Talk:Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Chiropractic Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quackwatch

I removed the reference to Quackwatch. The link was to a site called www.casewatch.org. Is that the same thing? "Casewatch" isn't mentioned on the Quackwatch article. St Anselm (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was poor content. I restored NPOV and accurate content based in part on Steven Barrett's site (he is a well-known authority on quackery) as well as Beall in this diff. Information about the editor-in-chief is essential information about a journal. this removal of that well sourced, NPOV content has no justification in policies or guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jytdog here, that content belongs. Good to see the sourcing issues have been addressed too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/A22, this publication is cited ~47 times. People may want to examine if use of this journal is warranted / meets WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR/SYNTH

The section "Founding and content" contains several statements that are not supported by the sources given. A causal connection with the founding of the Office of Alternative Medicine, is suggested here, but not stated in such a way in the source. The (long) quote is taken out of context, the last line even in extremis. In fact, if one carefully reads the source, it does not give any direct criticism of the journal, but criticizes what Senator Harkin said in an editorial. That's not the same thing. I don't doubt that the tag that I just placed on the article will soon be removed and quite frankly, I'm worn out by the selective citing and relentless use of synthesis and original research that is practiced by some people who think that fighting a great wrong is more important than encyclopedic correctness. I have taken this article of my watchlist and this note is just for the benefit of possible other editors. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]