Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole medical systems

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Alternative medicine. This has been quite a wide-ranging discussion, so let me see if I can break it down. In terms of pure numbers, I counted 5 keeps, 3 merges, 4 redirects, 2 redirect/deletes, and 3 deletes. The "keeps" mostly pointed to the availability of sources on the subject, which do seem to be numerous and independent of each other. Two of the "deletes" argued that the term was a neologism, but I found this argument less persuasive as the secondary sources pointed out by the "keeps" discuss the term itself in detail. (From WP:NOTNEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.")

Of most importance to finding consensus, however, were the arguments about whether whole medical systems constitutes a distinct subject to alternative medicine or not. Opinions ran the gamut from considering the two subjects as completely separate, to treating whole medical systems and alternative medicine as fully synonymous terms. This was not an easy decision to make due to the variety of opinions, but when weighing the arguments up, a selective merge/redirect to alternative medicine seemed to have slightly more support than the other positions, and to be a good compromise between the "keeps" and the "deletes". — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole medical systems

[edit]
Whole medical systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can see this is a neologism with only minor usage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The term is used relatively frequently to distinguish comprehensive and coherent systems that include both a systematic theoretical foundation and therapeutic practices addressing a broad range of medical situations, from "niche" medical approaches that are generally lumped together under alternative medicine. There is no other term that describes this. The article should not (and I think presently is not) be a mere dictionary definition, of course. The NIH and Merck Manual both employ the term hgilbert (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NIH through NCCAM employ it, because they invented it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA also has adopted the term, suggesting it was an adaptation by NCCAM from the previous alternative medical system.
It appears that there is a distinction consistently being made between alternative medicine in general, and whole systems of medicine, and that the contemporary terminology is now whole medical system. The history of the term alternative medical system would also be interesting to trace.hgilbert (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cathchbag neologism with usage limited to a single US government agency and a few fringe proponents, and with no real encyclopedic utility. Essentially synonymous with Alternative medicine, which means that this article is merely a content (and probably POV) fork of that article. The material included here is already included there. There really isn't anything to merge. Can be deleted in its entirety and redirected. Despite cries of WP:GHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, there is no justification for duplicate articles on one subject under different names. We don't have a seperate article on Eggplant and Aubergine, for example, as the subject matter is the same. The same here. There is nothing that can be added to this article that would not fit in the article on Alternative medicine, and any material can be better presented within the context of that article.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (i.e. delete). This is a term that NCCAM seem to be trying to coin, and the alties do have some success in coining new names for old bullshit, this does not yet appear to have significant traction (probably because at least some of the purported "whole medical systems" conspicuously fail the test of being medical systems. The article appears to have been created in order to promote anthroposophical medicine, which is not even defined as a whole medical system by NCCAM. This looks very much like POV-forking of alternative medicine, very much as the coiners of the term intend, in fact. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously not a neologism as the words of this phrase are long-standing and fairly plain English (unlike much medical jargon). The phrase is used in hundreds of books, as one can readily see from the search link above. The nomination is therefore not evidence-based. Warden (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long standing? Show me a book from 50 years ago using this term, 40 years? 30 years? 20 years? No? That would be because the term was invented by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [1] (the book which only gives 2 sentences about "Whole medical systems" generally, so not significant coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to find earlier usage such as the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1903, "There is a very strong belief in the existence of evil spirits, and all kinds of calamities and diseases are ascribed to their malignity. Thus almost the whole medical system of the Dyaks consists in the application of ...". Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, that is just the normal usage of those words, it's not referring to "whole medical system" as a concept here. It's referring to the entire "medical system of the Dyaks". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same concept. This is not some complex or novel jargon. The phrase just means a comprehensive system of medicine - one which covers all types of ailment, not just a specialism. The Dyaks' system of spirit-based medicine was such a system and that was much the same conceptually as the other examples given here, like Chinese medicine grounded in the idea of chi, rather than spirits. Warden (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative medicine is a different structural concept. By definition, it means a competing or co-existing system of medicine. A whole system of medicine is one which is comprehensive and so self-sufficient — it can stand by itself. Warden (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that it competes/contrasts with? Zujua (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Leaving aside the comment of Guy 14:47, 4 September 2012 which seems to suffer from a compulsive animus inconsistent with reasoning (doubtless in good faith), then Qexigator, attempting to speak for the ordinary reader looking for information reasonably free from "pov", would see a redirect sufficient, provided the article allows mention of the expression "Whole medical systems".Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC) But and on further consideration of 1_Warden's comment (14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ) about different structural concept, and 2_Questions about -whether "regular" medicine is not also describable as a whole medical system (see "Clarification" below) and -whether Anthroposophic/al medicine is better described as an extension of what is known as "regular", merger with Alternative Medicine would probably do more to confuse than clarify. Therefore keep provided that it is explained why there is a continuing denial (if it is so) on the part of professional, academic or official bodies that "regular" medicine is within the descriptor "whole medical system"; and "Whole medical systems" is demonstrably not a neologism, as proposed at top in the lead for this discussion. This paragraph is revised on change from merge to keep: Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean an animus to bogus "medical systems" incompatible with reason, but I understood. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - dozens of books that use this term doesn't seem "only minor usage". Scholarly articles that go back to 1973 (actually 1970) and 1980, and a book from 1984 -- that's about 40 years ago -- don't seem to support the idea that this was a term "coined by NCCAM". Finally, this term seems to be gaining considerable notability since about 2003 and thus deserves an article. Perhaps this nomination was a bit hasty? Perhaps we should add references to a dozen scholarly articles and a dozen books that have used the term, as supporting evidence of the notability of the term. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a quote of it's usage in the article in 1973. It seems inconsistent with the reliable sources that says it was coined by NCCAM. Perhaps you are looking at a grouping of the words; i.e same as "the entire medical systems".IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled; what reliable source says it was coined by NCCAM? I missed this. hgilbert (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source [2] introduces the term by saying it is an NCCAM classification. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is ambiguous; I suggest we drop the claim that the term was "coined by" NCCAM, which is not what this source says at all. It is certainly a classification used by NCCAM. And it appears that it may well predate the NCCAM usage. hgilbert (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sources from the 70s and 80s are talking about medical systems. You can do your own research here with the links I've given. The Kleinman paper (1973) "Medicine's symbolic reality: On a central problem in the philosophy of medicine" in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy deals with:

Comparative studies of medical systems offer a general model for medicine as a human science. These studies document that medicine, from an historical and cross‐cultural perspective, is constituted as a cultural system in which symbolic meanings take an active part in disease formation, the classification and cognitive management of illness, and in therapy.

In particular, these systems are termed whole medical systems here, referring to a 1970 paper by Alland which in turn refers to work done in 1967:

Alland (1970) attempts to compare whole medical systems in his evolutionary framework. General comparisons of Asian, African and Western medical systems are found in: Robin Horton, 'African Traditional Thought and Western Science. I', Africa, Vol. 37 (1967),...

This usage is consonant with the definition given in the WP article "Whole medical systems are coherent systems of medical theory and medical practice that have been developed independently of, or parallel to, conventional Western medicine." (emphasis added). Examples given in the article (TCM, Ayurveda) are both among "Asian and African medical systems" mentioned in this paper. This paper takes the meaning of whole medical systems to include the Western medical system.
The particular emphasis of the contrast with the Western medical system is implicit in these papers and was probably given explicit emphasis later by NCCAM. Nonetheless, scholarly comparative study of medical systems as a whole was undertaken long before NCCAM came into existence and today has broad coverage in hundreds of scholarly papers and books. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it agreed that there is a substantive issue which cannot be reduced to the question of "grouping of the words"? Thus, following up the references in EPadmirateur's comment of 05:36, 5 September 2012: to a non-specialist ordinary reader the usage "pseudo-" appears to be designed and intended to be loaded and prejudicial. If there is a controversy among medics (and patients) concerning allopathic v. homeopathic [3] then, seeing that the theory and practice of both inevitably have limitations and insufficiencies (and maybe deficiencies of one kind or another), surely npov should not proceed to treat one of them as "pseudo-" this or that merely because its limitations and deficiencies differ from the other's. But any genuinely informative and non-partisan article (or part of an article) on "Whole medical systems" needs to make clear that there are a variety of such systems (including allopathic?), some of ancient origin and some, such as homeopathic and anthroposophic, more recent. Surely, Wikipedia is not to be seen as serving or siding with an allegedly partisan body such as AMA (see ref. above)? Qexigator (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the AfD? Calling the American Medical Association partisan and your use of pejoratives for mainstream medicine are unlikely to garner much sympathy with the closing admin. Wikipedia isn't here to pretend your fringe beliefs and mainstream science and medicine as on an equal footing. Wikipedia represents things neutrally by WP:WEIGHT. It is NPOV that makes us describe pseudoscience as pseudoscience; the most reliable sources call it pseudoscience. The weight of sources is firmly with mainstream (self-evidently because it's the mainstream) science and medicine rather than pseudoscience. I suggest you read the requirements of WP:AFDFORMAT. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry or not, Wolfie, your remarks are objectionable: 1_ "...what are you talking about and what does it have to do with the AfD?" AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements...etc. Quite so. Please do not respond and distort in a partisan manner as if the point of the comment was not clear. 2_Look again, my comment was not calling the AMA partisan. Why take instant umbrage? 3_"...your use of pejoratives for mainstream medicine". False imputation upon my comment. 4_"...unlikely to garner much sympathy with the closing admin. Wikipedia". Is that meant as a threat to warn off something to which you have no better answer? 5_ "It is NPOV that makes us describe pseudoscience as pseudoscience; the most reliable sources call it pseudoscience. The weight of sources is firmly with mainstream (self-evidently because it's the mainstream) science and medicine rather than pseudoscience." Previously noted and acknowledged. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Qexigator expected that it would be understood that use of the term "allopathic" above (22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)) was for the purpose of the context, not for the purpose of persiflage implying that the sort of medical practice to which it has been applied (as described in Allopathic medicine) is to be treated in general as bogus (or pseudo-), although it may also be noted that the use of the term "Quackery" antedates homeopathy. Qexigator does not propose to enter into the finer points, but in the capacity of an ordinary reader looking for candid information would ask that one of the results of the present discussion will be a clear statement in an article about why practitioners of what is sometimes called "regular" medicine, of the kind approved by the AMA and similar professional bodies, would oppose this being considered as a "whole system". In this connection, it is noteworthy that: 1_ Merriam-Webster offers two definitions for allopathy [4], 2_ allopathy is used in the timeline at [5], 3_MedicineNet accomodates reference to alllopathy, homeopathy, conventional medicine and so on [6], [7]. --Qexigator (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect...to Alternative medicine. I don't see much distinction between the two terms. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alternative medicine is a mishmash of anything and everything that someone considers to be a therapy. Like someone I know who has developed her own therapy for using flowers to treat disease. As the sources reveal, whole medical systems are typically traditional, comprehensive systems that have evolved over a long period of time, even thousands of years. And some are now increasingly evidence-based. It would be nice to see this article retained and developed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are policy based arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Merge: "Merging should be avoided if...the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short" hgilbert (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The neologism isn't clearly a discrete subject and overlaps with alternative medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest looking at WP:CANVASS which does not limit it's scope to user talk pages. If you want to a central location for fringe theories try a wikiproject of which the article is within the scope of. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I read there " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." and appropriate places include "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." and "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Though related articles are not explicitly mentioned, clearly this would fall within this scope. I purposely did not select out editors who were of one opinion or another. I think you'll find my notification was neutral in tone, as well. Indeed, it violated none of the criteria listed in WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. hgilbert (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative medicine or Delete The reason to redirect would be - it is not giving any new information. It is the old wine in the new bottle. Or even we are only trying change the label of the bottle. In this process we are forgetting that the contents remains the same! So there is no point in plying with words and hence redirect. But if people are unhappy with the new name, then you can delete as well. One more thing I would like to bring to notice to the people who are supporting it, that a science become popular by hard wok in the field of research and not by merely changing the name. Testing theories, asking questions, facing facts and striving for truth is easier said than done. Hence some people choose easier way to popularize a thing. But I would like to tell them that this is not the proper way and going by scientific way is easier indeed. I am an Ayurvedic Physician myself and do feel that what is needed in Ayurveda is hardcore evidence and not opinions. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative medicine or *Delete old wine in a new bottle indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Redirect to Alternative medicine, preferably with an improved explanation of the term in the Classifications section. Alternatively, would it perhaps be appropriate to have some sort of disambiguation page providing a brief referenced definition and links to Alternative medical systems and Traditional medicine? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect Sources like this one make clear that Whole Medical Systems (capitalized to represent the concept discussed, in contrast to some of the uses cited above which are clearly just those words in that particular order and not a discrete idea) are a subset of alternative medicine and that the term is confusingly vague (lacking "conceptual clarity"). The best way forward, in my opinion, would be to have a discussion in the alternative medicine article of some of the attempted subclassifications of CAM's enormous umbrella. What's clear from the medical literature I've perused is that the terminology is not heavily used, in part because of its fuzzy nature and numerous near-synonyms. I'd suggest, though, that alternative medicine could benefit from a succinct breakdown of general categories, leading to linked articles on individual modalities, like that found in this paper based upon NCCAM and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration classifications:

    Biologically-based practices (including dietary supplements, botanicals, animal-derived extracts, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, probiotics, whole diets and functional foods).

    Energy medicine (including visible light, magnetism, laser beams, other electromagnetic forces, and biofields such as ki, doshas, prana, atheric energy, and mana)

    Manipulative and body-based practices (including chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation, massage therapy, reflexology, Bowen technique, Alexander technique)

    Mind-body medicine (relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, qi gong, cognitive behavioural therapies and spirituality)

    Whole medical systems (including traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic medicine, naturopathy, homeopathy, and acupuncture).

    The reader would benefit most, in my opinion, if a search for "whole medical system" took her/him to the alternative medicine page directly where the term's fuzzy boundaries in relation to other CAM can be fully explored directly against other subclassifications. — Scientizzle 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a catchall to create another article for alt med (or CAM). There are enough CAM articles that barely get read or edited that probably should be merged anyways into the main article. It's amusing that CAM continues to try to reinvent itself, taking the word "medicine" whenever it wants to establish itself as kind of a science. Still, we should allow it if it's notable. This isn't really notable. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative medicine. Seriously, what's the difference? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is not a rhetorical question, I'll note the answer I gave above: alternative medicine is any therapy someone thinks might heal something, such as the person I know who treats people with the use of flowers. As the sources reveal, whole medical systems are typically traditional, comprehensive systems of theory and practice that have evolved over a long period of time, even thousands of years. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is "Whole medical systems" is a neologism alternative medicine excluding guys who don't have a "theory"; if you really add a sentence about this new term by the NCCAM into Alt Med. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whole_medical_systems&oldid=1071229551"