User talk:Qexigator/Books/"Alternative medicine", as at 2014 CE

Note: For another version of the book,[1] see and compare its-

• Talk page[2]
• earlier version of 15:30, 28 August 2014[3]
• section headings as at 15:44, 28 September 2014[4]:

• Modern medical practice – Education, research, publication
• Health care and products as medicine
• Regulation
• Emergence of alternative medicine
• Physicians in USA cited (1998-2013) about alternative medicine
• History of medical practice
• Appendix

Subtitle as epigraph

The information in the articles collected in this volume may be seen as a memorial to the 19c. philanthropist Johns Hopkins (d. 1873, Baltimore, MD) and the medical work resulting, down to the present day, from his foresight and posthumous munificence, and to the lifetime work of the physician Arnold S. Relman (d. 2014, Cambridge, MA), a professor of social medicine and editor of The Journal of Clinical Investigation (1962-1967) and of The New England Journal of Medicine (1977-1991), who wrote extensively on medical publishing and reform of the U.S. health care system.

Qexigator (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How the contents of this volume is arranged

Given that "One common feature of all definitions of alternative medicine is its designation as other than conventional medicine" (as the lead article mentions), this has influenced both the presentation of the information in the lead article and, in consequence, the selection of the other articles with their further information, much of which describes or reports about the development of conventional medicine, and what distinguishes that from "alternative".

This is encapsulated in the opening words of the lead article: "Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method". The wording expresses a principal distinguishing feature between "alternative" medicine and 20c. mainstream medicine, which is more fully explained in the Background "Definitions and terminology" and "History" sections of the article. Practises such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture are based on theories or principles which are intentionally and professedly other than that of mainstream "scientific medicine".

The unity and mutual relevance of the articles made here into a single volume is shown by the headings under which they are grouped. All but the lead article are linked from it, with few if any exceptions.

• The first group, headed "1 Main topic articles", comprises two that expand at some length on the history of medicine and of alternative medicine, and two expanding on the regulation of homeopathy and of other forms of alternative medicine.
• The second group, "2 Links from captions", lists alphabetically the articles linked from the inset images of the version of the lead article as at 23:55, 16 July 2014 [5]. Some but not all of them are also linked in the text.
• After the third group for other articles linked from the text (but not from the captions of the version of the lead article as at 23:55, 16 July 2014 [6]) are two subgroups, one of "3.2 Physicians in USA cited (1998-2013) about 'alternative medicine' " (not linked from the captions) and one for other "3.1 Persons" (not linked from the captions).

Most of the images in the lead article of the version as at 23:55, 16 July 2014 [7] recur in another of the articles, but, in the lead article, the captions and links were adapted to that context.

Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opportunity for creating a book arranged in that way resulted from the introduction of images in a series of revisions to the lead article in July 2014, from[8] to[9], in connection with a discussion of a proposal on the article's Talk page.[10][11] -- Qexigator (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The captions for the images mentioned above included:

• 1.
  biochemical
  individuality.

• 2.
  Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
  (1916).

• 3. Abraham Flexner, c. 1895. A critic of American higher education, he was appointed to lead the team commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching which produced the report published in 1910 recommending reform of American medical schools.

Med.; HQ: Cairo, Egypt

  Europe; HQ: Copenhagen, Denmark

  South East Asia; HQ: New Delhi, India

  Western Pacific; HQ: Manila, Philippines

• 4. Most hospitals in the countries of Europe and in the Americas, including those founded in 19c. such as Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, founded in 1852 with Queen Victoria as patron,[12] provide mainstream medicine. Some provide "alternative medicine" such as the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, founded in 1849 as the London Homoeopathic Hospital.

• 5. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine founded in1899 by Patrick Manson, first situated at Albert Dock Seamen's Hospital.

• 6. Peking Union Medical College, founded in 1906 by American and British missionaries and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

• 7. Regions of the World Health Organization (WHO). To assist Member States in the development of TM/CAM policies and regulations, WHO has published a series of technical guidelines, and reviewed regulations on herbal medicines.[13] The Pan American Health Organization (founded 1902) operates as the regional office for the Americas.

• 
  1.
• 
  2.
• 
  3.

Institutions

• 
  4.Hospitals, as from 19c.
• 
  5.
• 
  6.
• 
  7.

The article "History of medicine" includes an image of a 12c. Byzantine manuscript of the

• Proceeding with the newly revised version[14]

The present version, as newly revised, gives even greater prominence than before to anxiety about fraudulent health products in the USA, the homeland of the expression "snake oil" in this connection, said to stem from the days of the construction of the "Pacific Railroad" in the 1860s. In the context of the rest of the article as a whole, that may be considered acceptable. But the topic is not "Fraudulent health products in the USA"; it is "Alternative medicine", an expression that came into use about a century later, and it is misleading to construct the article as if there is some definite entity world-wide of which it could be said "alternative medicine actually is ". In the earlier version, this was scrupulously explained after the lead in "Background" section: Treatments considered alternative in one location may be considered conventional in another... Some definitions seek to specify alternative medicine in terms of its social and political marginality to mainstream healthcare. How the term "alternative medicine" came into use was explained in the next section "History", followed by "The NCCAM classification system", and "snake oil" was mentioned, with citations. We should consider putting the longstanding structure for the first two sections back in place. Qexigator (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Denial[15]

See "Collaborative editing" and "Recent edits, future images" below, and in particular, see in the collapsed section below, "The attempt to attribute the mayhem quote as if Qexigator's is particularly interesting to anyone evaluating the problem. It shows an inability (on FloraWilde's part) to understand what was being said, or a deliberate attempt to mislead". For the record, the supposed "disruptive" edits have not been demonstrated to be so, the repeated use of that term by FloraWilde does not substantiate the supposition, and it is denied and rebutted by.... Qexigator (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Collaborative editing[16]

Most regular editors will be aware that when an article is being built up or revised by a number of editors over a period of time, changes in the revisions will be made and unmade or modified as the revision evolves, with moves until a structure is settled, and later on it may be found that tweaks and copyedits are necessary. To characterise that as disruptive shows a complete failure to understand the process. Such changes are discussed and accepted or not as the process continues, as should be happening now with questions about the presentation of the images, as well as changes to text. Our concern should be to improve the article as best we may, acknowledging when a change of direction happens, such as the introduction of images. Qexigator (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent edits, future images[17]

Changes have recently been made to the lead, and the position of the first sections "Background" and "History – 19th century onwards" which depart from the long-standing version as at 22:41, 31 July 2014.[18]

The lead, structure and text had been stablised, with some copyedits and tweaks thereafter, until 26 July [19], as a result of an earlier revision process (involving a number of editors) pretty much at the point when MrBill3's overhaul of the refs was getting under way in mid-September 2013[20], and goes as far as back as March 2013[21], if not before.

The ongoing process of editing to improve the article was affected by a misguided attempt to claim that certain edits were "disruptive", which demonstrably was in error.[22]

But the recent series of edits, made by one newly intervening editor, has turned the previously stable article, written and set out in an encyclopedic style and character, into something which tends to look more in the style and character of a soapboxish rant aimed, perhaps, at satisfying a section of the American readership.[23] Those edits were preceded by the flurry about banning "disruptive" editing introduced here[24], considered here[25] and here,[26] and continued here[27], here[28], here[29],[30], here[31] etc., and including a falsehood (maybe inadvertent) about the lead here[32]

That has been a needless and unwarranted distraction from the ongoing process of edits aimed at improving the article.[33][34] It was attended by a series of moves of content on this page,[35] alteration of headings, such as here[36], or here,[37] insertions of Headings, such as [38], and collapses, such as [39][40] (and sometimes uncollapsing), which has interefered with the accurate presentation of the way the discussion has developed. Are we to suppose that was due simply to brash ignorance, or perhaps a tactical move with combative intent?

This can be seen as particularly significant, noting that it was done in connection with an unfounded attack on the present contributor, none of whose edits or contributions can properly be described as disruptive, whether or not some have later been removed in the normal process of development, coupled with an attack on NCAAM for its political position under the title "Is NCCAM WP:RS on anthropological or sociology statements?", commenting: 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". The title has been changed to "Is NCCAM WP:RS on physics, anthropology, sociology, and theology?" and the content revised.

None of the other recent edits which were said to be disruptive were so in fact, nor were any of those cited from the past, as can be acknowledged by any one who was involved in the editing at that time, and can be seen by anyone prepared to look at the edits in sequence in the context of the ongoing edits and Talk page discussions. Reasoned and reasonable discussion on the Talk page in respect of any of such edit that was thought not to be an improvement would be the way to make progress, without yelling "disruptive".

In particular, the use of images in principle, and where images would be placed for the better information of inquiring readers, involve questions about which some discussion has started, but has not yet been sufficiently explored for anyone to claim a consensus has been reached in support of what any one person editing here may favour. When some calm and reason has been restored, it may be possible to resume the ongoing process of editing the article for its improvement in the normal way. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits of the lead article from March 2013 to July 2014, exemplifying tweaks and copyedits made to the text of the earlier version in that period (some have remained, some moved, some gone in the ordinary course of developing the article), and some images inserted in July 2014, later removed:

2013 MARCH

• 4 tweaks: former editor- a for the/ Move 'In 1995...' under 'Complementary medicine refers to use...' / Title History, add 19c. and after/ Ludmerer: noted in 2010[41]
• tweak: expert panel 1995...intrinsic[42]
• dubious phrase removed, see Talk "Points to clarify" (tweak?)[43]
• m (rmv 2 commas)[44]
• CAM: making more explicit per sources[45]
• CAM per Talk[46]

2013 APRIL

• See also: MHRA, UK[47]
• add ref to Enc.Brit.1911[48]
• m (contributor's name)[49]
• m (add wikilink to my last)[50]
• ref to Ruggie's Understanding CAM: The Problem of Knowledge and the Power of Words{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=548481074]

2013 MAY

• Institutions: copyedit: While...but[51]

2013 JUNE, JULY, AUG nil

2013 SEPT

• new paragraph, for terminology in USA and UK, per Talk[52]
• Regional definitions: tweak for NCCAM[53]
• m (change tense, "is not " to "have not been", to cover current teaching of alt.m. "in more than 50 per cent of US medical schools")[54]
• 2 sub-heads, USA and UK, to break the mass of text and show in contents box, moving RD and EE under UK[55]
• smoothing sequence and clarifying loci of criticism (USA etc), per the given sources as cited. All text and cites retained[56]
• Prevalence of use: smooth sequence and clarify loci of opponents, USA and other, moving some portions of text, adjusting sub-headings{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=573062016]
• Use and regulation: completing last[57]
• m (undo repeated in text link)[58]
• Appeal section - smooth sequence and make sub-headings[59]
• Examples and classes: alphabetic listing, per Talk. should inset pics be removed?[60]
• text citing Beyerstein (Canada) removed due to broken links per Talk[61]
• text citing Beyerstein BL (1999) removed due to broken link- was ref 214 + a b c d e f[62]
• Other critics (UK): sceptic position - Dawkins per Talk[63]
• NHMRC Australia[64]

2013 OCT

• Efficacy: per usual, Ernst is named without academic title, like others (eg Dawkins))[65]

2013 NOV, DEC nil

2014 JAN

• Diamond quote in lead, as proposed in Talk[66]
• added energy medicine, proposed in Talk[67]
• Examples and classes: 1 of 3, as proposed, Talk[68]
• Examples and classes: 2 of 3, as proposed, Talk[69]
• Examples and classes: 3 of 3, as proposed, Talk[70]
• Exampl[es and classes: cleanup in progress, further trimming needed[71]
• rmv cite errors and 2 images[72]
• Examples and classes: NCCAM Classification[73]
• (correction to previous)[74]
• rmv cite error[75]
• mv to Prevalence[76]
• m Classification: word order and rmv subheading. Most of text above it needs further trimming, from "NCCAM has distinguished..." to "... show the condition of the organs"[77]
• trimming - mv Sagan crit of putative energy[78]
• trimming in progress[79]
• trimming[80]
• trimming - mv homeopathy to Efficacy[81]
• mv Examples below classification, trim[82]
• trimmed naturopathy[83]
• rmv unneeded wikilinks and trim some wording[84]
• m Classes and examples: wikilink for NCCAM[85]
• m full citation given in text + bibliography[86]
• m Classes and examples: copyedit- this introductory sentence is a brief recap. of fuller text at beginning of "Background"[87]
• Classes and examples: undo link, NCCAM linked above[88]
• m Medical education since 1910: rmv wikilink made above[89]
• copyedit: redistributing part of a paragraph to next heading[90]
• copyedit: redistributing part of a paragraph to previous heading, and improving sequence of points made in "Criticism" section[91]
• m + rmv repeated text[92]
• m Criticism: + wikilink "non-maleficence"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=593191580]
• m Examples: rmv 3 repeat wikilinks[93]
• m (+ alphabetical[94]

2014 FEB

• mv from lead to Criticism In USA[95]

2014 MARCH, APRIL, MAY, JUNE nil

2014 JULY

• mv from lead to Criticism In USA[96]
• undid less exact copy edits purporting to clarify[97]
• undo mistaken copyedit which deleted "put forward as" in lead. For medics and others healing is still the usual aim, as far as diagnosis and available treatment permit[98]
• Classes and examples: image, medical library[99]
• External links: links to generic images, per Talk[100]
• Examples: image removed, per Talk[101]
• rmv irrelevant image, specific to one particular AM, which can be seen by anyone interested at the link in the first para. after lead[102]
• In USA: The image can be seen at the specific article linked in the first paragraph of the lead, and added nothing to the section about "Prevalence of use, in USA"[103]
• undo - not weasel, we are not able to affirm that categorically[104]
• rmv "established", the article mentions "By 2001 some form of CAM training was being offered by at least 75 out of 125 medical schools in the US"[105]
• Regulation: FDA caution for consumers[106]
• Flexner (image)[107]
• Peking (image)[108]
• m History – 19th century onwards: link, medical research[109]
• m History – 19th century onwards: link, Rise of modern medicine[110]
• Examples: naturopathy, Scheel[111]
• Osler “Father of Modern Medicine”(image)[112]
• Examples: naturopathy, Lust (image)[113]
• mv pic - some may see a coloured image near the top as improving the article[114]
• m History – 19th century onwards: Palmer, link[115]
• m History – 19th century onwards: link in caption[116]
• History – 19th century onwards: chronology, Peking[117]
• Classes and examples: mv Palmer image here[118]
• Classes and examples: mv Palmer image here, add European Pharmacopoeia[119]
• m Classes and examples: link, Eur. pharm.[120] More images were added, now removed, discussed at Talk.
• History – 19th century onwards: Welch and Osler at Johns Hopkins[121]
• m (link to "forms" not "branches"[122]
• In USA and Canada: image, antibiotics message[123]
• Regulation: image per Talk[124]
• Pharmacopoeia, WHO, UK, FDA[125]
• a defining fact (expanded in the "Classes and examples" section) corresponding with the opinion "no such thing..."[126]
• See also: lists this and connected articles[127]
• History – 19th century onwards: Jones, Manson[128]
• m (+ Relman's remark, per article[(+ Relman's remark, per article]
• This is meant as no more than a minor copyedit for the current version of the lead, per Talk[129]
• fixing image formats[130]
• short statement for lead, not self-evident to the ordinary inquiring reader[131]
• tweak[132]
• m fix image sizehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=618936889]
• Regional definitions: undo, may belong to another article[133]
• rmv images per talk[134]
• restore to previous, suffices for lead[135]
• shrinking images from undue prominence[136]
• This image is not connected with the scientific community or alternative medicine as such, and the caption does not make it so. In general, alternative is not being held out as offering a "miracle" cure any more than conventional[137]
• one Ayurvedic image is enough[138]
• Proponents and opponents: Better said, for caption. The image is not connected with the scientific community or alternative medicine as such[139]
• improving presentation of the images[140]
• mv up image, given article content seems better placed here[141]
• Proponents and opponents: scientific community etc[142]
• m Proponents and opponents: rmv duplicating links[143]
• mv box, but is this where it should be? if not, undo[144]
• rmv image--dubious--not Michigan per file it is Boston, MA. Nothing to vouch for it as "botánica of traditional Hispanic medicines"[145]
• m pharmacy location, image[146]
• image source--FDA[147]
• Classes and examples: copyedit for clarity[148]

Qexigator (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]