The contents of the Folk medicine page were merged into Traditional medicine on December 2014 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
Old content. Don't edit this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Folk medicine redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
I think the merge should be the other way around from that suggested at top of those pages - merge Folk into Traditional. Simply because Traditional is also applied to tradtional food and related health practices, which is fast becoming a mainstream health practice in its own right.--Ziji22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since the WHO has defined the term "Tradtional Medicine", that term is more likely to be a search topic.
Folk medicine should not be merged. Look at all the categories under Traditional Medicine - how can you shortchange them by having one topic? CL October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinicheryl (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A serious cleanup on this article is required. The preface is longer than the rest of the article combined. It should be short and to the point. Also, the paragaphs are dauntingly huge. I'd go and edit it, but I'd probably just end up making it more pedantic in the process. 24.254.141.14412:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a fundamental level aren't traditional and folk medicine the same thing? I think the two should be merged into the traditional medicine. The paragraphs do look enormous as well. I might give it a try, but no guarantees. Color-Copycat (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is large overlap, the denotative and connotative definitions differ. Folk medicine refers to healing practices and ideas of body physiology widely known to lay people in a culture, transmitted informally via non-medical people, and practiced by lay people. Traditional medicine can include aspects of folk medicine that have a long history, but may also be institutionalized and formalized, with practice restricted to those who have served an apprenticeship, undergone some sort of training or testing, or in a specific social role. Both can coexist. Merger was a bad idea. alteripse (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the above description can just migrate into the article, and maybe even some more argumentation regarding the difference in definitions.--69.118.81.70 (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You probably are right. On the other hand, this statement about "folk medicine" and lay people seems quite obvious in itself. I'll try to find a reputable source that either makes such a distinction (from Traditional medicine), or at least gives a concrete definition for the term "folk medicine". --69.118.81.70 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until a firm distinction is offered in the text (which currently isn't the case), I support merging the two articles. Right now, they seem to both describe the same thing. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of the discussion for this merger got directed here, even though the links pointed to the other page. I've fixed the links, and I'm including the only remark about the merger below. My own comments on the proposal will follow shortly. – Maky« talk »03:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional medicine is fundamentally different from folk medicine in terms of classification. Folk medicine is a system that is regionally developed based on the requirements of a relatively small community. It is often related with regional conditions, available plants and herbs and although completely efficient it lacks a scientific understanding of the processes going on behind the treatment.
Traditional medicine is based on a platform upon which a science is built. It is a science in the sense that it is reproducible anywhere at anytime given a proper understanding of the applicable conditions. Extensive classification, practice and study often lead to the formation of scriptures in traditional medicine which is not present in folk medicine. Hence it would not be advisable to merge the two pages of Folk medicine and Traditional medicine.
Ksajnani (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – So far the arguments above have provided differences between the two, but without reliable sources, they come across as opinion. One user above promised to find sources a while ago, and never returned. After searching Google Scholar, I found the terms used interchangeably in every case I looked closely at. I found similar results with Google Books, with one exception. In this exception, the author tried to distinguish between modern, traditional, and folk medicine. After reading that section, I'm still not certain what the difference is. Modern medicine is based on rigorous testing in the form of lab work and clinical trials. Both traditional and folk medicine incorporate untested methods (or methods that have failed scientific tests), as well as dogmatic belief (often in religious form). Again, this author couldn't clearly define the two, nor did they clearly differentiate them. They may be different, but when they are so similar that only carefully worded, nitpicked definitions can distinguish them, and all other reliable sources use them interchangeably, then it's best to incorporate them into the same article and try to differentiate them there. Again, techniques classified under both labels have not passed clinical trials, so it would be best to start the article on this common ground, and then later try to differentiate the terminology in a separate section. – Maky« talk »03:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sources have not been identified which differentiate the concepts and I personally am comfortable with a merge. Folk medicine and traditional medicine are related concepts. Sources are lacking, but I imagine folk medicine to be a type of traditional medicine which is not codified or standardized. As folk medicine becomes formalized, it is more likely to be called traditional medicine. Traditions come from folk practices. I see no sources describing these terms I am here, and I see no sources defining both folk and traditional medicine. Many sources seem to use these terms to describe the same concept. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The WHO and WTO try to integrate traditional medicine as a complementary expansion in actual professional health systems. Folk medicine is more about the medical practices by lay people. Thats two parts and they should be treated differently. Polentarion Talk02:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
