Whilst I would prefer not to have debates on specific articles taken to the mailing list, seeing it is already there... Whilst that edit summary may have been unwise, I don't think the edit I made was unreasonable. In fact, did you bother to read the edit that comment was attached to? Basically, I take the view that articles should generally be written in "news style" with a very quick summary of the most pertinent facts at the top, and then dealing with each point in more detail later. As I read the article at the time I made the edit, I judged that it would be improved by making a brief statement of the majority medical view of the topic in this introductory section. I believed this to be important and an improvement to the article. Now, as it happens, the majority medical/scientific view on alternative medicine, whether the proponents of alternative medicine like it or not, is that most of it is at best ineffective New Age mysticism that generates strong placebo effects, or at worst a particularly cruel fraud on very sick people with nothing to lose. They may be wrong, but I believe that to be an accurate summary of a majority of doctors' views, and I don't think there's terribly much dispute on that. What I actually said in the article, in the fourth paragraph, was something along the lines of "mainstream Western medicine views most alternative medicine as either [[pseudoscience]] or [[quackery]]". In other words, a quick summary of a sentiment expanded greatly later on in the article. So, in essence, I think my edit was quite reasonable and in good faith, and my edit summary was an accurate (if indelicate) summary of the content of my edit and my reasoning. Read the relevant edit in full next time before making unjustified claims.