Talk:Glossary of alternative medicine

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is how you can avoid writing stub articles
Copied from from Category_talk:Alternative_medicine_stubs. Also a similar version should be in the talk archive of this Glossary. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The glossary of alternative medicine is ideal for avoiding stub articles. All new articles about terms and concepts used in alternative medicine should always start out as a write up in our glossary. Biographies should always start out in the list of people in alternative medicine. Likewise, history articles should always start out in the history of alternative medicine aricle.

Topics that will only be one or two paragraphs in size can be easily added to this glossary. In addition, the content of the glossary of alternative medicine can, also, be easily referenced in articles (for example, Doctrine of Signatures).

Remember that a one or two paragraph write up is what our glossary of alternative medicine and our other annotated lists are for. So, please do not write stub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one of the primary reasons that this specific Glossary was created for in the first place. Deleting entries that are quote too specific is being counter productive. If you want to move them to a more specific glossary, then please do, otherwise please stop deleting perfectly valid entries. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is nutrition included?
Is "alternative medicine" usually considered to include some nutritional approaches, e.g. "megavitamins"? Or not? --Coppertwig 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. A number of approaches could be listed under that heading. Go ahead and add it, then look through the whole page and copy those you find to that heading. (Don't delete them from their original locations.) --  Fyslee  ( First law ) 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, I took Apparently Ilena beat me to it;) the EBM statement back off acupuncture, mostly because nobody else was being noted as such. I think as long as we don't make any assertions (pro or con), we won't have to tag this list with NPOV problems, etc.  We can just leave it a list until somebody complains. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a gloosary and not a commentary. I am not even sure the of the point of this article. Certainly we don't need to define each Alt Med as each already has their own article. All we should have is a list that has been wikilinked accordingly. Then again, that list is equivilent to the Alt Med category... which brings me back to the point: Why do we have this article? -- Levine2112 discuss  18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a List of Alternative medicines? -- Dēmatt (chat)  19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the stuff at the bottom of the page? It looks like it is supposed to be deleted sometime anyway. -- Dēmatt (chat)  19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I would assume that the category "Alternative Medicine" should cover most of this article anyhow. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a Speedy delete as per Articles #5 Transwikied articles. -- Dēmatt (chat)  19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Has the transwikification been properly performed and the author information recorded? -- Levine2112 <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the cat tag at the bottom of the page and the three boxes at the bottom of the article page? How do we know for sure? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks all set to me. Let's nominate it for deletion. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on - check this out -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure if it is moved over yet, are you? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems moved.

If not, I'm sure the AfD will bring to light what the next steps to follow are. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it is there. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

neutrality disputed?
Arthur removed the Speedy delete, so I am assuming there is a good reason for that. Meanwhile, I see there is a neutrality tag on the top that says see discussion on talk page, which of course I don't see, so I'm starting one. So,... is there a problem with this article? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a look through the list and found that most everything I could think of was listed plus a few. There are only cursory explanations given for any of them, none of which draw any conclusions on efficacy either way.  This is probably a pretty good list. It may be a repeat of similar information in the List of alternative medicine techniques.  I think I will remove the tag. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of alternative medicine and related edits
Please discuss these edits here on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting.

Re Jim Butler's edit of 05:33 on Feb. 14:

Re the definition "a group of diverse..." versus "a broad term for any..." I don't know which definition is better. Could someone find a published definition in a reliable source and provide a complete reference? Someone mentioned in an edit summary that one of the definitions is from "NCCAM" -- could a citation be provided for that?

Inserting "generally": very good, describes the situation much more accurately in my opinion.

I oppose Jim Butler's version of this part:


 * Proponents of evidence-based medicine regard the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine as moot, preferring "good medicine" (with provable efficacy) and "bad medicine" (without it). See alternative medicine for additional definitions of CAM.

Referring to things as "good medicine" and "bad medicine" is definitely POV. Just because something has not (yet) been proven to be effective doesn't necessarily mean that it's "bad medicine" or even that it isn't "good medicine". I prever the previous version:


 * The list of therapies included under CAM changes gradually. If and when CAM therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care, they gradually cease to be considered CAM, since adoption and acceptance often takes time. The converse result, a therapy being dropped by CAM practitioners after it has been proven dangerour or ineffective, has not yet been documented.

This version is accurate, good style (as opposed to the overly informal "good medicine" etc.), and seems reasonably NPOV to me.

Everyone please comment here about your reasons for preferring one version or the other of these parts. --Coppertwig 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The converse result, a therapy being dropped by CAM practitioners after it has been proven dangerour or ineffective, has not yet been documented.
 * This appears to be POV and OR. It might not be, but a reference would fix that.  -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Coppertwig; the problem I see with the deleted version is that it gives undue weight to a minority-view definition of CAM (the one suggested by Dawkins et. al., i.e., the one based on EBM, rather than social sphere of usage, i.e. relationship to mainstream medicine). Alternative medicine has more on this issue, and for definitions, it has V RS's in the lead and subsequent sections.  We should probably use those references in this article as well.  The text I substituted I simply copued from alternative medicine's lead section, where it appeared editors had accepted the wording.  I have no problem changing to something that sounds less inflammatory.  What EBM advocates argee on is that evidence matters.  "Good" and "bad" are their terms, amd indeed their POV, but it's a sig one.  To convey the same idea, they also use terms lime "proven" and "unproven" which may sound more appropriate in this article.


 * The important point, imo, is that the term be clearly defined and due weight be given to other definitions. CAM's generally-accepted definition is not the same as Dawkins' definition.  See swiftboating for more about different groups' attempts to define a term.  This situation is similar; inherently political stuff.


 * Finally, Dematt, certainly agree re the section you flagged as OR. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What does "EBM" mean? I've put a comment on the talk page of alternative medicine about "good" and "bad" medicine.  --Coppertwig 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Coppertwig -- EBM is an acronym for evidence-based medicine. I replied at Talk:Alternative Medicine.  I share your concerns, and thanks! Jim Butler(talk) 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you're right, earlier version (sans the OR sentence) was better. Restored and put it in lead at Alternative Medicine.   cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know where and what reference #2 is supposed to point to? It is used several times in this article, but the actual source seems to be missing. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

International Recognition
Personally, I believe just being in Wikipedia gives this glossary international recognition, IMHO. I am a supporter of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This should give you an idea of just how valuable wikipedia presumes itself to be. Ans e ll  04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fu Xi Wen
For more information about this matter, please read these:

-- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice_needed_regarding_inclusion_requirements
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fyslee&diff=181544391&oldid=181442510

prod removed
I removed the proposeddeletion tag on this. first, a deletion of an article like this is always goingto be controversial, so it would have to go to Afd. Second, the reaso was wrong, there is no rule against a list and a category, since a list can give more information. Third, problems of non-neutral definition can be dealt with by editing. AfD if you like, but I think rather than fight there, with a good chance it wont be deleted anyway, it would be preferable to improve it. DGG (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
I have removed this tag as there seem to be no disputes of any kind recorded on the talk page. Hgilbert (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this article not a WP:NOT violation?
Per WP:NOT... Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can someone explain to me how a "Glossary" of alternative medicine terms isn't a dictionary? Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. On the other hand, there are hundreds of "Glossary of..." articles on Wikipedia at the moment. And a glossary isn't really a dictionary, though the entries would certainly overlap.

Hmmm...see WikiProject Glossaries. Seems we're trying to create glossaries in a big way here. Didn't know that myself. Hgilbert (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would discount that "project"... as it seems to only have member (who was its creator). Not much of a "project" when you only have one person working on it. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A glossary is not the same as a dictionary. A glossary defines terms in one area or field (in a single article in the case of Wikipedia).  If Wikipedia were a dictionary, it would have an entry for each common word.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia is not a dictionary "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries...". Also see Lists. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles
I have started an RfC: RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles. Please comment on this important subject. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm replying with this to everywhere Fyslee has put this request, though you are of course welcome to comment on what he's created.  I need to write where he has put this because the title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?
Recent attempts to redirect this glossary to List of alternative medicine subjects have been made. I don't approve of such attempts. The two are different in function and format. Please keep both of them.

If an attempt to delete this glossary is made, it should be done in a proper manner. Before doing such, why not improve it? Cleaning up the POV problems that might exist would be a good place to start. While anything started by John Gohde should be viewed with a skeptical eye, he has also produced a number of potentially useful things here (even a four times banned user can have a good point or two....;-). It's often the POV slant that his productions have that are the problem, not the productions themselves. Please consider how to improve them. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was four times. The 1st ban only lasted 30 days. But, please leave my name out of these types of discussions in the future. It is my understanding that this important Glossary has survived two prior formal attempts to delete it.  It is still here for a reason. Glossaries in general, and particularly this Glossary, serve a useful purpose. -- John Gohde (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect attempts were improper because it is too soon after the AFD. And, in any case, a merge would be the more appropriate process as there is much material here which should be retained per WP:PRESERVE. The suggested target seems more redundant than this article because it is explicitly equivalent to the corresponding category and it lacks any additional content such as citations or narrative to provide added-value. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The major problem with this is that it's randomly overly specific, while not actually covering most of the basic terms. It includes obscure terms used in a single field of alt med, but not terms used more widely, like "manipulation", or even "Quantum mechanics" (we'd have to explain that physicists don't accept the way the term is used in alt med, but that it is is certainly beyond dispute. Frankly, 90% of this should probably be thrown out or moved to a more appropriate, focused glossary, e.g. Glossary of acupuncture. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page would be better redirected, and that more focussed glossaries should replace it - if anything. Verbal   chat  11:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a start, I've tried cutting out most of the really off-topic stuff, very small modalities (we don't include every modality, so...) and so on. Put back anything you think should've stayed, but we obviously can't include everything, so should probably try to be more general. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a common feature of English that words have different meanings in different contexts. An obvious purpose of such a glossary is to explain what a word like manipulation means in this particular context.  It is not necessary to explain what the same word might mean in another context such as finance or politics since this information would belong in glossaries for those fields.  No doubt there is much still to be added to the article but this is normal per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the gross removal of material, I see no good reason for removing entries such as green prescription which seemed appropriate and so have reverted. Please discuss major removals before making them. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please justify the additions in a new section, and fix them with appropriate references etc before adding them back. Your revert also undid multiple other changes. See WP:BURDEN. Verbal   chat  15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not adding new material; I am reverting a crude removal of numerous made without consensus. Even the editor himself seemed to indicate that he had gone too far and invited other editors to restore the material which is what I have done. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BURDEN and do a self-revert; I quote "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Edit warring will only get people blocked. Please take this as a WP:3RR warning. Verbal   chat  15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what the problem is. It appears that the additions are reasonably NPOV and make the glossary more complete. Perhaps the solution lies in the direction of greater completeness rather than less. These are certainly not additions that should be edit-warred over. hgilbert (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also the other edits not made by SH that CW has wiped out. He should at the very least restore those, and justify these additions per WP:BURDEN. Verbal   chat  16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We should act in accordance with our offcial editing policy, as indicated above. Bold attempts to delete, redirect or otherwise destroy the article are not appropriate because they do not conform to policy and there is no consensus for them.  As for WP:BURDEN, this states, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.".  So, if there are issues with particular entries, a sensible way forward would be to tag or discuss them here, indicating what the problem is.  Additionally, we might usefully have some discussion about the general structure of the article so that we can establish a consensus upon which to build and so avoid working at cross-purposes.  Without such preparatory discussion, hasty edits will naturally be at risk of being washed away in the turmoil.  More haste, less speed, as the saying goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is part of WP:V - one of our 3 core policy (WP:NPOV is also important here). Please restore the other changes that you have twice reverted without reason. Your characterisation of the edits here as "attempts to destroy the article" do not assume good faith, and baiting is a form of disruption. Verbal   chat  17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have disposed of your WP:BURDEN complaint above, demonstrating that the fault arises from peremptory removal contray to its guidance. You have threatened me with 3RR and, as I indicated, I favour that we discuss and deliberate rather than making unilateral and hasty edits.  As and when I resume editing, I shall edit as seems best and make no commitment to preserve any particular edits.  Preservation of your own edits is no special priority because you do not own the article.  Your complaints about this are excessive because you, yourself, have been quite ready to discard the entire article, regardless of the numerous edits which went into its construction.  See The Golden Rule.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the burden concerns, and there was no "threat". Please stop assuming bad faith. You did not give a reason for reverting my edits, which is why I asked for you to restore them. Please keep to WP:TALK in your comments, and being rude with a veneer of civility is still being rude. Discussion is not the same as stonewalling, please discuss and edit - don't revert and prevaricate. Verbal   chat  17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a partial revert, and updated many sections with wording from the main articles. If you feel a topic should be re-included please add it without reverting all the other changes. It would also be useful if you fixed the problems with those sections. Verbal   chat  17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that cut/paste of wording from other articles as you indicate and as seems to have been done in the homeopathy section may violate copyright if not attributed properly. See associated pages such as WP:PLAGIARISM for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind-body interventions
When going to the source, NCCAM under Mind-body interventions all I can find is Mind-Body Medicine. Is the article wrong or out of date or am I looking at samething different than the article? Ward20 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't look closely -- thought you were removing it entirely. Seems fine to remove it from that section. II  | (t - c) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, just trying to get Alexander Technique in the right section, no biggie, but should I change the title of Mind-Body Intervention to Mind-Body Medicine to agree with the NCCAM literature? Ward20 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
Please do not use the copy-paste method when building a glossary. Even if you put it in quotes, if the entire section is, or is nearly, a quote, then there isn't enough original material to prevent it being copyvio. I'm afraid removing the problem - which we are required to do, see WP:COPYVIO - gutted the list a bit. I apologise for this, but, well, what can one do? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What ever happened to the concept of "fair use"? -- John Gohde (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reflexology
Reflexology needs to be included somewhere, but the arrangement of the categories is so ... esoteric ... I can't figure out where it should go. (Really the organization of this page needs a complete overhaul.)--Shantavira|feed me 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With my recent edits, which seek to provide an abcdized listing, reflexology will, with the next edit, fit in.--S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to
Information from this article could be merged to List of branches of alternative medicine, in which all data would be in one place. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Qualified Support – This article contains some descriptive material as is fitting for a glossary. But a List article should/would only contain a bare bones listing. So in supporting I qualify the merger so that the additional info – descriptions, references, etc. – is not included. The individual articles themselves can/will/do properly present such info. (Additional note: much of my recent editing in this article has been done with an eye towards a simpler, non-POV, article. Part of this series of edits was done to delete the multiple sub-section headings which only served to give WP:UNDUE to some topics over others.) --S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per S. Rich. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no discussion for quite some time I've removed the merge. Mrld (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits (especially Alexander Technique entry)
Given the edit summaries, recent edits fromto seem OK. Is there anything to discuss to avoid unfounded edit-war warning? Qexigator (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How's it okay to make the claim that the Alexander technique "corrects breathing habits and speech defects" (etc) when this is neither well-sourced not in WP:SYNC with the main article here? Add: and how's it okay to remove the well-sourced criticism of Craniosacral therapy and delete the good source for that? Alexbrn talk 15:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Qexigator, thanks for weighing in and getting the conversation started. Alexbrn, you have a good point about the wording on Alexander Technique. I was not inserting that from scratch myself but rather rewording the previously overly long and awkward text. It previously said "Alexander Technique is a form of re-education used principally to correct faulty habits such as bad posture, tension, bad breathing and speech defects." I did not care for the phrasing "bad breathing" and that was one of many issues I attempted to copyedit to address. You are correct that my new wording is phrased such that it would require evidence, so let's 1) check to see what evidence there is and 2) address the wording if necessary.
 * AT is commonly used for singers, and it originated as a vocal technique. This isn't a study, but it is a medical text book that references AT and its prominence for working with breathing and vocal issues for professional entertainers. Aronson, AE (1990). Clinical Voice Disorders: An Interdisciplinary Approach,. Thieme Medical Publishers. ISBN 0-86577-337-8.
 * Alexander_technique doesn't mention studies on specifically on speech defects or breathing (unless I'm not reading closely enough - several of these studies address multiple health issues). It does give citations for back pain, Parkinson's, balance improvement for the aging process, and in managing chronic pain. I propose that those specific items be added to the entry as having benefit, while the current text be revised to say "Alexander Technique is commonly used by singers and other vocal professions who find it useful in correcting breathing habits and reducing vocal strain" (with the above citation). I would prefer to simply remove the speech defects; as that is clearly a medical issue I think it requires a better citation that I see available. If someone wants to scour the AT article more carefully and come up with a citation, that's fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The content here must reflect the main article and not be a novel fork. Alexbrn talk 05:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But would you mind clarifying what elements you think are "a novel fork"? For now, I've removed the speech defect text that was a holdover from the previous text; I haven't seen support for that. And I've changed the other wording to "The process also aims to correct breathing habits" as it is appropriate to list as a goal rather than as a proven result. Any issues with the present version?
 * Alexander Technique has a very significant aspect of its application with vocal training. I think that would be appropriate to include. --Karinpower (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the main AT article changes, the summary here can re-WP:SYNC with it. Alexbrn talk 02:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so it sounds like you were referring to the use for vocal training. Your replies are ultra-suscinct; if you could humor me by spelling things out just a bit more that would save some back-and-forth. I took another look at the article and while the vocal aspect is mentioned under History and Uses, it is not emphasized in the lede. I've got a couple of sources in mind that provide support for this being an important, common use of AT. Thanks for pointing that out. --Karinpower (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Craniosacral entry
Let's break these two topics into separate sections to prevent our conversation from becoming difficult to follow. Alexbrn wrote: "how's it okay to remove the well-sourced criticism of Craniosacral therapy and delete the good source for that?" The craniosacral article does a thorough job of going into all of the controversy about this method. It's had a troubled past regarding scientific inquiry, that's for sure - for instance there is poor correlation between practitioners about the rate of the craniosacral rhythm, for starters (some argue that there are many different rhythms, to make things even more difficult to evaluate). This glossary is no place to delve into controversy on each of the items listed. The edit that I offered expressed the most basic controversy - whether the premise that the skull bones can move at the sutures. Also my edit removes the ridiculous text about "massaging the scalp" - if practitioners are attempting to affect the bones, they will not be working at the scalp layer (i.e. skin and connective tissue superficial to the bone), and "massage" is not an acceptable shorthand for a manual therapy technique. This is now a good entry because it contains a small amount of history of the technique, a description of what the practitioner attempts to do and why, and a brief, neutrally worded nod to scientific controversy about the premise of the treatment. Looking forward to hearing other editors' opinions and suggestions for improvement to this entry. --Karinpower (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article must reflect the content of the main Craniosacral therapy article to avoid a mini WP:POVFORK and pseudoscience must be clearly described as such to align with our policy. Our main article says CST uses "light touches" and "small rhythmical movements" so saying "massage" here also keeps that content in sync. There is no scientific controversy about CST: it is agreed to be quackery. Alexbrn talk 05:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Massage is quite distinct; it addresses soft tissue while CST claims to be affecting bones and fluid movement. The article doesn't use the term "massage" and for good reason.
 * The source that was previously cited for this entry was a poor choice because in it, the American Cancer Society is primarily stating that CST isn't effective for treating cancer - but this isn't surprising since it doesn't claim to do so (as far as I've seen). Ernst is a better source as it is more comprehensive. Among the articles cited for pseudoscience, there is one written by an osteopathic instructor (and the article text is linked, which is helpful) so I've added that link. I hope you find the present text to be suitable.--Karinpower (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the ACS source? it says: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that craniosacral therapy helps in treating cancer or any other disease." It also says "The theory on which craniosacral therapy is based is not consistent with the scientific understanding of anatomy and physiology of the skull, brain, and spinal fluid circulation." You have added a view from a primary source published in a fringe journal which undermines this, which is a neutrality violation. Please remove it (see WP:FRIND). Alexbrn talk 02:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are referring to the osteopathic article when you say "a fringe journal" - as I said above if you wouldn't mind being a bit more specific in your writing (here and in edit summaries etc) it would provide clearer communication. I have removed that source - I actually thought that it was a bit more damning than some of the extreme Skeptic sources which have their own ax to grind; the fact that it was published by a journal in the osteopathic field shows dissent within the ranks.
 * Regarding ACS, it's true that I missed those words "or any other disease" though I think that's apparent due to the lack of evidence otherwise. Anyway, this is a good source and it's actually a bit more positive than some of the others; it mentions the gains that are anecdotally reported and the lack of evidence in a tone that states that for the most part, it simply hasn't been evaluated for those conditions. I have added that into the article - this is a good way to state that people often seek it for those specific reasons yet still cautiously worded regarding benefit. I also removed the vague phrase "to have a profound impact on their health" that was leftover from the previous text. Does this all meet your approval? --Karinpower (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)