Jump to content

Talk:Ted Kaptchuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

The subject of this article is a notable author of books and papers, a tenured professor at the Harvard Medical School and subject to PBS and Scientific American specials. The notability is quite obvious. Bstone (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to deprod it, after doing a gscholar etc search, when I noticed you had already.John Z (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to have been settled by the AfD discussion, but for future reference I'll point out that neither being a tenured professor at the Harvard Medical School nor authoring numerous academic publications are valid criteria for notability under WP:ACADEMIC. The consensus was that this individual probably satisfies the general notability guidelines. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside (the point seems to no longer be relevant) you might be interested in this. Basket of Puppies 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wealth of information you seem to have found on this subject, you might consider expanding this article beyond it's current single paragraph. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully intend to, but got bogged down by the drama surrounding it in the past 24h. Basket of Puppies 01:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–Yes, he is obviously a highly notable notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:72:2E44:8CE0:217:F2FF:FEE9:2000 (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

excessive list of publications

[edit]

I have removed the excessive list of publications. They are all covered with one URL: http://www.kanherb.com/cons_pi_kh_kaptchuk.asp , which is provided in the article. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingturtle, welcome to Wikipedia. I am glad you are working on trying to improve this article. However, your blanking of entire sections is unhelpful and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I suggest you cease blanking entire sections and instead work to improve the article. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, A) A list of external links should never be longer than the article B) articles should not be collections of external links. All of those can be covered in one URL, so lets keep it simple. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A) Citation needed, B) I am in the middle of improving the article, which you are continually blanking. Are you interested in improving this article or in section blanking? Basket of Puppies 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in improving the article. Step one is to remove the excessive external links. If you need citations, look here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links where it reminds editors to "Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository" and Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK which states "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.". There is no need to have that many citations when they can all be covered with one URL. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are clearly confusing external links with a list of his articles. A list of his articles is in no way a random collection of external links but rather a list of his published scientific articles. Other living scientists are identically described in their articles. So, are you interested in page blanking or in article improvement? It seems clear to me that you are only interested in the former. Basket of Puppies 03:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An argument from Basket of Puppies is that every article a scientist publishes is notable if it appears in a peer reviewed journal. But not every article a scientist's name is on is notable. In a majority of those articles Kaptchuk is the third, fourth or later author listed. So "Ahn, A. C.; Park, M.; Shaw, J. R.; McManus, C. A.; Kaptchuk, T. J.; Langevin, H. M. (2010)" might be notable for Ahn, and maybe even Parks, but it is not notable for someone fifth down the line. Another example is "Eisenberg, D. M.; Harris, E. S. J.; Littlefield, B. A.; Cao, S.; Craycroft, J. A.; Scholten, R.; Bayliss, P.; Fu, Y. et al. (2011)" in which Kaptchuk's name is buried in the et al.! That citation is NOT notable for Kaptchuk. "Kelley, J. M.; Lembo, A. J.; Ablon, J. S.; Villanueva, J. J.; Conboy, L. A.; Levy, R.; Marci, C. D.; Kerr, C. E. et al. (2009)"??? Kingturtle = (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the scientist is notable then their publications also are. Not an inherited notability but true co-notability, if you will. Afterall, how did the scientist become noticed? Through publishing articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Regarding the listing of his name on the articles, I do not pretend to make judgements based upon the order a name shows up. If you could point me to something that supports your POV I would be happy to read it. Until then I don't see that I have the ability to assign importance. Basket of Puppies 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you request that I need to provide something to support my point of view, but you allow yourself to say things like "I think". How exactly do you "think" the order of names is determined in medical journals? Certainly it is not alphabetical. Are you disputing my claim that the most significant author is listed first? On what do you base your dispute? With all due respect, Kingturtle = (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't understand how I can be requested to prove your point. Perhaps there is a reasoning to the listing of names, perhaps not. I have heard ideas that the first person listed gave the most effort, but then I have seen things that say "X and Y contributed equally". I am submitting to you ideas and thoughts I have regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines which are yet to be formulated (if ever), which is why i say things like "I think". Wikipedia is based upon consensus, the prevailing way in which people "think" things should be done. You seem to be making an argument based on academic journal standards, but haven't yet submitted proof or evidence of this. When it comes to Wikipedia policy I think there is sufficient room to be allowed a "I think" opinion, but when it comes to the listing of authors in an academic journal article "I think" is usually replaced by some formal policy. Do you know where I can read that policy? Basket of Puppies 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.216.108.184, 26 September 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Ted Kaptchuk is now the Director of the Harvard-wide Program in Placebo Studies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (source: http://www.bidmc.org/Research/Departments/Medicine/Divisions/GeneralMedicineandPrimaryCare/ResearchFaculty/Kaptchuk.aspx)

He also has a new personal site that would be good to link to this entry, www.tedkaptchuk.com.

98.216.108.184 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done  Chzz  ►  03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello I would like to request that the following two articles be added to the External Links section:

and

Thank you. DocEven DocEven (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} Please unprotect this page. Thank you. DocEven DocEven (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may request that at Wikipedia:Rfpp#Current_requests_for_unprotection  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How? Can you do it? Can you effectuate the edit request above? Thank you. DocEven DocEven (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the instructions on the top of the page. It is not obvious, but it is not that hard either. I needed to read'm too but I placed the request on your behalf - Nabla (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The directions were very confusing and ambiguous. I tried but think it for formatted incorrectly. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, DocEven. DocEven (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have a doctorate?

[edit]

In this Amazon book review, one reviewer states that Kaptchuk does not have a doctorate (http://www.bidmc.org/Research/Departments/Medicine/Divisions/GeneralMedicineandPrimaryCare/ResearchFaculty/~/media/Files/CentersandDepartments/Medicine/General%20Medicine%20and%20Primary%20Care/Kaptchuk.ashx review by Ben Kavoussi). His Biographical Sketch from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center states that he has a "diploma" in TCM.

The wiki article lists Kaptchuk's personal website as the source for the fact that he has a doctorate. I thought it would be helpful to bring this to your attention so that perhaps this incongruency could be evaluated by some of you (I'm new here and I don't know how all this works). Bonuman (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this question is a direct quote from the Harvard Magazine article, "(Kaptchuk’s diploma is recognized as a doctorate in many states, but not in Massachusetts.)" Thank you, DocEven DocEven (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of credentials?

[edit]

According to reporting on this podcast (<http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2022/07/skeptics-with-a-k-episode-332/>, at about 56:00), the Macao Institute of Chinese Medicine was not recognized by local authorities as an institution of higher education. Hence it cannot issue any kind of "degree," but only a "diploma." Maybe there is a good reason the Institute was not accredited, but any organization whatsoever can issue diplomas according to any criteria whatsoever. It seems to me that Kaptchuk's only academic credential in the medical sciences is that he impressed Harvard enough to be hired—and subsequently granted tenure. Which, of course, means more than most degrees.

More troubling, from the same podcast, Kaptchuk used to misrepresent himself as "Dr. Kaptchuk, OMP." "OMP" is a made-up credential that is supposed to stand for "Oriental Medical Doctor." He eventually abandoned this practice at the request of Harvard. As an academic by training (in an unrelated field), I can attest that this kind of misrepresentation is a big no-no. And from a medical practitioner, I would think it even a worse offense. Although, again, apparently Harvard did not consider it ethically disqualifying.

I don't know if corroborating citations are required, by I would submit that at least some of this be added to the article. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article[1]

[edit]

This summary seems to completely miss the point of the opinion. That such drugs need to be withdrawn is merely stated incidentally as something evident. The piece is about acknowledging and embracing the importance of the placebo effect in patient care: «Crucially, much discussion and reflection is needed among physicians and our health care system as a whole to understand why the act of treatment itself is so powerful to patients even if a pill contains no therapeutic ingredients. Medicine is not only effective drugs and procedures; it’s a human drama of charged engagement. Our team published a study in The BMJ demonstrating that placebo effects can be significantly enhanced in the context of a supportive, respectful and attentive patient-clinician relationship. Acts of human kindness in general are linked to robust placebo effects. Any health intervention, whether it’s cold medicine or a placebo, should be ethical and have measurable benefits if it is to be used. But health care should retain the knowledge that rituals, symbols and human kindness matter immensely when it comes to healing.» Nemo 05:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: (and others) - yes - *entirely* agree - the major point of the NYT opinion[1] was otherwise - however - for me, at least, the more important take-away from the opinion was the less questionable notion of the purported finding that some medicines currently on store shelves were ineffective - my concern about this was published as a NYT comment[2] to the opinion article - nonetheless - Thank You *very much* for your related clarifications and added refs to my edit - it's *greatly* appreciated - and seems to cover the original published NYT opinion[1] very well - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Kaptchuk, Ted J. (October 10, 2023). "'No Better Than Placebo'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 10, 2023. Retrieved October 11, 2023.
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (10 October 2023). "Comment - 'No Better Than Placebo' - Ted J. Kaptchuk". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kaptchuk&oldid=1201414906"