Talk:Functional medicine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:58, 26 September 2019

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Functional medicine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BIAS

I am looking for objective, factual information on what Functional Medicine is. Not a biased criticism and discrediting of every claim and every aspect of the concept of what functional medicine is. Thank you but no thank you. Useless entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.236.102 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, BIAS

This article is extremely biased, citing only one doctor who uses outdated language such as "quackery" to describe clinics at well-established institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University Clinic. MANY users have repeatedly tried to fix these claims but changes are always reverted back to the original article. Tried adding information from the National Institute of Health's branch, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, and was told that my information was "too biased." The NIH is arguable the most objective health organization in the United States. Article uses the pejorative phrased "so-called" to describe Chronic Lyme's Disease-- while there have not been traditional scientific studies that prove this, it is unnecessary (and NOT objective) language. Can someone help me understand why information from the NIH has been deleted? I received a message saying it was "biased"-- again, having a hard time understanding how a governmental body is considered not objective.

132.162.95.60 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)d[reply]

See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:Lunatic charlatans. This is well-sourced as nonsense/quackery and Wikipedia isn't going to be pretending otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how the fact that the NIH has an institute for integrative medicine is "quackery." You're not answering my question, you're just spewing your opinions. Are you more certified to provide information about this medicine than the NIH? Or the Cleveland Clinic? Or George Washington University? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.95.60 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the references at the bottom of the page! Nithin Danday! (talk)

I think the question should be how one decides that David Gorsky is a more "reliable source" (in the wikipedia terminology) than, say, George Washington University. If you can point to a wikipedia rule or listing of sources that puts Gorsky ahead of GWU, then i suppose according to the wikipedia standards the article should stand as written. If this cannot be done, then i think voices from the NIH, GWU, and others cited above should have some weight in the article. Son of eugene (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:54, 6 September 2019 edit Nithin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 2,424 edits →Again, BIAS Tag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:58, 26 September 2019 edit undo Son of eugene (talk \| contribs) 155 edits →Again, BIAS Next edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:::Take a look at the references at the bottom of the page! [[User:Nithin.danday\|Nithin Danday!]] ([[User talk:Nithin.danday\|talk]])		:::Take a look at the references at the bottom of the page! [[User:Nithin.danday\|Nithin Danday!]] ([[User talk:Nithin.danday\|talk]])

			::::I think the question should be how one decides that David Gorsky is a more "reliable source" (in the wikipedia terminology) than, say, George Washington University. If you can point to a wikipedia rule or listing of sources that puts Gorsky ahead of GWU, then i suppose according to the wikipedia standards the article should stand as written. If this cannot be done, then i think voices from the NIH, GWU, and others cited above should have some weight in the article. [[User:Son of eugene\|Son of eugene]] ([[User talk:Son of eugene\|talk]]) 02:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)