User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz/Unproven healing treatment

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Is this policy more than definition? Does it belong in CZ:

I created the article so we have a definition for the term being used in the editing of some healing-related articles of questionable efficacy.

It's entirely possible that this is really the start of a policy and belongs in the CZ: namespace. Unquestionably, it is a draft for commentary and may not be kept, but I believe it was needed for the short term.

I expect that this term will be refined by the Editorial Council with abundant input from Citizens and perhaps non-Citizens. My feelings will not be shattered if we choose to delete the term and article, but we do need a term. 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The intention is good but I'm uncomfortable with this for a number of reasons. First, I'm not keen on euphemisms and this sounds like it might be used as a euphemism for nonsense. If that's not the case, I have other reservations - most obviously it implies that there is such a thing as a proven healing treatment. As I scientist I'm always very dubious about declaring anything to be proven. The best we can ever say is that on the basis of available evidence we accept that a treatment appears to be effective. Medics like to collapse this into the idea of "proven efficacy", and it's understandable - patients like a clear message however dishonest that message. But the evidence base by which medics decide that something has proven efficacy is not a fixed star or even often much of a star at all.

If by "unproven healing treatment" you mean something of which the evidence suggests that it has no healing benefit at all, I think we should be looking for a rather more robust form of words. If you are talking about treatments for which there is little high quality evidence, or evidence from good studies but that evidence is contradictory, then it may be OK. Gareth Leng 15:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard, no way that this can be an article. This is your thoughts on the subject, and you're trying to tell people that this is CZ's policy or thoughts. Please remove all the text and put a speedy delete on it. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to delete it, but, Hayford, I suggested the term, and you agreed to it, after you put "purported" and "pseudoscience" into articles that we considered generally nonsense. In Reiki#Health vs. non-health, I brought up my concerns about using those terms without definition, and this is an attempt to provide it. You also brought up the issue of nonsense in Talk: Bach flower therapy. I'm not being snarky here -- I agree these articles should be labeled in some special way.

In no way am I saying this is CZ policy, and I put this out specifically to define a term to which you agreed in other articles. I have some of Gareth's concerns. Certainly, the content can be blanked, but we really can't use a possible euphemism in one place and not explain it. As you know, after discussion of the general problem, and a reluctance to start rewriting articles, Ro and I introduced a motion. I'm happy to delete this as long as we don't start tagging things "purported" or "pseudoscience" or "nonsense" without a CZ policy on the matter. We can't have it both ways. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just structural and a placeholder for the term agreed to in other articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We can use words the way they're supposed to be used about nonsense articles without having a brand-new specialized policy by the EC on it. What we can't have are "articles" that are just definitions, like the one you just removed. I said that the phrase you used was fine (and correct) -- I didn't say you should write an article about it. Hayford Peirce 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)