Your definition, I'd say, is unusual. As far as I can see, quackery really have two meanings. One is stated in the beginning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery It is a disputed article needing improvement, but it starts
"Quackery is the practice of producing fraudulent medicine"
and thus, if someone believes in what they are doing they are not quacks.
...
If you can show good reasons to believe that homeopathy is a deliberate fraud, that it is illegal in at least a few countries, _or_ a definition of the word "quackery" from a good source where the main meaning of the word supports you then please go ahead.
I got my definition of quack medicine from Webster's.
By your definition medicine that doesn't work is only quackery if the practitioner is intentionally deceiving the subject. I'm sure most homeopaths act more or less in good faith. But I don't see any particular reason to doubt that this is also the case for practitioners of the stuff currently in the quackery category.
Our medical disclaimer notwithstanding I believe Wikipedia should do its darndest to provide people with accurate information on medical subjects. This includes making a clear distinction between quackery/alternative medicine and useful medical care.
I think the alternative medicine and quackery categories should be merged because I don't believe that the difference between them can be defined in a workable way. If there is strong resistance to merging the alt. med. category into the quackery category then I suggest merging the quackery category into the alt. med. category.
Regards, Haukur
On 6/28/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I got my definition of quack medicine from Webster's.
OK, I could very well be wrong. May I ask, is it the only meaning of the word mentioned, or the main one? Someone else who has a good book to check? Words often have several meanings... the word is often used as an insult, carrying negative connotations. On that I hope we can agree.
During the course in oncology, our teachers told us that many of their patients also sought for some alternative method of various kinds. They were not at all against it - they said the alternative people gave the patients something they badly needed, both for better prognosis and for quality of life - often not a very long period of time. That thing the alt.med. stuff can give in that situation, is hope...
Our medical disclaimer notwithstanding I believe Wikipedia should do its darndest to provide people with accurate information on medical subjects. This includes making a clear distinction between quackery/alternative medicine and useful medical care.
Then is the question if categorisation should be used for this purpose, or not - as Fastfission pointed out from the very start of the discussion. You said yourself
Agreed. If someone reads an article on, say, homeopathy and only realizes when she sees the categories at the bottom that the thing doesn't work then there's something wrong with the article
and I still can not see that you have explained wherein the usefulness of this particular category lies.It looks to me that you actuallly want to use it for this very purpose - to warn the readers i.e. you decide what people should be warned of. Maybe I want to warn people for religion - can I create [[Category:Unscientific supernatural beliefs]] and put [[Christianity]] in it? Or should the method be that we decide whether or not the article is NPOV, and if not label it with the {{NPOV}}-tag?
/Habj
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
Fred
On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Habj wrote:
During the course in oncology, our teachers told us that many of their patients also sought for some alternative method of various kinds. They were not at all against it - they said the alternative people gave the patients something they badly needed, both for better prognosis and for quality of life - often not a very long period of time. That thing the alt.med. stuff can give in that situation, is hope...
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050629 01:43]:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
This was what was more or less thrashed out on [[Talk:Alternative medicine]] - that "alternative medicine" may or may not be rubbish, but is sincere; but quackery includes knowing deception. FWIW.
- d.
On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
Fred
That's the best way to put the distinction I've heard.
I strongly disagree with a merge and think that Quackery should be a subcat of Medicine instead of Alternative medicine. One can dupe patients with unnecessary traditional-type therapies as much as one can with alternative ones.
Laurascudder
Yes, the merge is a bad idea. Quack medicine should be merged with fraud rather.
Fred
On Jun 28, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Laura K Fisher wrote:
On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
Fred
That's the best way to put the distinction I've heard.
I strongly disagree with a merge and think that Quackery should be a subcat of Medicine instead of Alternative medicine. One can dupe patients with unnecessary traditional-type therapies as much as one can with alternative ones.
Laurascudder
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Laura K Fisher wrote:
On Jun 28, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
Fred
That's the best way to put the distinction I've heard.
I strongly disagree with a merge and think that Quackery should be a subcat of Medicine instead of Alternative medicine. One can dupe patients with unnecessary traditional-type therapies as much as one can with alternative ones.
You could even get the scientologists to support that. :-)
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Alternative medicine might involve things like strong suggestion and placebos, and actually work. Quack medicine involves cleaning out the last assets of the victim and their family.
We could as easily be talking about the pricing policies of major pharmaceutical companies. :-)
Ec