Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:25, 1 July 2014

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin

About TCM

Hello, I am the user who start the section . Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now . Actually, I have edited this when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now before I edited it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.63.1 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"outsiders"

Hi Herbxue. I am troubled by this comment. What do you mean by "outsiders" and how is that relevant to Misplaced Pages? Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When someone with TCM training, or someone culturally "trained" to accept some underlying traditional assumptions, sees results from TCM treatment, they often accept that there are more than one possible explanations for what happened. For most people editing or reading WP, it is a foregone conclusion that there is zero value in the traditional explanation. This leads to weight problems and ethnocentricity. (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I still don't understand. What is the weight/ethnocentricity problem, and who is causing it? I could read what you wrote above, at least two different, completely opposite ways. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean it both ways but yes, of course it goes both ways. This is why I always advocate as much specificity as possible. "An editorial in Nature finds..."; "TCM practitioners attribute the effects of ginseng to..." Statements that are contestable just need clear attribution so the encyclopedia doesn't risk giving undue weight to anyone's assumptions.

thanks for answering but this is more smoke than light. trying to get clarity. I ~think~ what you meant (start of speculation!) was that for people who are entrained (cultural upbringing or otherwise) in TCM, qi, etc are real and accept that whatever happened was due to manipulation of qi, and maybe other things. To "outsiders" - those who are not "entrained" - qi doesn't exist, period. You find that the "outsiders" are ethnocentrically biasing the article, and that it should be written in such a way to give validity to the existence of qi. (end of speculation) Is that what you are saying? Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is clear as day. I think you are trying too hard to read something else into it. I am saying we (WP, you, me, QG, everyone) have no business making conclusions or doing original research. Therefore, all statements should be clearly attributed ("The TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as…. in this system it is considered reliable for…" then on the other side "Scientific inquiry has found no correlate to the concept of Qi" or "Studies of efficacy seem mixed and may be due to non-specific effects. For example, a Cochrane review found that…"). Do you get what I'm saying? I am NOT saying "WP should give equal weight to supporting the existence of Qi" - again, that is NOT what I'm saying. If you read my first reply you notice I say that those who consider TCM valuable are perfectly comfortable with the fact that there are more than one possible explanation. Plurality is part of what makes TCM a different thought process.Herbxue (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you avoid using terminology like "ousiders say X" especially in arguments - it is very off-putting and leads folks to speculate as I did above (I was very careful to avoid saying that "you are saying X" - I came here to ask you what you meant.) And you still have not answered the question about "outsiders" - but I am letting it go. I almost agree with what you write just above. For sure, in terms of describing the beliefs and practices of TCM, what you write above is entirely appropriate and I agree 100% - intext attribution ("TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as...") is the best way to avoid presenting the beliefs as fact and to present the content clearly and respectfully. However, statements of fact should not be inline attributed, as per this. With respect to pseudoscience, it is a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; TCM provides no plausible mechanisms of action. It is not biased to say this, nor is it criticism - it is fact. This is the key thing I am trying to communicate to you. In Misplaced Pages, we stand 100% with science and there are no outsiders or insiders with regard to this - it is how things are here. To the extent somebody fights this, they are fighting community consensus as establissed a long time ago, here. Again, this stance goes deep into WP's policy and guidelines and pseudoscience has been to arbcom. The place to argue about TCM as pseudoscience is not on the Talk page of the TCM article - it is unproductive and misery-making to do that. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you just get to the point when your plan is to talk down to someone. Pretending to be interested in what I meant and then pretending to not understand my clear answer is disingenuous. Essentially you went way out of your way just to tell me to shut up. Again. Herbxue (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked what you meant by "outsiders" because I found it disturbing, but before I judged, I wanted to ask what you meant. Your refusal to directly answer leaves me still in the wind. So instead of judging I just told you I found it disturbing and tried to tell you that it is off-putting. Everything you wrote here is in tune with what you have written on the Talk page, which is that you still refuse to accept what the community has decided about pseudoscience, so I reiterated that here. I had no plan to talk down to you and I didn't talk down to you here. You can take my advice or not. The more you continue fighting consensus inappropriately, the more misery you will have and you will cause, and the more you will continue heading toward running afoul of the sanctions arbcom has established. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok well I thought I was clear enough in my first response that I was defining "insiders" (those who are trained or entrained) as a way to clarify what I meant by "outsiders", I guess not. I'm really not trying to disrespect your effort, but you are correct that I will continue to push for a more neutral tone and will continue to say that opinions in sources like Quackwatch do not constitute fact, even if that flies in the face of previous consensus. And for the record I do appreciate the advice about where it is or isn't effective to do that, but talk page discussions are very important and I don't think there is reason enough to stop reminding people of the dangers of giving too much weight to a select few notable commentators. Herbxue (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Talking is so, so important, I agree. I hope you can see that you are not just trying to change a couple of articles -- you are trying to change Misplaced Pages. Discussion on article Talk pages needs to be grounded on WIkipedia policies and guidelines and the consensuses (sp?) on what they mean, and if you want to change those policies, guidelines, and consensuses please make those efforts on the appropriate pages - policy/guideline Talk pages. That is where Misplaced Pages can be changed. Please make your efforts there - for your sake and everybody else's. And again, if you want to change how we use Quackwatch, the place for that is RSN. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments at WP:ANI

Hi there Herbxue! What's up? =P I was wondering if you were interested to take a look at this ? It's a rather lengthy case, but I tried to summarize the main points a little in a comment I left there at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comments by Jayaguru-Shishya (and also the Conclusions -subsection). Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY

Cursing as you do here is not suitable in discussions. Would suggest you reword your comments. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted, I have corrected my talk page comments.Herbxue (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Problematic edit

I am having trouble seeing this edit diff as good faith. There is quoted source text that appears immediately following in the wikimarkup and is clearly footnoted. Reverting another editor from "support for" to "correlates for" with "Is your closer to the source? If so, please show" when the footnote so absolutely clear ("Scientists are still unable to find a shred of evidence to support the existence of meridians or Ch'i", "there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the existence of Ch'i or meridians" and "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy") seems less than honest or at the least a failure to read the supporting footnote before reverting another editor. When working such a highly contentious article I would suggest supporting a revert of a respected editor such as User:Jmh649 by actually checking the sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a good faith revert of one word to long-existing text. Yes it is a contentious article, with people milking text to (mostly) push a POV that acupuncture is the most vile form of charlatan rubbish. I'll admit to being hyper vigilant and pulling the trigger too quick on that one. Plenty of respected editors make mistakes. About a year ago I was brought up as a problematic editor for similar reverts, and after much discussion, 2 editors that accused me got banned instead for misrepresenting Ernst's conclusions (which is what I had been fighting to have recognized). So, that's the environment I'm working in. People make sport out of trying to make this subject look as absurd as possible (remember PPdd and all his edits about TCM using feces and blood cakes and penises?). So I acted too quick and got one wrong. I have a hard time keeping up with Quack Guru. Herbxue (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I can AGF and more than accept your admission of pulling the trigger to quickly as an adequate explanation/apology. I don't want to be contentious on your talk page and make no further or other allegations. It was indeed a one word change and the activity on that article is extensive. I will admit to hyper vigilance myself. I don't in any way wish to discourage your participation. I will concur with you that there is a tendency on the part of some editors to work very hard to make certain acupuncture is presented in a particular light. An accurate reflection of the sources is important as is genuine NPOV. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to keep a cool head. Herbxue (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Poor edit to lede and body

You made this change to lede that was taken out of context from the source. You continue to revert and continue to make bad edits. QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the source says:

"Serious complications after acupuncture continue to be reported. Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists. This might explain why surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications . Most of the case reports originated from Asia (Tables 2–4), possibly reflecting the fact that, in Asia, acupuncture is more widely practised than elsewhere. Alternatively, it might be due to more Asian therapists being poorly trained ."

So, I would agree it would be better to go straight to the Ernst 2001 source, or the White article and give the direct stats. Funny though how Ernst, while providing data that supports the contention that acupuncture is safe and shows increasing promise of efficacy, BENDS OVER BACKWARDS to word his paper in a way to suggest the most negative possible explanations for things. Notice he says 95 serious adverse events but never says out of how many treatments, or gives comparison to other procedures (you can figure it out from the article but a neutral writer would tell you straight away). Herbxue (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think your revert was straight out of the source or was an improvement? Do you think the details "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." was in improvement to the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You removed the tag without fixing the problem. The text was duplication as explained on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page and a clear edit summary. Your POV tags were unwarranted. Herbxue (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You suggested we should use the White article. Was it this article (PMID 15551936) from 2004? What was the good explanation to restore someone else's edit and why do you think the POV tag was unwarranted when the text was duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, how about quoting its conclusion: "The risk of serious events occurring in association with acupuncture is very low, below that of many common medical treatments."

I don't understand your other issue. Why is sourcing the same text more than once a POV edit, worthy of a tag? The article milks the life out of a few Ernst papers. Is that not duplication? Herbxue (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2004 White source is too old per MEDRS which from a low impact factor source IMO. The article summarises reliable sources such as Ersnt.

You did not give me any specific explanation as to why you restored someone else's edit. You claimed you were restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page. But what was the good explanation?

Why is sourcing the same text more than once a POV edit, worthy of a tag? It was POV because it was duplication of the same material. I explained this in more detail on the talk page QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? All you had to do is click "previous edit" on your own diff - here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=614414281 this was discussed on the talk page under safety and weight - jayaguru and Middle8 weighed in supporting it, I believe klocek's sock did too but I didn't know he was a sock at that time, meaning 4 editors supporting inclusion. I restored it when Doc James reverted, and I believed I was justified based on the source and Middle8's explanations. Maybe if you didn't do so many hundreds of edits a day you would clearly remember all this and you wouldn't have to pester me here over this. I said it several times before and I'll say it again - let's just include the actual incidence stats and direct quotes from sources so we don't have to nit pick each other like this. Oh and the White source is fine (fine enough for Ernst, why not for us?) but I'd be happy to find a newer one. Herbxue (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I explained "It was POV because it was duplication of the same material." Do you agree we should not include this text and you were mistaken to remove the tag without fixing the problem?

Klocek's sock did not discuss it on the talk page and was never part of the conversion about this text.

You restored it when Doc James reverted, because you believed it was justified based on the source and Middle8's explanations. But what was the "good explanation"? So far you have not given any specific explanation about what was the "good explanation".

The source was taken out of context and you did not explain what was the specific explanations you thought justified the revert.

The incidence rates are in the safety section and direct quotes don't have an encyclopedic feel. See: "The majority of the reported adverse events were fairly minor, and the incidences were low. For example, a prospective survey of 34,000 acupuncture treatments found no serious adverse events and 43 minor ones, a rate of 1.3 per 1000 interventions." I included other examples too.

You claim the White source is fine but it is from 2004. Do you understand it has a low impact factor and the source is ten years old? We should use recent reviews according to MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)