Template talk:Manipulative and body-based methods

NCCAM classifications

1. {{Alternative medical systems}} -- Alternative medical systems are built upon complete systems of theory and practice. Often, these systems have evolved apart from and earlier than the conventional medical approach used in the United States. Examples of alternative medical systems that have developed in Western cultures include homeopathic medicine and naturopathic medicine. Examples of systems that have developed in non-Western cultures include traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda.
2. {{Mind-body interventions}} -- Mind-body medicine uses a variety of techniques designed to enhance the mind's capacity to affect bodily function and symptoms. Some techniques that were considered CAM in the past have become mainstream (for example, patient support groups and cognitive-behavioral therapy). Other mind-body techniques are still considered CAM, including meditation, prayer, mental healing, and therapies that use creative outlets such as art, music, or dance.
3. {{Biologically based therapy}} -- Biologically based therapies in CAM use substances found in nature, such as herbs, foods, and vitamins. Some examples include dietary supplements,3 herbal products, and the use of other so-called natural but as yet scientifically unproven therapies (for example, using shark cartilage to treat cancer).
4. {{Manipulative methods}} -- Manipulative and body-based methods in CAM are based on manipulation and/or movement of one or more parts of the body. Some examples include chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation, and massage.
5. {{Energy therapy}} -- Energy therapies involve the use of energy fields.

-- John Gohde 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Nothing links here. And it looks like this is just a variant of the energy medicine infobox. I'm nominating it for deletion. Famousdog (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion

If you think that it duplicates the energy medicine infobox, then YOU are confused as to what you are looking at. It is part of a big series of templates. Each one of this series covers classifications developed by the NCCAM. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine developed a series of classifications for CAM. While this particular Web page is hard to deal with, doing a text search on it quickly turns up: Manipulative and Body-Based Practices. As this classification system was developed by NCCAM, an authoritative body charged with the scientific study of CAM, this template deserves to be displayed on Wikipedia.

This Does NOT meet Criteria for Speedy Deletion. John Gohde (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? Try assuming good faith of your fellow Wikipedians before letting rip with insults and accusations. It might not meet the criteria that you seem to have just made up - namely that what NCCAM proposes, Wikipedia must slavishly obey - but that holds absolutely NO weight in this discussion. If I am "confused" please enlighten me by explaining how this template is different from the other ones you've made which all seem to reproduce much the same links. Famous_dog 11:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? No Insults or Accusations were stated, nor given in my extremely neutral and objective comment shown above. This Does NOT meet Criteria for Speedy Deletion, period. John Gohde (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FURTHERMORE - This template was already pre-existing on several different articles, so it is in fact NOT an orphaned template. I found it on at least 3 different articles. Plus, I have just added it to several other articles. Just try clicking on a few of the member articles. I left off those articles already covered by another NCCAM classification template.

Nor, has it been deprecated. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You are showing severe ownership issues regarding this template. Your initial response was not "neutral and objective" at all. It included ALL CAPS, the internet equivalent of shouting. You stated outright that I was "confused" and began making spurious non-WP arguments to support your case. Could I just point out that the template is (currently) headlined by a red link? That's hardly improving the WP project, is it? I agree that I was incorrect when I stated that nothing linked here (I did check the "What links here" link and nothing came up - perhaps there was some error), so apologies for that. However, you haven't addressed my query that these templates all look very similar to me. Perhaps you could merge them into one template listing the NCCAM sections and use other templates for the individual methods? Just a suggestion. Famous_dog 07:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

TYPO [?] (or something) in the list of NCCAM Classifications

I just went to Terms_and_concepts_in_alternative_medicine#N and looked at the list of "NCCAM classifications" there.

It differs from the one that somehow got in to this Template, in several ways:

1. It does not re-start the numbering in the middle;
2. It does not contain 6 entries (only 5);
3. It does not contain two (2) entries which both begin [their display text] with the two words "Biologically Based" -- (and which both have, as the target of their wikilink, this: Terms_and_concepts_in_alternative_medicine#Biologically_based_therapies);
4. It does not contain anything remotely like an advert for Massage Heights (which apparently is notable enough to have an article, but it might not be appropriate for this template to [sorta indirectly] contain (something that is "like") an instance of "mentioning" Massage Heights). (It sounds a little suspicious to me.)

Please forgive me if there has been some recent vandalism (or maybe a recent "good faith edit" that just happened to include a clumsy mistake) that should be clearly obvious (and recognizable either as a bogus edit, or as a mistake) to anyone who is familiar with this template. I am not very familiar with this template.

I might take some time, eventually, to see whether the list of "NCCAM classifications" in this template has, at some time in the past, met the "goals" listed in the numbered list above. However, I don't have (much) time for that right now. So (part of) that might have to wait.

Meanwhile, if anyone who is familiar with this template, has any advice or other comments for me, then please (feel free to) respond here.

Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind! It didn't take long! It appears that some time around THIS edit, something got damaged (maybe one edit before or after that? I am not sure...); and just about all of the versions of this Template before that, (well, I'm not sure how far back ... but never mind that) were OK. They met the 4 goals listed above... etc.! I am not sure whether I have time "now" to [figure out "how" to] restore (repair) the damage that was done (which clearly was an injury, and [now] I think that it was not intentional on the part of any editor). However, if I do not do it today, then you are welcome to do so; OR, some time in the future, I can come back here, and this "Talk:" page section can (if necessary) refresh my memory. Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is over now ... but just for the record, my link to a certain edit ("THIS edit", above) might be wrong, or "not the whole story" (and misleading). But now This OTHER edit is certainly one that I should have noticed before. I think it might well be the source of at least "some" of the bogus silliness that was infecting this Template ever since ... umm, circa "18:02, 21 July 2011" or so. . . . Just FYI. Not a big deal. But FWIW, I did notice that both the User: page, and the Talk: page, for "User:Drew5024" are now both red links -- that is, they do not exist any more. Whatever. CU. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

There should be clear criteria for inclusion as pointed out by the recent removal of postural integration. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll chime in on this, since I'm the editor that removed PI. I consulted a variety of books that summarize many alternative health techniques. Sources Gale, Cassar, Claire, Levine and others don't mention PI - only Knaster does. This became clear to me as I was actively seeking sources to improve the flimsy PI article. It's notable enough to deserve an article - it apparently had a spell of popularity a few decades ago and has faded away somewhat.

I looked for a list from NCCAM but couldn't find one. Also if they do provide a list of manipulative methods it would be likely to be comprehensive (as in for a WP category) rather than a quick hot list of the important modalities that is appropropriate for a template. --Karinpower (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone object to the removal of Indian Head Massage? The WP article on the subject is flimsy, and the topic doesn't seem to warrant inclusion on this list (unless we were to trying to include every body-based method that exists - in which case there are a dozen or more to add.)--Karinpower (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Refer to Template:Alt-med and its talk page for suggestions on style and editing.": this links are redlinks

The "Template:Alt-med" doesn't exist - it's a redlink. I don't know what to make of that. Anyone know anything about this? (This is from the very brief couple of lines of text in the "article body" area of this template page.)--Karinpower (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I've tried to fix it. I hope that was what was intended. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You got it! Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)