Revision as of 17:11, 21 July 2014 edit2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits →Ice Man and acupuncture: done← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:16, 9 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,366 edits →Edit request on 3 December 2024 | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|acu|brief}} | |||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}} | |||
{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience|collapsed=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{tmbox | |||
{{WikiProject China|class=B |importance=Top }} | |||
| type = content | |||
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
| image = ] | |||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes}} | |||
| text = | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} | |||
'''Individuals with a conflict of interest''' (COI), particularly those ] the subject of the article, are '''strongly advised''' not to edit the article. See ]. You may , or ] if the issue is urgent. See also ].}}<!-- end tmbox -->{{#ifeq:NAMESPACE|{{ns:1}}|<!--Category removed here-->}} | |||
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=B |importance=mid }} | |||
{{Trolling}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top }} | |||
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top|attention=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | |||
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid }} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 34 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | |||
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=40 |units=days| | |||
* ] <small>(Start to May, 2006)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(May 2006 to Feb 2008)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(Feb 2008 to Oct 2009)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(Oct 2009 to Jan 2011)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(February 2011)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(February 2011)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(February 2011 – May 2011)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(June 2011 – October 2011)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(October 2011 – March 2012)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(March 2012 – June 2013)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(July 2013 - December 2013)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(December 2013 - May 2014)</small> | |||
* ] <small>(May 2014 - July 2014)</small> | |||
* ] archive | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
|target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index | |
|target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Acupuncture/Medical acupuncture | ||
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= | |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= | ||
}} | |||
{{To do}} | |||
{{tmbox | |||
|small = {{{small|}}} | |||
|image = ] | |||
|text = '''There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article.''' If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review ], as well as the ]. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by ], not by majority vote. | |||
}} | }} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
{{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024 == | |||
== Menopause syndroms == | |||
* {{cite journal|last1=Frisk|first1=Jessica W.|last2=Hammar|first2=Mats L.|last3=Ingvar|first3=Martin|last4=Spetz Holm|first4=Anna-Clara E.|title=How long do the effects of acupuncture on hot flashes persist in cancer patients?|journal=]|date=30 January 2014|volume=22|issue=5|pages=1409–1415|doi=10.1007/s00520-014-2126-2|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24477325}} | |||
* {{cite journal|last1=Chiu|first1=Hsiao-Yean|last2=Pan|first2=Chieh-Hsin|last3=Shyu|first3=Yuh-Kae|last4=Han|first4=Bor-Cheng|last5=Tsai|first5=Pei-Shan|title=Effects of acupuncture on menopause-related symptoms and quality of life in women on natural menopause: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials|journal=]|date=7 July 2014|pages=1|doi=10.1097/GME.0000000000000260|url=http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Abstract/publishahead/Effects_of_acupuncture_on_menopause_related.98349.aspx}} | |||
:*{{cite journal|last1=Dodin|first1=Sylvie|last2=Blanchet|first2=Claudine|last3=Marc|first3=Isabelle|last4=Ernst|first4=Edzard|last5=Wu|first5=Taixiang|last6=Vaillancourt|first6=Caroline|last7=Paquette|first7=Joalee|last8=Maunsell|first8=Elizabeth|last9=Dodin|first9=Sylvie|title=Acupuncture for menopausal hot flushes|year=2013|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD007410.pub2|pmid=23897589}} | |||
:*{{cite journal | last1 = Cho | first1 = S. H. | last2 = Whang | first2 = W. W. | title = Acupuncture for vasomotor menopausal symptoms | journal = Menopause | volume = 16 | issue = 5 | pages = 1065–1073 | year = 2009 | pmid = 19424092 | pmc = | doi = 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181a48abd }} | |||
:*There is currently MEDRS compliant sources in ]. One is a 2013 Cochrane review and the other is a 2009 systematic review. ] (]) 04:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Commenting on the Chiu paper today, Steven Novella called the results "entirely negative" and concluded ..."''A reasonable person can only conclude that acupuncture does not work, and that all the clinical research consistently shows that acupuncture conveys only illusory and nonspecific placebo effects for subjective symptoms.''" | |||
== Violation of ] and ] == | |||
to the first sentence is a clear violation of ] and ] policy. | |||
"Acupuncture therapy is believed to have developed in China over thousands of years and refers to the stimulation of precisely defined, specific points on meridians (or channels) that lie along the surface of the body and within organs. Stimulation of acupoints can be accomplished through a variety of methods including application of heat, pressure, or laser or insertion of thin needles.1" The source . ] (]) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
More added to the lede using a 2005 primary source. ] (]) 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I don't see why acupressure should be the second sentence in the lede. It's way off topic. I removed the sentence and the ref. Perhaps an appropriate place in the body. ] (]) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::It is in the body under ] using a systematic review. I have restored the other text that was deleted. ] (]) 19:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: The restored text is appropriate. It is a feature of acupuncture practice that needles are not the only tool used to stimulate the points or channels.] (]) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: So that there is no "puncture" ? isn't that then something else? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::: Well, depends on how we are defining acupuncture. In China it is referred to as 针灸 zhen jiu, literally "needles and moxibustion", and it is assumed that needling, moxa, cupping, gua sha, and other auxiliary techniques are performed by the acupuncturist.] (]) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Sounds like "针灸" connotes a broader concept than English "acupuncture". In English the word acupuncture means "A method of medical treatment, originating in China, in which fine needles are inserted into the skin at specific points on the body surface" (OED primary definition). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 20:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{OD}} | |||
It would be misleading to claim that acupuncture uses only needles. Yes, I read up on acupuncture before I originally added the first sentence to the ]. I also added the definition of to the lede. ] (]) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The NHS : "Acupuncture is a form of ancient Chinese medicine in which fine needles are inserted into the skin at certain points on the body". ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: It is also true that in the US, in most states the practice act defines the practice as needle insertion, though many states also include the auxiliary techniques. If the article were just about the specific procedure of needle stimulation then the narrow definition would fit, but the article has a broader scope. "Acupuncturists" are almost always trained in the auxiliary techniques, with moxa being considered by many as a primary technique with equal importance to needle insertion.] (]) 20:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: (Add) And Ernst as an "Insertion of a needle into the skin ...". We have a separate article on ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: Indeed! While acupuncturists might normally do more than strict acupuncture, we have separate articles here. I don't expect Herbxue to reply, since he is now topic banned for six months. -- ] (]) 03:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::We have RS that acupuncture involves far more than needle insertion. It does not benefit the reader to alter the broader definition of acupuncture. ] (]) 04:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::My dear QG, that's from possibly . Wouldn't you say the NHS, the OED and Ernst are better? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It is common knowledge that acupuncture involves more than needles. Traditional acupuncture also involves more than needles. These are mundane claims. The current wording is correct and accurate. Shortening the definition would make the text factually incorrect. ] (]) 05:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It's not common knowledge. Sure, "what acupuncturists do" might include other things – but that's not the topic of this article. According to the strongest RS, acupuncture is needling into certain points on the body; a fringe journal defines "traditional" acupuncture (whatever that is) more broadly, citing a single Chinese source tellingly entitled "Acupuncture '''and''' moxibustion" (my emphasis). We need to follow the best sources. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::(add) Consider also: | |||
::::::::* {{cite book|editor=Davis EK |author=Karchmer EI|work=Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2rLBvrlKI7QC&pg=PA4|year=2009|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-77716-2|page=4 |chapter=Acupuncture and Moxibustion |quote=Acupuncture refers to the therapeutic manipulation of needles at specific sites on the body, and moxibustion to the therapeutic warming or cauterizing of those sites with slow-burning moxa leaves. They are commonly used together in clinical practice ...}} | |||
::::::::::The English definition for the word acupuncture is not factually accurate. | |||
::::::::::We are using to verify the first sentence for the definition of acupuncture. The second sentence is the explanation for "traditional acupuncture". Both statements are accurate and from a NPOV. ] (]) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Sourced text was deleted == | |||
And some was added. At least three sources are obviously . ] (]) 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Can you please specify the MEDRS violations? ] (]) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I removed the . ] (]) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Can you please specify the MEDRS violations, what were the primary sources and what were the poor sources you removed? Thanks. ] (]) 22:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Please check the edit history and . ] (]) 22:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Doesn't answer my question. Can you please provide a description of '''all''' your edits you made on the article? Thanks. ] (]) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::It is unnecessary to provide a on the talk page too. Do you have any specific objection? ] (]) 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::All the unexplained ones<s></s>. I just can't see what you are looking for if you don't explain. Seems like revertable edits. ] (]) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::. You have not given a reason to restore the primary sources or the impact factor of 0 sources. ] (]) 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::All QG's edits yesterday were given a reasonable edit summary. Are the edit summaries not appearing on your screen ]? -] (]) 00:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: These two were removed per MEDRS without explaining what the violation is. ] (]) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
The were restored against consensus. The 2009 journal of pain source is a primary source (PMID 19409857). ] (]) 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:See Myofascial Meridians below. This has been discussed in the approved. MEDRS does not say all primary sources should be removed. Please instead work on doing some of your own research to help improve sources, not eradicate them. - ] (]) 06:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::The sources are not approved according to MEDRS standards. You are using primary sources and poor sources to argue against much better sources. ] (]) 06:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Impact factor 2 == | |||
Hi! I was wondering, what is the minimum impact factor of a source according to WP policies to be sufficient enough in order to be published in an article? I couldn't find such information myself, but I think you can help! Thanks! ] (]) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I think an impact factor of 0 is a poor source. ] (]) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I think so too. Back to my question: '''what is the minimum impact factor to be sufficient enough'''? Thanks! ] (]) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't believe there is a hard and fast rule on impact factor/reliable sources. -] (]) 00:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: Correct. There isn't any. There can be many situations where it's not a factor, but in some it might be a decisive one. -- ] (]) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Myofascial Meridians revived, NPOV == | |||
I've revived this discussion from archive. With the above arguments in consideration, as well as some new sources I've reworked long-standing and un-challenged content form ] into this article in the section regarding research. It was awkward trying insert this into what looks like an very calculated and systemic attack on the fundamentals of TCM. Accordingly I added the the NPOV banner because there's no way this article in the way it sits now can be called neutral by community standards. - ] (]) 06:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:On the contrary, the content from the . Did you read ? See ]. ] (]) 06:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::In the context of the mainstream, "myofascial meridians" appears to be a fringe concept with one mention only in a dodgy (chiropractic) journal, according to a . If that is so, it is doubtful that ] should exist, and it would certainly be undue to mention it here. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I was thinking the same thing. AFD? ] (]) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I have asked at ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Some clear specifics are needed to support an NPOV tag and discussion. This article is extensively discussed and worked out on this talk page. The content reflects well reviewed material based on evaluated sources. The article has been developed through extensive consensus building. An NPOV tag for the entire article based on a single editors vague assertion is not appropriate. | |||
:Myofascial meridians and referred pain along such meridians as support for evidence of acupuncture meridians from a single researcher over five years ago without replication and recognition in academia is not a valid basis for content. Did Dorsher's 2009 publications lead to mainstream academia and medical science recognizing and accepting acupuncture meridians as having an anatomical basis? If so provide some sources that state that. The high quality sources that review the effectiveness of acupuncture that I have read all make reference to meridians as unsupported theory. One author getting published once in a reputable journal does not create the current medical understanding on a topic, especially if after five years there is no substantial validation. ''The Journal of Pain'' has published more on acupuncture since Dorsher's article and they don't seem reflect an acceptance of anatomical correlation. - - ] (]) 07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:To quote , "Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of 'Qi' energy, channeled through the human body by way of 'meridians,' though, is a different matter. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory." - - ] (]) 07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: It's pseudoscientific piffle which should probably be deleted, not merged. -- ] (]) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*@], here's a reliable secondary source (editorial control and fact checking) from the stating: "Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves." That statement and source, with Dorser's Journal of Pain article cited for background and further info should be sufficient. It does not contradict the 2008 review being these are recent findings. - ] (]) 16:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: The Wall Street Journal is a great source in general, but should not be used for medical claims per ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 16:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: I find WSJ far more reliable than blogs by different news sites. ] (]) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::You are missing the point. ''All news sites suck'' for medical claims and they are also shoddy for science claims (WSJ in particular). ] (]) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Blogs are being used as a source in other alt med articles, like https://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic#cite_note-Brown2014-214 . I'd like to see both discarded, but it is apparent that WSJ is more reliable than some ''blog'' in a newspaper. ] (]) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::No it does not follow. WSJ is garbage, but its possible that a blog could be much more reliable, particularly if written by a scientist blogging for example, ]:"''Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.''". But anyway, newspapers are not generally reliable for medical claims. The other source you highlight is not being used for a medical claim, its being used to give the views of chiropractors from a survey. ] (]) 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: ], you are failing to make a difference between MEDRS type content and non-MEDRS content. The sourcing rules are not the same. ] is not used to support medical claims, but the opinions of a noted expert on the intersection between spirituality and chiropractic. That's actually a huge area, since chiropractic was created on the basis of a religious ], and D.D. Palmer later (1911) considered making it a religion. Brown's comments have nothing to do with medical claims, so that content is not governed by the MEDRS guideline. MEDRS only covers medical claims, no matter which article at Misplaced Pages. It does not govern non-medical claims, even in medical articles. You have previously seemed to fail to understand this. I hope you understand it now so we don't have to continually explain it to you. It has also been explained to you that we don't deprecate a source just because its a blog. Blogs by experts and journalists are often used as RS here. So please stop your obsession with not using blogs since you clearly do not understand that issue either. I'm really beginning to wonder if you aren't an incarnation of ] / ]. -- ] (]) 06:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:A news source can be used to show that there's a debate. If language such as "According to the Wall Street Journal: Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves." that should be acceptable. It doesn't make a clear medical claim, rather shows that other opinions exist. - ] (]) 16:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Abusing MEDRS to cover a minority scientific opinion does not comply with this directive: "1a) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, '''requires''' fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." Controversy among researchers, historical background, and opinions about acupuncture don't strictly fit the definition of "bio-medical information". - ] (]) 17:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: Technophant, you misunderstand what is meant by "making a medical claim". Please reread the guideline. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Proposed pov-section tag for "Scientific view on TCM theory" === | |||
Due to the apparent debate about neutrality evident in this talk page I would like to add the template "pov-section" under the subsection "Scientific view on TCM theory".- Technophant (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The debate is over including primary/poor sources. I don't think a tag is necessary. ] (]) 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::There's people on the NPOV noticeboard that disagree. - ] (]) 01:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Tag not needed. This is an invented controversy, and appears disruptive. -] (]) 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Pointing out that controversy exists isn't disruptive but accusing someone of "inventing controversy" is by all accounts disruptive. -] (]) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Proposed merge with ] == | |||
This subject appears to be a minor topic of speculation within a much larger field. There does not seem to be significant enough mainstream medical coverage to warrant an article dedicated to this subject however it may be a useful addition to the general article on ]. ] (]) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strongly Oppose''' - This one doesn't make any sense. Myofascial meridians an anatomy article under WikiProject Anatomy. This article is about a medical practice whose scope covers many areas. The argument that it doesn't have "significant enough mainstream medical coverage" shouldn't apply to an anatomy article. book reviews declares that it's a "must read for anyone that works with the musculoskeletal system." How does shoving it into this article serve anybody except the few who want it to go away? - ] (]) 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::It's a random blog review. It means nothing. ] ] (]) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose'''. The fascia planes proposal probably needs to be mentioned here, but if anything the article looks more closely related to ]. A good wave of the credulity wand is certainly in order. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. It's pseudoscientific piffle which should probably be deleted, not merged. -- ] (]) 14:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' this minor viewpoint but '''support''' AFD. ] (]) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. In agreement with Brangifer. - - ] (]) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' with ''keep''. ] (]) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Redirect''' Just redirect it to here. Don't merge any of it. ] (]) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Redirect''' –on reflection, just redirecting it is equivalent to merging in the worthy content anyway (i.e. there is none). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 01:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:* That seems like a good solution. -- ] (]) 07:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''', if this is good enough for Elsevier Health Sciences to publish, then we ought to have an article on it. ''Anatomy Trains: Myofascial Meridians for Manual and Movement Therapists'' ISBN 9780702055638 3rd edition. ] (]) 16:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - please note that merge discussions should remain open for at least 7 days and closed by an administrator. - ] (]) 20:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*''''Support''', myofascial planes, and the information in the article, are very relevant here. I would like to see additional information such as "jing jin" or the sinew system be added into the article along with modern research into this field. Alternatively, I would support redirecting but not to the acupuncture page itself, but to a section on fascial planes within the article, which should be expanded beyond just the Thomas Myers information in the article, "myofascial meridians."] (]) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Redirect to ]''' as it is not notable as a stand alone article. See ref for support ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Edit warring == | |||
Repeated insertion of essentially the same material coupled with removing sourced content is unacceptable edit warring. This article is both contentious and under discretionary sanctions. Discussion and consensus are needed for making changes if they are challenged. Once reverted reinserting content without discussion is edit warring. - - ] (]) 07:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The edits by User:Technophant did not improve this article. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock . ] (]) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::In ] it's decidied that{{quote|1a) ], a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.}} | |||
::I'm only trying, in good faith and through good practices, to help improve this article, despite ]'s Wikihouding and Fringe Pushing. I do not mean to be edit warring and if that's what I've been doing (unintentionally) I will refrain from doing so - ] (]) 15:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*An administrator has protected the page for a 24 hour period. the protection log. - ] (]) 03:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Appropiateness use of QuackWatch == | |||
I the critcism from QuackWatch from the Scientific View section. Anything in this section should meet the requirements of ]en ]. This comment ''could'' be acceptable in the Reception section or Criticism section, but not here. Also, this statement is a criticism of TCM, not acupuncture, and is repeated on the TCM page. A more appropriate statement should be more narrowly focused on acupuncture alone. Also, I think the section should be titled "Scientific view on acupuncture theory" not "Scientific view on TCM". - ] (]) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Quackwatch is established RS for altmed topics. Maybe check out the WP:RS/N archives ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::QuackWatch does NOT pass MEDRS and should NOT be used to refute bio-medical claims. I made a ] moving the section to a new Rececption/Skeptics section which I feel is more appropriate. - ] (]) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Could you please explain why without an edit summary? - ] (]) 17:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::There was one. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 17:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Certainly was - made very good sense too. -] (]) 17:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::@] Well, what is it? - ] (]) 17:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{ping|Technophant}} A more petinent question would be why you made these without first discussing here? ] (]) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)/ | |||
::::::::@] Yes I made those bold edits. They didn't seem contentious at the time. Now please answer my question. - - ] (]) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: Having a separate ] is generally deprecated, as the material can be more neutrally presented by integrating it with the text. Also, QuackWatch is just fine for this article, see innumerable past discussions. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} ] -Right, by having a critcism section NPOV would require an equal and opposite Support section. By using a source that has been only conditionally approved to further a scientific/bio-medical claim isn't allowed. Check this out this decision from RSN: "In the past there have been attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the same high status as scholarly sources or even statements by scientific organisations. These were of course not successful. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" - ] (]) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::The Hans Adler source is not ] compliant. It is out of date. (I remember Hans patiently taking homeopaths apart on the Hpathy forum years ago. Is he still around?) -] (]) 19:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::] isn't used for non-medical information. -] (]) 19:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::: See ] for why we should not have duelling Support/Criticism sections. Seriously, this is an ages old no-go. | |||
:::: Hans Adler is generally a fine editor, but he is not offering an independent opinion there. QW has been debated to death and back, and the result is that we are always enjoined to use it but use caution. - ] <small>(])</small> 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Because blogs and self-publishing websites are preferable to properly peer-reviewed journals and authoritative textbooks? -] (]) 20:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} Surely there has to be some compromise between a strict legalistic view of Medres and the mandate to have a neutral point of view. The article could show that while the medical consensus is this, other opinions do exist. This in no way would affect the accuracy of the medical information in the article, indeed it would enhance it. - ] (]) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
I've taken this idea and posted this question to MEDRS talk page here: ] - ] (]) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The statement, "NPOV would require an equal and opposite Support section" clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the NPOV policy. The policy is not the false balance of equal space for he said and she said but an accurate reflection of published secondary sources in proportion to their prominence. Please take some time to actually read with an eye to understanding the entire NPOV policy. Take note of the section DUE. - - ] (]) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I agree. There shouldn't be undue weight on either side of controversy. I see this article's treatment of TCM as being positional, not neutral. - ] (]) 05:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::AGAIN ACTUALLY READ THE POLICY. NPOV says "]" and "]" FRINGE views do not carry much DUE weight at all. The position of mainstream academia is the position reflected in a WP article. An editor's ideas of neutrality and positionality (]) are irrelevant and not policy. ] is. Note the words ''proportionately'' and ''significant'' and the explanations that follow. - - ] (]) 06:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::These aren't fringe views at all. Fringe means "members of a group or political party holding extreme views." Fringe would be a chiropractor publishing an unverifiable paper on his website. Peter Dorscher of the world renowned Mayo Clinic being published in the reputable Journal of Pain isn't fringe science, it's just new science. ''"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."''- Mahatma Gandhi - ] (]) 07:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::If acupuncture will win in respect to the medical consensus, Misplaced Pages will write that in big shinny letters. We are not there yet, perhaps we will never be there. ] (]) 14:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== A precise and accurate definition is better == | |||
], a is not an improvement. The wording "acupoints" has a specific meaning for the text. ] (]) 19:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
: I agree that "acupoints" is not too much jargon there since the meaning of the term of art is clear in context. We certainly need to maintain a dispassionate outside view, but this particular use seems efficient and allowable. - ] <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Hi! My own opinion is that it's easier on the reader if they don't have to figure out the context, even though it's clear after a few seconds of thought, so using the term is better saved for the third sentence. But it was meant to be a bold edit; I'd only suggest that if you revert, the term should be wikilinked. It's unfortunate that I made the change right before the page was protected, and I suppose it shouldn't be edited without consensus right now, but if it helps, I wouldn't object to a revert through protection in the spirit of BRD. <small>Added: actually, I see that your comments here came before the protection. If you don't feel strongly enough to revert, I won't object to that either. :-)</small> | |||
::(FYI @], to ping someone you need to link their name in the same edit in which you use your signature.) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I can make the edit if you'd like. Any objections to adding the wikilink as well? (I can see why that would be helpful, since as a newcomer I have never heard the term "accupoints" before today.) Also, in looking for the first usage of the term after the Lead, I noticed that the first sentence of the Lead is a verbatim copy of the first sentence of the "Clinical practice" section...not sure if that was intentional. Let me know if I should add the wikilink or not. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The protection is very short. I can go ahead and wikilink the term when the article is unprotected. ] (]) 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Closer to source == | |||
Current wording is "For the use of acupuncture for post-operative pain, there was contradictory evidence." | |||
Closer to source would be "For the use of acupuncture for post-operative pain, there was sometimes contradictory evidence." ] (]) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
: The first wording above is grammatically correct. "Sometimes contradictory" (the equivalent of saying "sometimes sometimes") is rather awkward and not an improvement. The many copy edits made by ] have been a net plus, including this one. -- ] (]) 06:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== The source is not outdated == | |||
The text says "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians." The 2008 source is not outdated. Your edit summary was But you also deleted "" Technophant, did you accidentally delete the ? ] (]) 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:2008 is outdated according to ] which says "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." - ] (]) 05:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::It also says "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published". That meridians are nonsense is long-settled so older sources are fine. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: For fringe subjects we are often obligated to use older sources. In cases where the content is still accurate, the date of the source could just as well be several thousand years old and we could still use it. -- ] (]) 06:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::That isn't what ] says. If newer research contradicts a 6 year old review of that area of research then that review is outdated. - ] (]) 07:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::: Please provide the years and links for the "newer research" and the "6 year old review." -- ] (]) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} I'll provide a review of what I've found so far: | |||
*The "six year old source" #1: Singh & Ernst 2008, Chapter 2: The Truth About Acupuncture (not a scientific journal) | |||
#2: . (2008). * (does have references to below articles) | |||
The best evidence I've found so far is | |||
* (2008) (narrative review, not included in current article) | |||
{{quote|The anatomical and physiologic nature of the acupuncture point/meridian remains elusive. Our limited understanding, however, is not for lack of existing hypotheses. Numerous physiologic and anatomical associations have been proposed within the literature. This summary provides a brief review of the scientific assessment of the acupuncture point and meridian. The discussion is limited to reported associations that reflect common belief, are sufficiently specific to the acupuncture point and meridian, or are supported by more than 2 good-quality studies. With this criteria, the talk focuses on two anatomical associations (nervous system and connective tissue), and three physiologic associations (trigger point, nuclear tracer migration, and electrical properties) are discussed.}} | |||
* (2009) | |||
* -(2010) | |||
*. (2009) | |||
* (2009) | |||
That's enough for now. - ] (]) 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Fringe supporters keep churning out new "evidence" for certain claims. This evidence is often flawed. But they are aiming for quantity, not quality. they hope to show legitimacy by pointing at the sheer amount of papers. In wikipedia, we follow the principle that ]. The existence of meridians is an exceptional claim, because it has been discarded by so many sources as siply impossible and not based on scientific evidence. You will need very strong sources to counter that. --] (]) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::@] Find a review of research after 2008 that has discredited these papers. If you find one, did it cite and refute these findings? I can find nothing that refutes this. - - ] (]) 11:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Mainstream sources don't need to discuss every single paper brought forward by proponents of a theory. Reviews don't get automatically outdated every time a new paper appears. If mainstream opinion has changed, then a mainstream review will say so. --] (]) 11:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The last mainstream reviews were both in 2008 (above). The one used in the article focuses only on electrical properties and says there no valid theories. The one not used says there's many valid theories. - ] (]) 11:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::The one not included in the article, is a summary of invited lectures on an acupuncture conference. That rates very low for ]. | |||
:::::The one included in the article is a systematic review of the best available clinical evidence. That rates very high for ]. | |||
:::::--] (]) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::@] Yes, but it's still limited to only electrical properties. Can in no way be considered comprehensive. - ] (]) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 == | |||
{{edit protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}} | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
In the section "Scientific view on TCM theory" this sentence appears: | |||
:::Despite the scientific evidence against such mystical explanations, academic discussions of acupuncture still make reference to pseudoscientific concepts like qi and meridians, in practice making many scholarly efforts to integrate evidence for efficacy and discussions of the mechanism of impossible. | |||
# The penultimate word "of" should be deleted. | |||
# The sentence is unnecessarily hostile to TCM and can be worded more neutrally while remaining true to sources. The point to be made is as above in the article, namely that concepts like qi and meridians don't integrate with modern science; there's no need for "mystical" and "pseudoscientific" here. | |||
I suggest the sentence is changed to: | |||
:::Despite the scientific evidence against such explanations, academic discussions of acupuncture still make reference to nonscientific concepts like qi and meridians, in practice making many scholarly efforts to integrate evidence for efficacy and discussions of the mechanism impossible. | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
] (]) 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*{{agree}} - ] (]) 09:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
* Agree with the first part, but definitely not the last part as it is very controversial. The source uses the words "mystical" and "pseudoscientific" quite often. I'm not saying the current wording is the best, but since this is controversial, it must be thoroughly discussed and is not eligible for an "edit request". -- ] (]) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|BullRangifer}} if it's "controversial" to remove clearly biased language then there's something seriously wrong with the consensus that led to the article being the way it is. This seems like one of those Misplaced Pages discussions that sensible editors avoid, and so will I – removed from my watchlist. ] (]) 06:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
] '''Partly done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> I don't see enough consensus for #2. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 2 == | |||
{{edit protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}} | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
Due to the apparent debate about neutrality evident in this talk page I would like to add the template "pov-section" under the subsection "Scientific view on TCM theory" - ] (]) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
* Given the fact that reviews from high-quality medical journals about the mechanism of acupuncture have been repeatedly removed from this article, I think the POV template is long overdue. | |||
:: 1. A 2008 review article titled in '']'', with impact actor of 9.035, was removed. | |||
:: 2. A 2010 review article titled in '']'', with impact factor of 2.422, failed to be included. | |||
:: 3. A 2011 review article titled in '']'', with impact factor of 4.866, was removed. | |||
:: 4. A 2012 meta-analysis titled in '']'', with impact factor of 3.730, failed to be included | |||
:: 5. A 2013 review article titled in '']'' with impact factor of 5.698 failed to be included. | |||
:: 6. A 2014 review article titled in '']'', with impact factor of 2.949, failed to be included | |||
:: 7. A 2014 review article titled in '']'', with impact factor of 5.163, was removed. | |||
There are a lot more sources removed but I don't have time to retrieve all of them. POV tag should stay until they're added back. -] (]) 10:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:@] - Thank you. Perhaps we are getting somewhere. - ] (]) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: <s>I wouldn't thank A1candidate too quickly since (s)he is a professional acupuncturist with a huge COI who really shouldn't be editing these articles so boldly and pushing fringe POV. -- ] (]) 16:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)</s> | |||
::What do you want to add using what source? I do not see a need for a POV tag at this point in time. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Before we even start discussing which reviews, I suggest the following overview statement from a highly authoritative medical textbook: | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}} | |||
::::"The emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management. Yet its acceptance appears to stem from more than just its communal appeal. | |||
I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1 | |||
{{collapse top|collapse long requested changeset}} | |||
'''Change X''' - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.] | |||
'''to Y''' – . | |||
::::''Since the mid-1970s, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter central pain-processing pathways, possibly by triggering release of neural mediators that bind to specific receptors in the brain regions that modulate pain perception.''" | |||
There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment. | |||
::::- {{cite book|title=]|publisher=]|isbn=9780071748902|page=2-5 |date=2011}} () | |||
The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023. | |||
'''Change X''' – ] | |||
:::If we could start by agreeing that some of the most authoritative medical textbooks consider acupuncture to be empirically validated to certain degrees, perhaps we can then proceed to discuss the details. -] (]) 13:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
'''to Y''' – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk. | |||
::::It could be so, but the whole research that shows that sham acupuncture works as good as real acupuncture ruins your whole thesis. We could just randomly insert needles and pretend to treat people by doing that. ] (]) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::As for real vs sham acupuncture, see PMID 24595780 -] (]) 14:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Sham acupuncture can't be considered a true control because it involves activating the nervous system in some way. There's many, many articles criticizing the way sham controls are used. Take a look at papers conclusion. - ] (]) 16:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit protected}} template.<!-- Template:EP --> A healthy combination of editing and talk page discussion after the protection has expired will probably go farther than a protected edit request. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Can you at least remove that personal attack by ] against me? Such personal accusations are completely false and untrue. -] (]) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: I have stricken the comment. -- ] (]) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::What do you want to say using Harrison's? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::I'll try to make it concise and keep it as short as possible: | |||
::::1a. '''Proposed inclusion''' - There is a growing belief among researchers that acupuncture may be effective. | |||
::::1b. '''What Harrison's says''' - "''Although methodological problems continue to plague acupuncture trials, belief has been growing even in academic centers that acupuncture may be effective''", as quoted directly from {{cite book|title=]|publisher=]|isbn=9780071748902|page=2-5 |date=2011}} () | |||
::::1c. '''Rationale for addition''' - A fringe theory, by definition, departs significantly from mainstream view. In the case of acupuncture, however, there is a growing belief in academic centers that acupuncture is effective, not fringe. | |||
'''Change X''' – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.] | |||
::::2a. '''Proposed inclusion''' - It is used in some major medical centers as an ancillary approach to pain management. | |||
'''to Y''' - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.” | |||
::::2b. '''What Harrison's says''' - "''The emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management''", as quoted directly from {{cite book|title=]|publisher=]|isbn=9780071748902|page=2-5 |date=2011}} () | |||
Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points. | |||
::::2c. '''Rationale for addition''' - Alternative medicine, by definition, is not part of standard medical care. Acupuncture, however, is "''ancillary''" when it comes to managing chronic pain and it should not be labelled otherwise | |||
'''Add Y''' – . | |||
::::3a. '''Proposed inclusion''' - In recent decades, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter ] perception in the ], possibly by triggering the release of ]s that subsequently bind onto specific receptors in ]. | |||
'''Add Y''' – | |||
::::3b. '''What Harrison's says''' - "''Since the mid-1970s, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter central pain-processing pathways, possibly by triggering release of neural mediators that bind to specific receptors in the brain regions that modulate pain perception.''" {{cite book|title=]|publisher=]|isbn=9780071748902|page=2-5 |date=2011}} () | |||
::::'''3c. Rationale for addition''' - This is a scientific fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated numerous times by now. We really need a section for mechanism of action if we are serious about sticking to mainstream science. | |||
'''Change X:''' | |||
::::Also, would '']'' be an acceptable textbook for an additional source? Once we're done with the textbook basics, we could go on to discuss more specific details as reviewed by high ] journals. -] (]) 10:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
[Clinical practice | |||
::::::So exactly what text are you wanting to add to what part of the article? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to | |||
:::::1b "problems continue" "has been growing...'''may'''" 1c "...'''is'''..." MAY and IS are quite different. If problems continue to plague it seems a clear statement that there is NOT empirical support of the type needed to validate a medical treatment. - - ] (]) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Calm down, we're only talking about the beliefs of the academic community which ''has been growing'' rather than ''may be growing''. Can we agree on this first? -] (]) | |||
:::::::It seems there is an effort to inflate the idea that there MAY be some elements of interest to the mainstream academic community while the evidence is still PLAGUED by methodological problems and the theoretical basis is still not validated into a false assertion of a change in the mainstream academic consensus on the validity of the theoretical basis and the evidence for empirical support. As there is no deadline if these concepts are valid surely empirical research not plagued by methodological failures and theoretical bases that are accepted are forthcoming and can be included WHEN this actually occurs. Until then the article should clearly reflect the widespread academic position on these questionable concepts. - - ] (]) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Instead of speculating about my motivations to improve the article, you may want to check out what mainstream academic literature says about the topic. Or better yet, read what '']'' says and come back once you're done. Methodological problems has already been mentioned in the article. -] (]) 15:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
'''to Y:''' | |||
== Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 3 == | |||
Clinical Practice | |||
{{hat|Withdrawn by initiator}} | |||
Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles. | |||
{{edit protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}} | |||
There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. ] (]) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
In the section about reception/Mayo, please add the quote "They concluded "Since acupuncture has few side effects, it may be worth a try if you're having trouble controlling pain with more-conventional methods." from the same source."" - ] (]) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:This is a hodgepodge of content ] verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ] (]) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
: |
::Also, {{tq|Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture}} is invalid reasoning - ] - not consistent with ], to give just one example. --] (]) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
:: Agreed. ], your abuse of edit requests (and RfCs elsewhere) is not constructive. Edit requests are reserved for minor and totally uncontroversial edits. RfCs are part of the dispute resolution process and should be reserved for when a very long discussion has gotten bogged down and one needs third party input. -- ] (]) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::This edit request is specific and not controversial (the source does indeed say this and it's appropriate). Please stop Wikihouding me. - ] (]) 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Please read ]. Do you think there's a consensus for this edit? --] (]) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why aren't these same criticisms being made to @]'s request above? Why am I being singled out? His edit is clearly controversial and non-specific. - ] (]) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::: ], ] is correct. An "edit request" is reserved for '''totally''' uncontroversial edits for which a consensus is guaranteed. Since this hasn't been discussed, and you're already getting resistance, this edit request is already against policy and is dead in the water. | |||
:::::: As for Peter's request above, since you admit that it's controversial, why are you supporting it? I have added a dissenting view above. Take a look. -- ] (]) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Your paranoia and repeated personal attacks against other editors is tiresome. BTW, it's spelled "wikihounding", and it's definitely a personal attack. Stop it. -- ] (]) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
BTW: ] does not say that ALL edit need consensus before being added. If I weren't an experienced editor I might have fallen for that advice. - ] (]) | |||
:The guideline doesn't apply here - the article is locked to ''prevent'' BOLD edits. As for your earlier question: I didn't advise Peter because I regarded the changes he proposed as minor and pretty uncontroversial. He also doesn't appear to be engaged in discussions here, so I had no reason to suspect that he thought his proposal would be controversial. --] (]) 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::"Locked to prevent bold edits?" That's hilarious. That's not why pages are semi-protected. - ] (]) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I think you misunderstand WP:Bold and protection policy. The article was ''full'' protected to stop an edit war in which you were the main participant, and in my experience you narrowly escaped blocked. And when the protection expires, if you jump right in and start making Bold edits without any regard for consensus, you probably will be blocked. When an article is full protected, no admin is going to make a Bold edit unless they believe that there is clear consensus for that edit. Heck, we usually won't even revert bad edits that took place right before the protection was applied, unless they are really, really bad edits (vandalism, copyvio, BLP issues, etc.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::And now a familiar edit is being again ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
A second 3RR NB filing has been made. - - ] (]) 14:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== |
== This article is racist == | ||
It must be changed. ] (]) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hey all! I've been on the ] and there has been discussion on Eastern medicine and acupuncture. Amongst those who edit here, what standards have been adopted as to what journals should and should not be cited? We have talked about reporting standards in acupuncture studies specifically. was one that was mentioned, but I'm aware there are others. Are journals excluded because they don't subscribe to reporting standards, or is generally anything allowed?] (]) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Basically nothing is allowed that contradicts the POV set forth in the article as it stands. No unbiased science found here. - ] (]) 21:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah man, it would seem to me that we would want journals with the most robust evidence as possible. I'm just a lay researcher, but it makes sense to me that reporting standards are essential. Otherwise you could find any piece of research to support whatever POV you have. ] (]) 01:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::You think I'm kidding? The some of sources for the "good" POV, like Quackwatch, are used inappropiately. Other's don't verify. If you are interested in systemic bias hang around here.- ] (]) 01:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::What source is required depends on what content one is trying to support. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Opposing ] such as ] and ] does not make me a racist. Why? {{talk quote| If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?|WLU}} Quoted by ] (]) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Ice Man and acupuncture == | |||
== Edit request on 3 December 2024 == | |||
This line in the lede: ''The tattoo marks identified on the Ice Man who died around 3300 BCE suggested that a form of stimulatory treatment resembling acupuncture developed independent of China.'' Seems to be rather speculative for lede material . Should it even be mentioned in the article at all? Also a photo caption in ] ] (]) 10:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:It is a wild hypothesis based on speculation rather than archaeological evidence. Image is completely unrelated to acupuncture and should be removed -] (]) 14:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: Agreed - removed both. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Edit warring rather than getting consensus == | |||
:Have a look at ], and note that essentially nothing published by the ] - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. ] (]) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Repeated insertion of reverted content without consensus is not appropriate. When forum shopping has not resulted in support to edit against consensus is not appropriate. Multiple issues have been raised about edits that have been reverted there is not consensus support for these edits. Discussion across a number of forums does not support making changes to this article without consensus. Tendentious editing and IDHT behavior on talk pages demonstrates POV Pushing and a lack of genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. This behavior is not in keeping with policy and is not constructive participation. A revert to previous stable version is likely appropriate with protection again and changes made only after consensus on this talk page. - - ] (]) 13:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture ''view'' it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief. | |||
:FYI: ] ] (]) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. ] (]) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see ]. ] (]) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization. | |||
::::It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately. | |||
::::And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. ] (]) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover ], too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. ] (]) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information? | |||
::::::Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? ] (]) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. ] (]) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it '''does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it'''. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons. | |||
:::::::::Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --] (]) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. ] (]) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::]. It's precisely ''for'' reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:16, 9 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. See also community discussion on COI for alt-med practitioners. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1
collapse long requested changeset |
---|
Change X - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.] to Y – . There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment. The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023. Change X – ] to Y – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk. Change X – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.] to Y - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.” Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points. Add Y – . Add Y – Change X: [Clinical practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to to Y: Clinical Practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles. There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. Sam Collins 33 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
- This is a hodgepodge of content copied verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also,
Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture
is invalid reasoning - argumentum ad antiquitatem - not consistent with WP:MEDRS, to give just one example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also,
This article is racist
It must be changed. 2600:100F:A110:4802:ED55:9578:694F:5135 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?
— User:WLU
Edit request on 3 December 2024
It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindlerva (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:MEDRS, and note that essentially nothing published by the NCCIH - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture view it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief.
- But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. Kindlerva (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization.
- It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately.
- And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. Kindlerva (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information?
- Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? Kindlerva (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons.
- Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:KEEPYOURMONEY. It's precisely for reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles