouble to read and reflect upon the content of the article as a whole. It is a simple fact that the words "alternative medicine" are used in information issued by the public bodies of the English speaking countries mentioned to denote those forms of medicine which are the topic of the article. It shows that it is used in public discussion and by official bodies addressing the public. Qexigator (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is not supported by the cited sources, so violates WP:RS. It violates WP:Synth and WP:OR. FloraWilde (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's often an implicit conflict between WP:Synth and WP:LEDE, but that is an issue that should be addressed at WT:LEDE. In this case, the wording puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on those three countries, as well as on unnamed "public bodies". Further, it misses the point of WP:REFERS. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Simply state instead that "The wide range of health care interventions that have insufficient quality evidence basis to establish their safety or efficacy are alternative medicine", unless someone provides MEDRS sources which contradict that. There's no need to cater to the whole range of variations in the lede. Even wp:V does not require citations in the lede, when using wp:SUMMARY style. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restating your point as above. Agreed that the sentence is questionable, to the extent that I do not see in the main part of the present version of the article anyrthing supporting "The term alternative medicine is used in information issued by public bodies in the Commonwealth of Australia." If that goes, the mention of only UK and USA may be out of place in the lead, and no harm done if deleted. But I do not see it as objecionable in principle or in fact. It may be no more than a leftover from a period when this article was being much revised. Qexigator (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Qexigator (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tagged this section as resolved. Please remove the tag if I made an error. FloraWilde (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence added by an editor is not appropriate

An editor just added this sentence -

"Some forms of alternative medicine, such as homeopathy and naturopathy, are based on the use of preparations and dosages other than those that are included in the standard pharmacopeia recognised by hospitals and physicians providing conventional medicine. "

Homeopathy is water. Characterizing this as "preparation other than standard" is inappropriate. It is not supported by the article body, and is not supported by any reliable source. FloraWilde (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try and understand the purport of text as you find it, instead brusuqely rubbishing it, or it might be thought you are pushing some sort of private or sponsored agenda (it can happen). Look again: the sentence does not say as mistakenly paraphrased. It draws attention to the indisputable and notable fact that the practice of homeopathy and of naturopathy are based on the use of preparations and dosages which are other than those that are included in the standard pharmacopeia recognised by hospitals and physicians providing conventional medicine. If you want to debate the merits of such preparations and dosages, perhaps you can find a better place to do it. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence should be removed because it doesn't actually tell us anything. It is essentially saying "Some forms of alternative medicine, such as example 1 & 2, are based off the use of alternative preparations and dosages than conventional medicine". The statement is almost a tautology.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was banal (different thing is different!) so I removed it Bhny (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this as resolved. Please remove the tag if I made an error and it is not resolved. FloraWilde (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor keeps adding it back into the article[1] (a disruptive edit). The editor just added -

A distinguishing feature of some forms of western alternative medicine, such as homeopathy and naturopathy, is treatment based on the use of preparations and dosages other than those developed in modern scientific medicine and comprised in the standard pharmacopeia recognised by established medical schools and used in hospitals and by physicians providing conventional medicine.

There are no reliable sources saying homeopathy is "other than.. standard... dosages" . The editor had made hundreds of edits to this article, so is familiar with WP:RS. FloraWilde (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced coment removed

An editor made unsourced additions that promote an individual.[2]. These were deleted. FloraWilde (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic images replaced with on-topic images per WP:UNDUE

An editor added off-topic images.[3] These include images of Queen Victoria, of major figures in the history of scientific medicine, of major scientific medicine institutions, of a flowchart of someone's conception of the scientific method, and even an image of the NSF building. These are not images of alternative medicine, the article's subject. Other images are of historic figures that are ontopic to a history of alt med article, but clutter this article and are WP:UNDUE compared to images of alternative medicine, the article subject.

Per WP:UNDUE, I replaced the offtopic images with on-topic images, of actual kinds of alternative medicine, taken from the corresponding articles at Wikipedia.[4] I moved the image of the inventor of chiropractic to the relevant history section in which he is discussed, and quotes to the sections where they are on-topic. I made the images of equal size so as not to give prominence to any particular practice or figure. FloraWilde (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor then deleted most of the criticism section in the lead, deleted the on-topic images, moved the image of the founder of chiropractic back away from the paragraph where he is first discussed, but did not mention this was being done in the edit summaries.[5]

I restored to the version by MrBill3 before deletions of content and on-topic images. FloraWilde (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored to version of MrBill3 by removing reinserted offtopic image and incorrect rewording]. FloraWilde (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Why images?

Two sets of images have recently been inserted in the article, the second set being used to exclude the first. The first set included a diagram Randomized controlled trial flowchart[6] in section "Efficacy", and in my view, of all the images in either set, that should be retained.

Apart from that, of the two sets, the first (as at 18:03, 28 July 2014[7]) is certainly preferable for the reasons given in the discussion, which was rushed into the Archive. For the time being, and subject to further discussion, let the images of both sets (except the Flowchart) be omitted. 09:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed in a section above. I restored to version by MrBill3 with image of chiropractic founder above paragraph where it is discussed. FloraWilde (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive

Discussions in Archive 25, per[8], likely to be of continuing relevance:

  • In lieu of current "Examples and classes" section[9]
  • Image[10]
  • Proposal to have any images or non-text media in article[11]
  • Why is this sentence in the lead?[12]
  • An editor added a misleading sentence in the lead. Why?[13]

Qexigator (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note in lead not needed

Resolved

Is a note providing the dictionary definitions of heal and healing needed in the lead? The word healing is wl'd and there is a full article on the topic. Do we need definitions of fairly basic words? Propose removing note with two refs from lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The note was added 20:12, 2 July 2014[14], in response to edit of[15]. In view of the unusually contentious character of the article, I am inclined to let it stay. It seems that while using the same words, inquiring readers may give them different meanings. We need to try and stabilise at least on common words, before trying to give npov information about the topic for which the article is named, which we know is not all that easy, bearing in mind that this is not a promotional article for or against. Qexigator (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus supports keeping it I won't remove it, but really? The word is wikilinked doesn't that provide all the explanation needed? The article suffers from an excessively long notes section already. I'm pretty sure policy doesn't support providing dictionary definitions of common words. Whatever consensus comes up with is fine by me. Bigger fish to fry etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a note is not needed. It clutters the article. I deleted it. FloraWilde (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the present version[16] is on the whole an acceptable way of presenting the given information to inquiring readers, including the lead. As with other articles, it is unlikely ever to be perfectly to the satisfaction of all regular editors. Qexigator (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Why images?

For no reason that I know of, my name was not added when this was posted, but that may be due to inadvertent 5th tilde

Two sets of images have recently been inserted in the article, the second set being used to exclude the first. The first set included a diagram Randomized controlled trial flowchart[17] in section "Efficacy", and in my view, of all the images in either set, that should be retained.

Apart from that, of the two sets, the first (as at 18:03, 28 July 2014[18]) is certainly preferable for the reasons given in the discussion, which was rushed into the Archive. For the time being, and subject to further discussion, let the images of both sets (except the Flowchart) be omitted. 09:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed in a section of this talk page above. Images of alternative medicine belong in this article. Images of Queen Victoria, the National Science Foundation building, Johns Hopkins University Medical School buildings, flow charts of scientific methods, etc., are not images of alternative medicine, so were deleted under WP:UNDUE. FloraWilde (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion

A related discussion is below, here. FloraWilde (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the image question as yet resolved. The main points which emerged in discussion at "Proposal to have any images or non-text media in article"[19](extracts):

Images do not necessarily improve an article, and may be no more than trivial clutter. In articles such as this, captions add no useful information, or tend to slant it either way. Images can be useful when showing such things as faces in articles about people, or buildings or artefacts, or copies of paintings. At most, an image for "Alternative medicine" generically may be acceptable. This article was improved when those non-informative images were removed. They can be seen at the pages linked to the specific articles, which is where the caption information belongs. Maybe something like the images at the following sites could add a graphic overview of the topic.

Qexigator (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ...[reply]

I think some of the images suggested by Qexigator warrant consideration. I tend to agree the images removed served little purpose. I think in general images improve articles but need careful consideration of encyclopedic nature and value. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...I am still a proponent of inserting images for the sake of having images even if they only have narrow relevance and are not as good as non-free content. I have a lot of sympathy for encyclopedia users who need to see non-text media in articles to have a good experience, and even if the images above are not ideal, I take the position that some mediocre images are better than having no images. Captions can be cut or say anything. Others may disagree with me, but I expect that much of Wikipedia errs on the side of having some images in articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors will be mindful that the focus and priority in this type of article is the communication of information about the topic, as reliably as can be, not inserting images for the sake of providing "a good experience" according some other irrelevant criteria. There are now two inset images, at least one of which could be seen as relevant to the actual topic (though neither is strictly needed), and links to others which are of a type that could usefully be added to the article if available at Commons.[20] --Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)....[reply]

Given that, for various reasons, the images so far put on this page for comment are not acceptable, and nothing else suitable has been found at Wikimedia Commons, we seem to be waiting for one of the linked images to become available from there, such as the Nature pictorial diagram for CAM domains and some of the most common examples[21] currently in the "External link" section, and/or the FDA notice about Ayurvedic products linked at the end of the the article's "Use and regulation" section, or something better than either of those, and in any case which is consistent with the written text and free from unsourced speculation. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Nature image is copyrighted, but I have seen many images like it and one could be produced by an editor here if they so desire bearing in mind that original research guidelines are less strict for images(WP:OI). I would view similar diagrams for inspiration, and try to produce an original diagram for use in this article.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, SET ONE was added:

Images for "Terms...", "History...", "Examples", etc.

The version at 15:39, 7 July 2014[22] has an image supporting the text in "Terms and definitions", four more in "History – 19th century onwards", and one in "Examples". Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now,[23] 1 in "Terms and definitions", 3 in "History – 19th century onwards", and 3 in "Classes and examples". Qexigator (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+ 2 in "Regional definitions" - may need adjustment for size? Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+ and 1 in "Efficacy".[24]. --Qexigator (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The score as at 22:16, 8 July 2014[25] Terms and definitions: 1. Regional definitions: 2. Institutions: 1. History: 4. Classes and examples: 3. Criticism: 1. Use and regulation: 1. Efficacy: 1. Appeal: 1. Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 more in "Terms and definitions" with caption about comparative extent of use of "alternative medicine" in hospitals. Qexigator (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection on pictures added

I am happy with the inclusion of pictures in this article as it is now. I understand that pictures are not necessarily an improvement for all people, but I advocate for an audience that wants health information and likes to see pictures even if they are only marginally relevant. I appreciate everyone who has responded to my request to include pictures in this article.

I only say that these pictures are good enough, and not that they are the best. If it in the future anyone wants to add or change pictures, then there can be discussion about whether that is an improvement. If I were to offer suggestions for improvement, I would wish for more diversity in what is depicted. Here are some things I wish that I could see here:

  • a graphic representing various kinds of alternative medicine, as in this copyrighted Nature illustration
  • pictures of women who contributed to alternative medicine
  • images showing alternative medicine outside a Western context
  • more depiction emphasizing complementary medicine, or the integration of alternative and conventional medicine
  • anything suggesting the narrative of how alternative medicine becomes conventional medicine as it is shown to be effective, or proving how this has happened in the past

Thanks again everyone. I think this article had a great reworking and I like this version. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the images are consistent with the fact that "One common feature of all definitions of alternative medicine is its designation as 'other than' conventional medicine." Can you identify any woman who has notably influenced the formation of what has come to be known as "western medicine" on a par with the influence of the men whose images now appear in the article? Or who has been founder of one of the main forms of alternative medicine in the same period? Your other points seem to confirm a previously expressed lack of reading the text of the article, but perhaps you now feel some further information should be reported in it, which can be properly sourced. We should not be treating this article if it were a commentary on a picture book. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qexigator Thanks for proposing so many excellent illustrations in response to my asking. I am flattered by the enthusiasm you have shown in meeting my request because I know it took a lot of time to do what you did.
You fairly describe my position when you say, "treating this article as if it were a commentary on a picture book", as I am doing exactly that and openly acknowledge it and say that it is good to do so. If you choose to continue to engage with me, expect me to maintain that position. Please forgive me if my position does not please you, and thanks at least for finding compromise with me. I believe - acknowledging that many others might not - that including the most relevant pictures even if they are not highly relevant inherently makes Wikipedia more encyclopedic. I am happy with the pictures you added and am thinking of stepping away from the article for maybe a long while, to see if anyone else has comments.
"Alternative medicine" may be other than "conventional medicine" but "complementary and alternative medicine" may not be. Also there are times in history when the divisions between alternative and conventional medicine did not exist. There is room for talking about both, as when you suggested mentioning how nurses may administer both conventional and alternative medicine. Many or perhaps most people use both alternative and conventional medicine simultaneously without thinking of a difference, and I hope this article reflects whatever sources say about this.
Mary Baker Eddy comes to mind as a great and respectable woman in the field of alternative medicine who has had influence comparable to or exceeding the men pictured, as her work is still one of the world's most influential health texts. Mother Teresa also promoted spiritual healing in circumstances which she knew conflicted with conventional medicine, and Kolkata and wider India today still follow the recommendations she made. I know nothing about alternative medicine in China, India, Africa, Russia, South America, or other places outside Western culture. Maybe someday someone else could recommend other candidates; just one significant personality in either India or China would equal the influence of the entire Western world.
Sorry for any tension I may have created between us. You have done more than I should ever expect to accommodate me, and I appreciate that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eddy (irrespective of her being a woman) is notable as having advocated a form of piety or religious devotion, conduct and behaviour which amounts to abstaining in principle from medical treatment of any kind, conventional or alternative. Qexigator (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ....[reply]
Note that the principle of her teaching is abstention from medical treatment of any description, and this article would not be improved by reporting or implying otherwise:...Qexigator (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)...[reply]

Noting that this page is "for discussing improvements to the Alternative medicine article", let it suffice to say that such merits and conduct as hers may excite in many respect or veneration, but that does not surmount the objection to her inclusion in the article. Qexigator (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator's image suggestions at the top of this section (or something similar) are informative so are very good.
Here are some other informative images available at Wikimedia Commons -
  • Energy fields for maximum health[26]
  • Chakras used in healing[27]
  • More chakras used in healing[28]

Modern Mid-Asian traditional doctor with tools

Is NCCAM WP:RS on anthropological or sociology statements?

This Wikipedia article is the place to write about NCCAM and its categories, not to adopt these as having any objective reality (which the Wikipedia template displayed at the top of the article and related articles does). Without apparent anthropological or sociological expertise, NCCAM, a political body, invented a nonsense "classification" scheme for the anthropological and sociological phenomenon called alternative medicine, of which it is a part. It used this in getting funding for testing of things like manipulation of supernatural "energy fields" to "heal". An example is its non-expert assertion that acupuncture is based on supernatural qi "energy fields", and that some other alternative medicine systems are also based on supernatural "energy fields". "Energy" and "field" mare well-defined terms in physics. NCCAM's use or abuse of these well-defined terms is something that can appear in the article, with reliable secondary sources about NCCAM. But our article should not adopt these as real categories. We can at most say that NCCAM uses them. (Traditional Chinese medicine is described in a language that does not have the word "energy" or "field" as defined in physics, so this is category is entirely an invention of NCCAM.)

Some alternative medicine systems cannot be fit at all into NCCAM's invented framework. For example, some Eskimo tribes believe that the cause of illness is stealing one or more appropriate souls of a multiple souled individual person, which a traditional doctor needs to recover to restore health. Other tribes believe that joints in the body have their own soul or souls, which if lost are the cause of pain. NCCAM's classification scheme is inappropriate for this traditional practice. Calling a soul an "energy field" mis-describes the practice and beliefs, and fitting it into a "traditional healer" category (an apparent catch-all for NCCAM), fails in that a newly made-up alternative medicine with similar multi-souls as disease cause, is not "traditional".

We should only write that NCCAM adopted these classifications if a reliable secondary source can be found that says they did. We can at best put in content from reliable secondary sources commenting on NCCAM's classification scheme. We cannot adopt it as a basis for organizing our own article (which is essentially an anthropology and sociology article). A political body declaring something to exist does not make it exist.

There are many reliable and often cited academic sources on the anthropological and sociological phenomenon of alternative medicine. Few of these are used in the article. These should be used to build this article, rather than using the assertions or classification schemes of one or more elements (e.g. NCCAM) of the phenomenon itself. FloraWilde (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without apparent anthropological or sociological expertise, NCCAM, a political body, invented a nonsense "classification" scheme... Would you show acceptably sourced information to that effect? I should like to see what you are relying on before committing to your proposal. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find extensive published sources on TCM that discuss energy fields and on alt med that discuss the concept of vitalism (and other concepts/frameworks used in the article) well beyond NCCAM. I also think there are many published sources that discuss alternative medicine using similar classification schemes. NCCAM carries some weight despite your dismissal what do published sources say about their scheme? You have presented an interesting perspective and like Qexigator I'd like to see some sources that discuss alt med and consider it in the framework you are suggesting (which is what by the way?) Although the change in context you suggest is interesting and your ideas well considered do the published sources that discuss alt med talk about in from this angle? WP represents views in published reliable sources in proportion to their prominence so bring the sources and lets take a look. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately, I do find "extensive published sources on TCM that discuss energy fields", and these are RS here. They would do better saying acupuncture is about manipulating the number of angels on the head of a needle, rather than manipulating an "energy field", since they would at least not be abusing well-defined terms in physics.) My objection is that putting the structure created by NCCAM into the alt med systems header at the top of each article (or building this into the article structure itself) is not to Wikipedia standards. it is being a part of what is supposed to be being written about. It is not writing what reliable secondary sources are saying about the structure. Here is a classic seminal collection on this. This seminal article has the expression "alt med" in the title, but the other articles are also on-point. I will do a Google Scholar search and get more. FloraWilde (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Images Discussion

I realize there are possibly (probably) relevant prior discussions. I'd like to try to work forward from where we are now. I think the image set at this time is fairly good. If someone wants to present an argument for specific images to be restored/added/removed (or captions changed) might I suggest doing so in this thread. I think Hahnemann and Palmer could be argued for. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images of actual alternative medicine as practiced are informative to the Wikipedia user, and greatly add to the user's understanding of what alternative medicine is. A historic photograph of alt med being practiced in the 1800's would be great for the history section, but images of Hahnemann and Palmer posing for a portrait should be in the specialized article - History of alternative medicine, by WP:UNDUE. By WP:UNDUE, additional of images should be of alternative medicine being practiced, or images that give actual information about alt med. An image of an important historical figure actually practicing the alt med would be very good in this article. FloraWilde (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always in this kind of thing it's a question of (ecyclopedic) editorial judgment, npov, not pushing an agenda, and as far as possible, free from pet enthusiasms (rather dull, perhaps). I am not persuaded that the present set of images improves the article, and seeing them on the page confirms my reservations.
My present position remains as before: Images do not necessarily improve an article, and may be no more than trivial clutter. In articles such as this, captions may add no useful information, or may slant it either way. Images can be useful when showing such things as faces in articles about people, or buildings or artefacts, or copies of paintings.
This article was improved some time ago when certain non-informative images, like those now there, were removed. They can be seen at the pages linked to the specific articles, which is where the caption information belongs.
At most, an image for "Alternative medicine" generically may be acceptable. Maybe something like the images at the following sites could add a graphic overview of the topic,
Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of Qexigator's suggested images would be informative to a Wiki user. Are they copyright protected? FloraWilde (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless on Commons, how can we use them? That's why the connection is by link. Qexigator (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, if not overlarge, the present set of images may help to show at a glance something of the wide range and variety encompassed by the general descriptive words "alternative medicine", which, unlike conventional/mainstream, is not a single unified entity: as the article says, there is "medicine", and there is everything else not regarded as such by the practitioners of "medicine". Qexigator (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were the images for the selected examples of AM arranged in any particular order? It looks somewhat random. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like some of the images at the links given but if not usable on WP...? I share some concern about the captions. I think the existing images might be more deliberately placed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
more deliberately placed... would that be by separating the ones now under the infobox and placing them against a piece of text in the sections? I feel that would loose something which I now see keeping them together gains (mentioned in Afterthought under "Better presentation of the images" below). There is also a possibility of putting them in a Gallery, as mentioned below, but that, too, though keeping them together, would loose what the present arrangement has. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now see your comment of 8.32 below. Qexigator (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disruptive editing

Disruptive editor, please read Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban. FloraWilde (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate pointers would be to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, WP:FRINGE and WP:DE. When referring to an editor it is also appropriate to identify the editor and provide diffs that are examples of the behavior objected to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bill - we ought to know who is being disruptive. I can't see anything out of the ordinary at the moment? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new example.[32] I will document more in other sections of this talk page. This appears to have been going on with this editor for a very long time. FloraWilde (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better presentation of the images

Edits intended to improve the presentation of the information in the article, and in particular the images, should not be miscalled "damaging", and merely reverted. That is not helping to improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to delete or damage criticism material. Does that mean that the images are being put there as "criticism material"? Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Having the "miracle cure" image at the top of the column of images seems a suitable presentation as a header for such of the images as represent use of preparations and doses of one kind or another, and those which use various forms of bodily contact, in ways which, if the patient's health recovers or improves or stabilises could, from a scientific point of view, loosely be called "miraculous". Could the images, then, be grouped as those which relate to products and the others which relate to contact? But, subject to other's comments, I would be inclined to let them stay in the order they have been given as now. Qexigator (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screen size

When formatting images, it's helpful to remember that the page may appear differently to a reader, depending on screen width. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery?

A suggestion made in the earlier discussion, now archived, was that the images, such as those now ranged down the right margin of the page under the infobox, could be presented instead as a gallery. On balance, I favour the right margin as now, but others may prefer a gallery. Any comment? Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the right margin. I would like to see deliberate placement. A gallery as an addition might be OK but a EL to the commons probably takes care of that unless there is a specific set of images deemed very appropriate for the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the white space alongside the TOC, which the column-wise arrangement (as now) uses. Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_medicine&oldid=619313491"