This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 14 February 2014 (→Rate of serious adverse events: note re consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:33, 14 February 2014 by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) (→Rate of serious adverse events: note re consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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: 40 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
|
 | 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 the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Rate of serious adverse events
Restored a source from 2004 that estimated a rate of SAE's of 5 in one million. For this area of research, 2004 seems fine, since it's consistent with later reviews like Xu et.al.,2013, which just didn't mention a specific number. Some things change quickly; this doesn't appear to be one. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The 2004 is too old. It failed MEDRS. That is your opinion that the source from 2004 is consistent with recent reviews. The recent reviews covering safety did not think it was important to discuss the specific numbers. You were using the older source to argue against the later reviews. You thought the recent reviews were wrong so you used the 2004 source to argue against recent reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a MEDRS failure for the reasons I stated; it is consistent with recent reviews. There is no basis in fact for your other assertions, nor have you even attempted to provide one. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- You know there are recent reviews covering safety including the 2013 you mentioned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- You know that older sources are fine under MEDRS in a lot of situations. A1candidate put it well just below. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- You know there are recent reviews covering safety including the 2013 you mentioned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a MEDRS failure for the reasons I stated; it is consistent with recent reviews. There is no basis in fact for your other assertions, nor have you even attempted to provide one. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to study both articles in-depth, but I think its wrong to remove a source just for being several years old, especially when taking into account the lack of similar reviews published in medical literature. Unless there's an overwhelming increase in the number of acupunctural reviews being published in the previous weeks/months that explicitly contradicts this particular review, I don't see why it should be removed. Scientific consensus usually takes years, if not decades, to be shaped. A 2004 publication year seems to be fine. -A1candidate (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments show that the reference is indeed several years old. There is no compelling reason to ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- And still more IDHT from you. I'm restoring the ref. If other editors agree with me, they'll make sure it stays. Don't expect your edits (inclusions or removals) to stick unless you're willing and able to discuss them. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Follow-up comment: haven't yet put it back in. More good reasons to add the source have emerged below. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Middle 8 - no BS making up criteria on the fly - discuss here first please.Herbxue (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- And still more IDHT from you. I'm restoring the ref. If other editors agree with me, they'll make sure it stays. Don't expect your edits (inclusions or removals) to stick unless you're willing and able to discuss them. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Follow-up comment: haven't yet put it back in. More good reasons to add the source have emerged below. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS:
- Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
- Within this range, assessing them may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism.
- Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For example, the article genetics might mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.
According to WP:MEDRS we use recent reviews. Misplaced Pages does not engage in death pacts with almost ten-year-old sources. We don't have to say anything about the numbers. The recent reviews decided what is important. There is never a requirement that dubious, potentially misleading, but sourced text must appear, simply because an old source mentioned something several years ago when we know the recent reviews did not make the same point. Even if true, there is no reason to use the older source. Some things may change or may not change; but this is not the job of Wikipedians to make that determination. QuackGuru (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- MEDRS 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."
- From PubMed, reviews on adverse events in acupuncture, most recent first:
- Xu, 2013-03 (English language, 6 databases, systematic, 25 countries & regions, 2000-2010; sequel to earlier review up to 2000)
- He, 2012-10 (Chinese language, 1956-2010)
- Wheway, 2012-01 (U.K., review of reports to National Patient Safety Agency, 2009-2011)
- Adams, 2011-12 (Pediatric, all languages, 18 databases, systematic, inception-Sept. 2010)
- Ernst, 2011-04 (Serious adverse events, all languages, 11 databases, 2000-ca.2010)
- Zhang, 2010-12 (Chinese language, 3 databases, 1980-2009)
- Capilli, 2010-01 (clinical trials focusing on pain)
- White, 2004-09 (Review of reviews; computerised databases, previous reviews of case reports, population surveys, prospective surveys, textbooks; English language; inception- 1990-2000)) (note: this is the one I propose to restore; includes estimated rate of serious AE's = 5 in 10^6)
- ... and six or seven more, from 1999-2003.
- So since White's general review (2004), there were seven reviews, three of which (Wheway, Adama and Capilli) were about subsets of acupuncture care (pediatric, specific databases), and thus not comparable to White. Of the remaining four, two were in the Chinese literature and thus also not comparable to White, since there are fewer adverse effects in the West. That leaves two comparable to White: Xu-2013 and Ernst-2011. That would certainly qualify as a case of "few reviews are being published", i.e., reasons given in MEDRS to relax to five-year window. I think that pretty much settles the issue. Comments? --Middle 8 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you clarified this very nicely. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the "few reviews are being published" exception is to allow a 5 year plus review when there is not a more recent one, or a more recent one that is comparable available. Why would it be appropriate to use a 10 year old review when there is one that is from this year and one that is from two years ago? That you have shown seven reviews from 2010 to the present pretty much negates the idea that few reviews are being published. But again the relaxing of the 5 year rule IMO is to allow use of a older study when there is not a more current one available.
- If the more recent one doesn't have all the data you are looking for I would suggest a statement about Xu 2013 or Ernst 2011 followed by a mention of the data from White 2004. Alternatively you could argue that White 2004 is a superior source as a review of reviews and the most recent source at that level. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting ignoring Xu 2013 or Ernst 2011, but rather augmenting them with White 2004's "5 in one million" figure (for rate of serious AE's). (White is otherwise consistent with Xu and Ernst.) I did explain why the other five reviews aren't comparable to White: there are many different places to dig for data, e.g. language and databases, type of AE, population treated, care setting. Given all those variables, reviews are scarce. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you clarified this very nicely. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This proposal to use the fringe journal Acupuncture in Medicine makes no sense. There is information in the article about the numbers. Why include the same information twice in the article? I already explained that the recent reviews cover this. I think I clarified this very nicely. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting that number in the article, QG, but the source you used -- Adams 2011, the Pediatrics review -- credits it to White 2004; we should cite the latter since it's the original source. The very fact that Adams cites White shows that Acupuncture in Medicine is not a "fringe journal". Its publications are also used by, e.g., the Cochrane Collaboration, and Adams and Vickers each cite it multiple times. We should leave the judgement about "fringe-ness" to the literature. (Some of the stuff published by Acupunct. Med. might not pass MEDRS, but that's true of any journal, e.g. case reports). --Middle 8 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that if Adams is citing a number from White it should be sourced to White. With that change, as the numbers are in the article, have we reached consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDDATE: Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.
- The fringe journal Acupuncture in Medicine is still a fringe journal. We must use independent sources. There is no reason to use the 2004 source when we have a much newer source for the numbers. We don't cite older sources unless it is a good source like a Cochrane review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- QG, I think you are too quick with damning sources you don't like, especially with your assessments regarding "fringe". This is a reliable source as pointed out several times above, even though you think anything acupuncture is evil. If you believe the consensus here is unacceptable, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Acupuncture in Medicine is published by BMJ Group, which can hardly be characterized as fringe. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I pointed out the source is way too old. In 2014, it would be 10 years old. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Acupuncture in Medicine is published by BMJ Group, which can hardly be characterized as fringe. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- QG, I think you are too quick with damning sources you don't like, especially with your assessments regarding "fringe". This is a reliable source as pointed out several times above, even though you think anything acupuncture is evil. If you believe the consensus here is unacceptable, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- If the source (White 2004) is being cited by Adams in 2011 that supports its use as the best review currently available per the MEDRS exceptions discussed above. I agree that blanket condemnation of a journal as a source is inappropriate and / or a matter that should go to the RS Noticeboard. A published article should be evaluated on its merits for a specific article or fact therein. If a fact / number is used, the reference should not be a citation of that number but the original study. The citation of the number in a more recent source is a matter for editorial discussion about including that fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- @QG: Your concerns about the age and mainstream-ness of the source have already been addressed, QG. No need to go in circles; consensus isn't always unanimity, and by all indications we have a consensus. I'll restore White 2004 per my earlier edit when I get a chance. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- MrBill3 said "a matter that should go to the RS Noticeboard." I thought you wanted to include the source. Your earlier edit deleted text from a 2011 source that was not about the numbers. There is a big difference between including the source and rewriting the text. You have not given a reason to rewrite the text.
- "A 2011 meta-review showed that serious adverse events, including death have been reported, are frequently due to practitioner error, is rare, and diverse."
- I object to deleting this text or replacing it with the dated source. I don't see an argument to replace the 2011 meta-review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again you're repeating yourself and ignoring points made above (e.g., that White is the original source for the 5-on-one-million number, and as such, should be cited). You also mischaracterize my edit, which did not "delete text from a 2011 source"; you may have misread the diff. That can happen, but with you it's been happening a lot. When you keep misreading/misrepresenting policies and edits, it gets disruptive. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit replaced the 2011 meta-review and your edit was OR. For example, the "exceedingly" rare was OR. Replacing the meta-review was against MEDRS. Your proposal does not seem to match your edit. You did not give a good reason to replace the the meta-review when it is a newer source. The 2011 meta-review said nothing about the 5-in-one-million number. IMO, your proposal does not make much sense. QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're misreading that diff. And above (early in this thread) you misread WP:MEDDATE; in fact, the bullet points that you pasted in come right after the "few reviews being published" exception, so I can't see how you could have missed that without being careless or bad-faith. This is disruptive. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Where is your explanation for deleting/replacing the 2011 meta-review. I thought your proposal was to include the numbers but you still want to do this? Again, the meta-review is not about the numbers so what reason is there to replace it. Your original proposal was to include the numbers because you thought the newer sources just don't mention a specific number. But the newer sources do. There are two sources that mention the numbers. I included the numbers using one of the newer sources that explicitly states the 5 in 1 million numbers. The source you used does not explicitly state the 5 in 1 million numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Enough! We have consensus; you've excluded yourself from it with persistent IDHT. And I think we're near the point where we need some local or global user-conduct consideration. Locally, it might simply involve an emerging understanding that you, QG, aren't the most trustworthy editor and therefore your mainspace edits won't stick unless there's explicit consensus; globally, well, the usual. But that may not be necessary unless you continue disrupting the talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, there's nothing personal here, nor am I generalizing unfairly. QG is good at finding sources, and frequently makes reasonable edits. It's just that he also frequently gets sidetracked, makes factual errors (the correction of which he tends to ignore), and IDHT's (intensely). --Middle 8 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The 2011 meta-review does not discuss the numbers but you did replace the source with an older source. Are you planning to delete/replace the 2011 meta-review again? The newer source that is about the numbers gives a better explanation about the numbers. The newer source does specify the numbers, including children and adults. See Adams 2011. I did explain the older source you wanted to restore does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million number. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The White 2004 dated source is confusing because it said "acupuncture is estimated to be 0.05 per 10 000 treatments, and 0.55 per 10 000 individual patients." This shows the older source did not explicitly state it was 5-in-1 million.
- "The authors did not specify if this estimate included adults and children,..." according to the newer Adams 2011 review. The newer review does specify the numbers, including children and adults.
- Current text: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million, which included children and adults."
- The current text in the article is well written using the Adams 2011 review. The older text is indeed confusing and therefore not appropriate for inclusion in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- To be clear, there's nothing personal here, nor am I generalizing unfairly. QG is good at finding sources, and frequently makes reasonable edits. It's just that he also frequently gets sidetracked, makes factual errors (the correction of which he tends to ignore), and IDHT's (intensely). --Middle 8 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Enough! We have consensus; you've excluded yourself from it with persistent IDHT. And I think we're near the point where we need some local or global user-conduct consideration. Locally, it might simply involve an emerging understanding that you, QG, aren't the most trustworthy editor and therefore your mainspace edits won't stick unless there's explicit consensus; globally, well, the usual. But that may not be necessary unless you continue disrupting the talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where is your explanation for deleting/replacing the 2011 meta-review. I thought your proposal was to include the numbers but you still want to do this? Again, the meta-review is not about the numbers so what reason is there to replace it. Your original proposal was to include the numbers because you thought the newer sources just don't mention a specific number. But the newer sources do. There are two sources that mention the numbers. I included the numbers using one of the newer sources that explicitly states the 5 in 1 million numbers. The source you used does not explicitly state the 5 in 1 million numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're misreading that diff. And above (early in this thread) you misread WP:MEDDATE; in fact, the bullet points that you pasted in come right after the "few reviews being published" exception, so I can't see how you could have missed that without being careless or bad-faith. This is disruptive. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit replaced the 2011 meta-review and your edit was OR. For example, the "exceedingly" rare was OR. Replacing the meta-review was against MEDRS. Your proposal does not seem to match your edit. You did not give a good reason to replace the the meta-review when it is a newer source. The 2011 meta-review said nothing about the 5-in-one-million number. IMO, your proposal does not make much sense. QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again you're repeating yourself and ignoring points made above (e.g., that White is the original source for the 5-on-one-million number, and as such, should be cited). You also mischaracterize my edit, which did not "delete text from a 2011 source"; you may have misread the diff. That can happen, but with you it's been happening a lot. When you keep misreading/misrepresenting policies and edits, it gets disruptive. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- @QG: Your concerns about the age and mainstream-ness of the source have already been addressed, QG. No need to go in circles; consensus isn't always unanimity, and by all indications we have a consensus. I'll restore White 2004 per my earlier edit when I get a chance. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: (1) You've just claimed (twice) that it's too confusing to convert 0.05/10,000 to 5/1,000,000. Among science editors. What do you take us for? (2) Re the newer source, you ignore this, from right above: Thanks for putting that number in the article, QG, but the source you used -- Adams 2011, the Pediatrics review -- credits it to White 2004; we should cite the latter since it's the original source. Then you ignore another editor's agreement with that comment. Pretending not to understand math is trolling for sure, and repeated IDHT-ing of comments (in the same thread) is probably also trolling, or else extreme incompetence. I've engaged you this far to allow you a choice, and you've repeatedly chosen disruption. Why should you be trusted? I won't engage your IDHT or "misunderstandings" further. As long as you behave this way, consensus will and should move along without you. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- @QG: Middle8 has a point. I would usually post this on your user page but you delete everything written there... We all honor your contributions here but I, too, feel kind of frustrated with your style. How about some good ol' WP:AGF from your side? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- @QuackGuru: I generally find your contentions reasonably well supported. I respect and value your editing and in many cases your opinion. I think you bring a sharp editors pencil to many places it is needed. That said I find your conduct on talk pages disruptive. Your level of IDHT at times defies belief and your follow up comments can be repetitive without any additional information. I am personally offended that you quoted me out of context. I was clear that if you contested White 2004, you should take it to the RS Noticeboard. Your comments and edit summaries all too often show a lack of civility. I encourage you to continue to contribute to WP but urge you to consider behaving in a more genial and constructive manner. Not wanting to get beyond the appropriate boundaries of a talk page I just want to add there are times and states of mind not conducive to editing. I hope all is well with you and look forward to a time when your participation in talk pages matches your acumen in editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Belatedly restored White 2004 and text per consensus above. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even more belated note, for the record: Consensus was joined by Mallexikon, A1Candidate, MrBill3, Herbxue, and myself. See above in this (unnecessarily lengthy) thread ... diffs can follow later... if needed. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Primary source
At the present, our article includes this: "A delegation of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry reported in 1995: 'We were not shown acupuncture anesthesia for surgery, this apparently having fallen out of favor with scientifically trained surgeons. Dr. Han, for instance, had been emphatic that he and his colleagues see acupuncture only as an analgesic (pain reducer), not an anesthetic (an agent that blocks all conscious sensations).'" This is a primary source, and it's anecdotal too. If nobody objects, I'd delete it. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a third party source reporting on the mainstream scientific consensus (msc). It does seem very weak as it says, "apparently" and cites the statement of a single "Dr. Han" speaking about "he and his colleagues". I think if this is a representation of msc it should have other sources that support it. I do think it is important to get some clarity and solid sources establishing msc. The argument could be made that the bulleted list is an assembly of data synthesized into an assertion of msc as OR. I'll try reading the source of this particular content and see if it warrants remaining. If you want to remove this content please paste the full content you remove to this discussion including ref. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I know you mean well, but you keep mentioning a red herring, and that is that a skeptical source must be describing mainstream scientific consensus (MSC). Drop that red herring, because it will surely lead you astray and confound the issues. These statements are not coming from alternative medical sources, but are skeptical opinions and commentaries from the same side as mainstream science. As such, statements from skeptical organizations and notable individuals are perfectly acceptable content, even if they were to disagree with the far from fully formed consensus.
- There is no unified scientific consensus, other than the situation that acupuncture is still classified as alternative medicine, ergo fringe, and thus not fully accepted. The current state of flux (over 50 years!), with occasional statements of support, then disappointment over another failure of acupuncture to conclusively work, etc., leaves scientific skeptics as the unflinching watchdogs who tend to be very hardline in their demand for clear scientific evidence of effect before acceptance. That's why one finds many notable skeptics who will not accept some statement of seeming acceptance from a mainstream scientist or textbook (the author's opinion), because they know from experience that such statements often lead to a dead end. They want stronger evidence, and their doubts are perfectly useful as content here.
- So, please stop demanding that skeptics toe the line of some non-existent mainstream consensus. They won't do it until the evidence is unequivocal, and then they will reclassify acupuncture as no longer alternative, but mainstream. This article, per NPOV, is required to document much about acupuncture, including the whole spectrum of notable opinions from believers, scientists, and skeptics. Efforts to delete such opinions are a form of whitewashing and are not allowed. We need all of it. This article should not paint a picture documenting a unified opinion, because that is not the real world situation. It must describe all the varying conflicting POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that as an encyclopedia we must include multiple sources of information from multiple points of view, and appreciate your acknowledgment of a lack of acceptance of what "mainstream" means. But skeptics continue to reference "mainstream" opinion the same way that alternative proponents say "you can't measure my woo" - it is special pleading. We either accept all primary sources or none - and we duke it out for consensus on each individual source. After the 1990's, "mainstream" is a meaningless term. We are in full "po-mo" times and there are facts OR opinions. What skeptics want is for Barrett and Ernst to be installed as unquestionable authorities on all alternative med topics, and that is simply not acceptable (and probably not even "mainstream"). Herbxue (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Brangifer: I think you have presented the issue quite clearly and completely. WP does emphasize that weight should be determined by MSC but your summary of that I believe is entirely accurate to whit: Acupuncture is classified as alternative and despite flux it remains alternative not mainstream. As there is flux the article should include the whole spectrum of notable opinions with weight towards the fact that acupuncture is not an established, validated, accepted treatment. I agree that attempts to remove such commentary are whitewashing. I do not insist that notable opinions reflect MSC I instead assert they are due weight as reflecting MSC (which I agree is not a comprehensive or unified position beyond the aforementioned alternative, non mainstream status of acupuncture). Evidence for efficacy is adequately discussed in the article already and the comments of those who exemplify the lack of acceptance as a standard treatment should remain in the article. Thank you for sharpening the focus of this discussion and pointing out the clear attempt to remove notable comments as whitewashing. Biomedical claims are already discussed in detail with MEDRS, the broader context and ongoing flux require the inclusion of skeptical viewpoints with the weight they are due.
- @Herbxue: The skeptics v alternative proponents is a sidetrack. WP policy is the reason mainstream scientific opinion carries weight in WP articles. Your contention " We either accept all primary sources or none" is a false dichotomy again WP policy is what we go by here. Often we do "duke it out for consensus on each individual source". Primary sources may be used but with care. However Ernst commenting on a study is a secondary source as is the CSI delegation reporting on acupuncture in China. Barret and Ernst are qualified experts on alternative medicine and their published comments are precisely the "author's own thinking based on primary sources" in the WP definition of secondary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that as an encyclopedia we must include multiple sources of information from multiple points of view, and appreciate your acknowledgment of a lack of acceptance of what "mainstream" means. But skeptics continue to reference "mainstream" opinion the same way that alternative proponents say "you can't measure my woo" - it is special pleading. We either accept all primary sources or none - and we duke it out for consensus on each individual source. After the 1990's, "mainstream" is a meaningless term. We are in full "po-mo" times and there are facts OR opinions. What skeptics want is for Barrett and Ernst to be installed as unquestionable authorities on all alternative med topics, and that is simply not acceptable (and probably not even "mainstream"). Herbxue (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, please stop demanding that skeptics toe the line of some non-existent mainstream consensus. They won't do it until the evidence is unequivocal, and then they will reclassify acupuncture as no longer alternative, but mainstream. This article, per NPOV, is required to document much about acupuncture, including the whole spectrum of notable opinions from believers, scientists, and skeptics. Efforts to delete such opinions are a form of whitewashing and are not allowed. We need all of it. This article should not paint a picture documenting a unified opinion, because that is not the real world situation. It must describe all the varying conflicting POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I beg to differ: the CSI delegation report is definitely not a secondary source. I just read it again; this is a report about their own trip to China - as primary as a source can be. In regard to Brangifer's reasoning: sure, acupuncture is not universally accepted (yet?), and we have to keep this article balanced. But that doesn't mean that you get a blank check to include every anecdotal primary source which fits your world view. The CSI report is not tenable. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- ???? You still don't get it. It's not from some unknown, non-expert, person's private little blog. THAT would be a primary source we wouldn't use. This is published in Skeptical Inquirer (SI). It's just as valid a secondary source as if it was published in the New York Times. The way you throw around "primary" shows you seem to still be stuck in your misunderstanding of MEDRS, which doesn't apply to this type of source and content. If you want to discuss "primary source" in the context of MEDRS, then fine, because we don't use "primary scientific research" as sources. The SI article is not primary scientific research, and it's not covered by MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, I'm not talking about MEDRS. I'm talking about WP:RS in general. Which says "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." And WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
- If you have any problems seeing the difference between primary and secondary sources, just lemme know, I'll be happy to explain it to you. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Let's see....here's the simple version: I write something on my blog. That's the primary source. (We are allowed to use them carefully, and pretty much required to use them in articles about the person, or to get their own statements.) It gets published in a magazine article. That article is now a secondary source. That article then gets quoted in a third article. That's a tertiary source. (We stop counting after that.)
- Your reasoning would exclude the use of most sources at Misplaced Pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, so that's where your misunderstanding lies... As per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." Since CSICOP wrote an article about their own trip, it's primary - whether it's published or a blog doesn't matter.
- A secondary source, as per WP:SECONDARY is defined as the "author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources... A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."
- Glad we could sort this out :) --Mallexikon (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your reasoning would exclude the use of most sources at Misplaced Pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I consider QW and CSICOP (or whatever it is) to be basically blogs (someone has an opinion, gets some friends to sign on as co-editors, and publishes opinions, since you have friends you get to call yourself a "secondary source"?). But even if it were a serious secondary source, the CSI report is problematic for multiple reasons, the main one being it is racist and makes little to no attempt to correct for the language deficiencies of the TCM partitioners they interviewed. It is a great example of making "marks" out of AGF-ing hosts by intentionally misunderstanding them. We still need consensus to include it and I do not support that source. It is racist. Herbxue (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas (if you celebrate it). Herbxue sums up my issue. This source is andecdotal and somewhat racist and I don't see why it needs the quote. As I have pointed out here I don't see other articles with quotes like this: "Yes, we met a native doctor, and he thought it was useful." Bonkers.--LT910001 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alright! To summarize, this source is a) primary and b) anecdotal (as in: unfit to tell us anything about the general situation of TCM in modern times). I don't think it's racist, but for the mentioned reasons, I'd delete this source (if nobody objects). --Mallexikon (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree it should be deleted. As I understand WP:FRINGE, sources like QW and CSICOP are ideal for tiny fringe topics with little sourcing. But they may be unnecessary and below par in areas where we have better sec sources, let alone MEDRS's, that provide adequate balance. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- How would the CSICOP report be primary to acupuncture? It is a group developing their own thinking based on interpretation, analysis and evaluation of facts, evidence and concepts from primary sources. The CSICOP delegation are not practitioners or subjects of acupuncture they did not perform a study on acupuncture, they spoke to primary sources, gathered evidence from primary sources, looked at facts in situ of primary sources, discussed concepts and ideas of primary sources with those sources and formed their own thinking based on their analysis of something they were not directly invovled in (at least one step away). If the subject were their trip they would be primary but the subject is their interpretation of the information they found. As for racism and failure to correct for language deficiences I didn't see any examples given. Regarding QW and CSI as RS this is a discussion that has been had multiple times, recognized experts, published in the literature of the fields the comment on, notable established organizations publishing material under editorial oversight with clear editorial policies. Note the guideline on RS discusses blogs with editorial oversight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- As per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on... An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." The CSICOP delegation made a trip to China to investigate Chinese medicine, and then wrote a report about it. It doesn't matter whether there was editorial oversight or not.
- A secondary source, as per WP:SECONDARY, "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources..." But CSICOP didn't evaluate existing literature here - they reported about their own experiences. "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." It's exactly the same situation here. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "The CSICOP delegation made a trip to China to investigate Chinese medicine" ← so there is a degree of separation between those doing the investigation and the people and things being investigated; CSICOP are outsiders looking in, not participants. The fact there was a trip abroad here is only incidental: that aspect is not the central topic being addressed. By your argument you could say a systematic review was a primary source because the authors describe how they are "directly involved" in selecting and sifting the research they are going to use. Alexbrn 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- One would think that WP's definitions of primary and secondary sources are written clear enough to not have editors work on WP for years without really grasping their meaning... A review of (or a report based on) primary sources constitutes a secondary source. If you base your report on your own experiences, it's a primary source ("An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment". And: ""A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences). Come on, this ain't rocket science. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The Chinese people being interviewed are equivalent to the "witnesses" to the accident (or the "combatants" involved in the war). Their accounts are being digested, written-up and editorially contextualized by the SCICOP writers. If we had access to the verbatim transcripts of the CSICOP interviews they would would be primary sources. Alexbrn 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Illogical. You could just as well argue that a single study is a secondary source, since the researchers "editorially contextualized" the accounts of the participants. The important part is that in order to have a secondary source, you have to base it on a primary source - that means existing literature, not a verbal account you wrote down yourself. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quite often (for non-medical material) a single study is a secondary source. So you're essentially now saying it matters whether the material at the core is spoken or written. Why? Alexbrn 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Man, it's not me making these rules - it's WP. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No such rule exists (that I can see) making such a distinction betweeen written and spoken material (which risks, incidentally, being culturally prejudiced: some traditions are predominantly oral). In this case we have the primary material (chinese medical material as related in the interviewees' accounts etc.) and the secondary treatment of it (from SCICOP). If they'd merely published raw transcripts that would be a different matter; but they didn't. Alexbrn 10:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- What part of "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source" and "a book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences" did you not understand? This is not a question of "raw transcripts" or "spoken material". If you were there yourself and document what you saw and heard, it's a primary source. If you write a book discussing several primary sources, that book is a secondary source. Those CSICOP people wrote a first-hand report about their trip. This is a primary as a source can be. If you don't want to hear this from me, though, I can't help it. Please take it to the RS noticeboard then, and let them explain it to you. --Mallexikon (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No such rule exists (that I can see) making such a distinction betweeen written and spoken material (which risks, incidentally, being culturally prejudiced: some traditions are predominantly oral). In this case we have the primary material (chinese medical material as related in the interviewees' accounts etc.) and the secondary treatment of it (from SCICOP). If they'd merely published raw transcripts that would be a different matter; but they didn't. Alexbrn 10:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Man, it's not me making these rules - it's WP. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quite often (for non-medical material) a single study is a secondary source. So you're essentially now saying it matters whether the material at the core is spoken or written. Why? Alexbrn 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Illogical. You could just as well argue that a single study is a secondary source, since the researchers "editorially contextualized" the accounts of the participants. The important part is that in order to have a secondary source, you have to base it on a primary source - that means existing literature, not a verbal account you wrote down yourself. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The Chinese people being interviewed are equivalent to the "witnesses" to the accident (or the "combatants" involved in the war). Their accounts are being digested, written-up and editorially contextualized by the SCICOP writers. If we had access to the verbatim transcripts of the CSICOP interviews they would would be primary sources. Alexbrn 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- One would think that WP's definitions of primary and secondary sources are written clear enough to not have editors work on WP for years without really grasping their meaning... A review of (or a report based on) primary sources constitutes a secondary source. If you base your report on your own experiences, it's a primary source ("An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment". And: ""A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences). Come on, this ain't rocket science. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "The CSICOP delegation made a trip to China to investigate Chinese medicine" ← so there is a degree of separation between those doing the investigation and the people and things being investigated; CSICOP are outsiders looking in, not participants. The fact there was a trip abroad here is only incidental: that aspect is not the central topic being addressed. By your argument you could say a systematic review was a primary source because the authors describe how they are "directly involved" in selecting and sifting the research they are going to use. Alexbrn 07:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- How would the CSICOP report be primary to acupuncture? It is a group developing their own thinking based on interpretation, analysis and evaluation of facts, evidence and concepts from primary sources. The CSICOP delegation are not practitioners or subjects of acupuncture they did not perform a study on acupuncture, they spoke to primary sources, gathered evidence from primary sources, looked at facts in situ of primary sources, discussed concepts and ideas of primary sources with those sources and formed their own thinking based on their analysis of something they were not directly invovled in (at least one step away). If the subject were their trip they would be primary but the subject is their interpretation of the information they found. As for racism and failure to correct for language deficiences I didn't see any examples given. Regarding QW and CSI as RS this is a discussion that has been had multiple times, recognized experts, published in the literature of the fields the comment on, notable established organizations publishing material under editorial oversight with clear editorial policies. Note the guideline on RS discusses blogs with editorial oversight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree it should be deleted. As I understand WP:FRINGE, sources like QW and CSICOP are ideal for tiny fringe topics with little sourcing. But they may be unnecessary and below par in areas where we have better sec sources, let alone MEDRS's, that provide adequate balance. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alright! To summarize, this source is a) primary and b) anecdotal (as in: unfit to tell us anything about the general situation of TCM in modern times). I don't think it's racist, but for the mentioned reasons, I'd delete this source (if nobody objects). --Mallexikon (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
SCICOP were not conducting a "scientific experiment", and as I a have said above it is the TCM practitioners who are analogous to the soldiers: they were giving their interviewers an "in the trenches account" of TCM. You're shifting the true focus of SCICOP's focus by saying the material is "about their trip". While in a superficial sense that is true, in fact what they are writing about is TCM as relayed by the sources (people) they consulted. Alexbrn 11:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And they did a poor job of it, and in my opinion, were not acting in good faith. This was either a primary account of their trip or poor "gotcha" journalism. Again, I think it reeks of ethnocentrism and I am personally offended by it.Herbxue (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The authors of the SCICOP report were not first hand witnesses, nor participants thus not primary. The analyzed evidence this evidence is not required by WP to be literature or written accounts. Per the example of an automobile accident a reporter writing an article about the accident would be expected to speak to witnesses and participants not rely only on written evidence. No WP policy would exclude an article written based on such interviews. The authors of the SCICOP report conducted just such gathering of evidence, formulated opinions and analysis and published them. Where is there any primary aspect? Again to the example if the reporter were to discuss their efforts to locate witnesses, the discussion of this effort would be primary but not the discussion of statements of witnesses and the interpretation thereof.
- If the SCICOP report was poorly conducted or is biased or compromised by ethnocentricity please provide an explanation with clear, specific examples. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Let me just contribute a few quotes from CSICOP's report here... From the chapter in question, i.e., the one they titled "Our visit":
- "Although the lab appointments were simple, they were serviceable. The hallways were dimly lit by single, sparsely distributed fluorescent lamps, electricity apparently being expensive. Much of the lab’s equipment had been donated by an admirer of Dr. Han’s, the distinguished opiate researcher, Avram Goldstein, who shipped his furnishings and apparatus to Beijing after retiring from Stanford University. The institute’s walls were decorated with poster presentations from research meetings that described the lab’s discoveries..."
- "We next visited several clinics at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Beijing. The main one was a moderate-sized room, approximately 12 by 4 meters, crowded with ten or twelve patients being treated — most with acupuncture, several with acupuncture and moxibustion, and two with cupping, as described below..."
- "While touring the TCM complex, we made several observations. The total space in this institution devoted to the practice of TCM was a relatively small portion of its holdings. The rest of the complex of several large buildings was apparently devoted to more mainstream scientific research. We asked what portion of the total medical services delivered in China was TCM, and how people were chosen to receive TCM treatments. We received some surprising answers: Patients generally request TCM treatments themselves, rather than being referred to TCM practitioners by biomedically trained physicians. Most scientifically trained doctors do not practice TCM, nor do they decide on the mode of treatment if they should refer a patient for TCM."
- I understand that the fact that they also did interviews makes it tempting to employ this rationale that Alexbrn and Mr. Bill used - i.e. the interviews to be counted as primary sources, and the CSICOP report then allegedly being a secondary source, since it discusses those interviews. You are missing the point, though. Primary/secondary source differentiation is all about: was the one writing it involved or not? And an interviewer is of course involved - the information retrieved is influenced by the way and the nature of the questions that are asked (and by the questions that are not asked). That's why, for example, a single medical study constitutes a primary source, even though the people conducting the study don't take the pills themselves but rather let test subjects take the pills and then interview them about the effects. Or sometimes just interview test subjects without even giving any pills at all.
- If CSICOP would not have gone there themselves, but would have shifted through already published interviews (as per WP:RS: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources") and then compiled them, their source would constitute a secondary one. Does this make the differentiation clearer to you? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again I cite the example of newspaper articles a clearly acceptable source for WP. Newspaper reporter go to the scene of an event, interview people involved and synthesize original interpretation. This is precisely what CSICOP has done. The scientific study example is a red herring, the researchers set up the research, establish protocols and effect the action. Medical researchers actually administer the treatment studied this is clear direct involvement. CSICOP had no such direct invovlement, they gathered evidence much as a the reporter for a newspaper article would. The examples you gave are clear examples of evidence gathering and do not show any direct involvement in the subject they are reporting on. The evidence gathered for a report which constitutes a reliable source are not required to be previously published. In the history book on a war example the author may visit a battle site and interview soldiers, witnesses etc. that would not make the book primary. What would make the history book primary is if the author wrote about his involvement with the battle. This distinction seems quite clear. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Convoluted argumentation.
- 1.) A newspaper article very often constitutes a primary source (i.e., if it mainly deals with the reporter's own impression of a scene etc.; this might or might not include interviews he did at that scene).
- 2.) That doesn't mean this kind of newspaper article is not an acceptable source for WP. We can use primary sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." (per WP:NOTRS).
- 3.) There are many single studies that do not involve administering treatment to test subject; e.g., finding out how many people in a given country suffer from, let's say, fibromyalgia. A study like that would still constitute a primary source, even though it would only consist of interviews. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again I cite the example of newspaper articles a clearly acceptable source for WP. Newspaper reporter go to the scene of an event, interview people involved and synthesize original interpretation. This is precisely what CSICOP has done. The scientific study example is a red herring, the researchers set up the research, establish protocols and effect the action. Medical researchers actually administer the treatment studied this is clear direct involvement. CSICOP had no such direct invovlement, they gathered evidence much as a the reporter for a newspaper article would. The examples you gave are clear examples of evidence gathering and do not show any direct involvement in the subject they are reporting on. The evidence gathered for a report which constitutes a reliable source are not required to be previously published. In the history book on a war example the author may visit a battle site and interview soldiers, witnesses etc. that would not make the book primary. What would make the history book primary is if the author wrote about his involvement with the battle. This distinction seems quite clear. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- And they did a poor job of it, and in my opinion, were not acting in good faith. This was either a primary account of their trip or poor "gotcha" journalism. Again, I think it reeks of ethnocentrism and I am personally offended by it.Herbxue (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite, considered and thoughtful response. Lets go directly to the guidelines/policy to eliminate any contention of convolution.
1.) "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view" CSICOP are not "insiders" and are separated from the event/subject as they are gathering evidence about something which they were not participants in nor direct witnesses of. They are not writing about acupuncture practices they witnessed or are close to or insiders in relation to.
2.) "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences" (emphasis added). CSICOP is not reporting about their own experiences with acupuncture.
3.) Scientific studies: I again argue red herring. In a scientific study, parameters of a specific variable(s) and specific outcome(s) are established by investigators. The results of a scientific study are quantitative (or if subjective are still expressed as results). This is inherently different from an opinion based on analysis. Scientific studies report results of statistical analysis not "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event". There is a key differentiation made between "an author's own thinking" and a scientific analysis that separates a scientific study.
4.) On what basis do you contend that the CSICOP report is not "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event"? There is a set of primary sources, the authors were one step removed and they provided their own thinking (as distinct from scientific analysis per 3).
As separate issues, I am more than willing to consider contentions of bias, poor or limited analysis, poor or limited sources and ethnocentricity. Please forgive the extensive discussion on a topic of limited value as a learning experience related to WP policy interpretation and consensus editing. I do not wish to waste anyone's time but feel this is a clear "case in point". - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- No offense taken, and I feel similar about the "case in point".
- 1.) Beg to differ, but the CSICOP people turned into insiders as soon as they went to China to take a look for themselves. Please read their article again; they actually do write about acupuncture techniques they witnessed (moxa und cupping).
- 2.) They do report about their own experiences with acupuncture / the whole TCM system (cf their description of premises above; cf their description of acupuncture techniques etc.)
- 3.) Some convolution in your argumentation here. A single medical study constitutes a primary source. For a secondary source, you'd need a review of single studies. The crucial difference is that the single study doesn't base its analysis on published sources, whereas the review does. In light of these facts, could you rephrase your point?
- 4.) A secondary source has to base its analysis on published primary sources. The CSICOP people did that in a small part of their report, where they discuss the research work of one of the doctors they interviewed. However, it's only a small part of their report. Overall, the report is about what they've seen and heard. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Where CSICOP reports on their own experiences they are a primary source to a certain extent. However as the guidelines repeatedly stress what is important is context. For the portion of the quote, "We were not shown" this is primary however it is in a larger context in the article.
- CSICOP has not become "insiders" for TCM by simply going to a location and investigating it themselves. The remain analytical critics, this is abundantly clear in the article. For methods of moxa and cupping currently in practice in China they would be primary and anecdotal.
- There is no requirement that secondary sources base their analysis on published sources read the guidelines carefully. However it it clear from the article listing 28 published sources as references they clearly have used published sources. It is also clear that they are providing "interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" through their 14 notes detailing such. Dr. Han's statement was not given in isolation it was given as an example of the statement, "acupuncture anesthesia for surgery, this apparently having fallen out of favor with scientifically trained surgeons." That they were not shown such is again an illustrative example. In WP both examples are anecdotal and may be excised, however; the contention that:
- According to Beyerstein and Sampson of CSICOP, acupuncture as anesthesia for surgery seems to have "fallen out of favor with scientifically trained surgeons" in China.
- Is fully supported and properly so by the reference. This is clearly the product of their interpretation and analysis and they have made very clear in context that they sorted through substantial primary source material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to remove statement
I propose this statement "Commenting on this meta-analysis, professor Edzard Ernst stated that it demonstrated that the effects of acupuncture were principally due to placebo." from here "A 2012 meta-analysis found significant differences between true and sham acupuncture, which indicates that acupuncture is more than a placebo when treating chronic pain (even though the differences were modest). Commenting on this meta-analysis, professor Edzard Ernst stated that it demonstrated that the effects of acupuncture were principally due to placebo. " be deleted from the article. Concerns: --LT910001 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Opinion of scientist in newspaper is a weak WP:MEDRS reliable source and should be replaced with a better one. See "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles", and "Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental, observational studies, such as cohort studies and case control studies, followed by cross-sectional studies (surveys), and other correlation studies such as ecological studies; and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience." (WP:MEDASSESS, same page).
- This is WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. "
- This violates WP:UNDUE: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Source A (Metaanalysis) says yes, source B (expert opinion in the Guardian) says no. It's improper to link them together like this.
- Ernst is just about the most reliable source on this subject regardless of the venue. Proposal rejected. jps (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, but I would remind you that WP is build around consensus, so we'll need to wait for a few more users to chip in before we jump to that conclusion. Additionally, WP:MEDRS is a guideline for statements making claims about medicine on Misplaced Pages. Ernst may be very knowledgable, but his statements do not carry the same weight as meta-analyses and systematic reviews. --LT910001 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The review needs to be explained and Ernst is just the person to do it. jps (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed before. Ernst is an expert on the topic. His evaluation on the meta-analysis maintains NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Um, not so sure. He clearly has a POV. I am not suggesting his studies be excluded (they are notable), but his commentary on someone else's study is not really worth including.Herbxue (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, but I would remind you that WP is build around consensus, so we'll need to wait for a few more users to chip in before we jump to that conclusion. Additionally, WP:MEDRS is a guideline for statements making claims about medicine on Misplaced Pages. Ernst may be very knowledgable, but his statements do not carry the same weight as meta-analyses and systematic reviews. --LT910001 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst is just about the most reliable source on this subject regardless of the venue. Proposal rejected. jps (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ernst is not reliable. -A1candidate (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- He sure is. He's the only person who has ever had a professorship in alternative medicine. In some ways, he is the only expert on this subject. jps (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst is very reliable, and an excellent expert to use as a source in this area. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- He is certainly notable and must be included, but for fuck's sake he is not an expert on acupuncture or TCM, and is definitely not the "only expert"! He's just the only source you like. One thing I like about him is that he is never so sloppy as to say "acupuncture is just placebo", I'm less pleased that he does indulge in every opportunity to suggest that it might be, in a manner that does not require him to prove it or be responsible for it, only suggest it. Herbxue (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion here is not about Ernst being notable or not (he sure is). The discussion is about whether it is permissible to add his comment here. We have a MEDRS (the Vickers study). And we have a newspaper article citing Ernst. The former obviously trumps the latter. Even if Ernst wrote a letter to the editors this source wouldn't trump a meta-review. We have to leave Ernst's comment out; otherwise, we set a bad precedent. For all the medicine-related articles on WP. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's massive undue weight; Vickers and individual expert commenters like Ernst occupy opposite ends of the spectrum of good medical sources. In fact they're so far apart that the only way I can see giving a sentence to Ernst is if we have at leas a couple para or more devoted to Vickers -- the spread is easily that big. There are other good sec sources with different findings, and therefore ample balance in the article. The literature obviously shows conflicting results and conclusions, and that's exactly what we should portray. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst's the go-to expert on all things acu* - his opinion (attributed as such) is worthy of inclusion I'd have thought. Alexbrn 11:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you show me some reliably sourced evidence that Ernst is the internationally accepted "go-to expert on all things acu" - fine. Until then, he's not going to get any extra treatment. WP:MEDRS doesn't say "look for the one expert you can find on a given topic and try to insert his views and opinions as often as possible in an article". WP:MEDASSESS demands that "in general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report." No mention of single-expert opinions taken from a newspaper article. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, see Edzard Ernst#Work in complementary medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Read it. This guy has been doing a lot of research (then again, that's what researchers do, no?). However, no reliably sourced evidence that Ernst is the internationally accepted "go-to expert on all things acu" yet. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, The Guardian went to him for the opinion we're citing; the UK Parliament go to him when taking evidence on CAM; Exeter University went to him in appointing a CAM chair. He has been called a "leading critic of alternative medicine" in the BMJ and by The Times "a leading expert". Respected academic publishers repeatedly publish his work in books and journals, covering CAM topics in general and acupuncture in particular. Even CAM publications cite him as an authority, sometimes even as "Edzard Ernst himself"! And he's a trained acupuncturist. Really, the claim that Ernst doesn't represent noteworthy "expert opinion" appears rather tendentious. Alexbrn 08:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Read it. This guy has been doing a lot of research (then again, that's what researchers do, no?). However, no reliably sourced evidence that Ernst is the internationally accepted "go-to expert on all things acu" yet. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, see Edzard Ernst#Work in complementary medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you show me some reliably sourced evidence that Ernst is the internationally accepted "go-to expert on all things acu" - fine. Until then, he's not going to get any extra treatment. WP:MEDRS doesn't say "look for the one expert you can find on a given topic and try to insert his views and opinions as often as possible in an article". WP:MEDASSESS demands that "in general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report." No mention of single-expert opinions taken from a newspaper article. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst's the go-to expert on all things acu* - his opinion (attributed as such) is worthy of inclusion I'd have thought. Alexbrn 11:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's massive undue weight; Vickers and individual expert commenters like Ernst occupy opposite ends of the spectrum of good medical sources. In fact they're so far apart that the only way I can see giving a sentence to Ernst is if we have at leas a couple para or more devoted to Vickers -- the spread is easily that big. There are other good sec sources with different findings, and therefore ample balance in the article. The literature obviously shows conflicting results and conclusions, and that's exactly what we should portray. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion here is not about Ernst being notable or not (he sure is). The discussion is about whether it is permissible to add his comment here. We have a MEDRS (the Vickers study). And we have a newspaper article citing Ernst. The former obviously trumps the latter. Even if Ernst wrote a letter to the editors this source wouldn't trump a meta-review. We have to leave Ernst's comment out; otherwise, we set a bad precedent. For all the medicine-related articles on WP. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- He is certainly notable and must be included, but for fuck's sake he is not an expert on acupuncture or TCM, and is definitely not the "only expert"! He's just the only source you like. One thing I like about him is that he is never so sloppy as to say "acupuncture is just placebo", I'm less pleased that he does indulge in every opportunity to suggest that it might be, in a manner that does not require him to prove it or be responsible for it, only suggest it. Herbxue (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst is very reliable, and an excellent expert to use as a source in this area. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, WP:MEDRS guides us what to do "in general"; and in this case in particular my assessment is that Ernst is good to have, especially considering the WP:FRINGE context of the topic as a whole. WP:MEDRS is a useful guideline, but WP:PSCI is mandatory policy. Because acu* is pseudoscience, we need to ensure that we frame all these medical investigations (which, in any case show it to be nothing-or-nearly-nothing) within the wider mainstream scientific context, which is that investigating acupuncture is an absurd endeavour (see PMID 20457720). Alexbrn 07:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- 1.) Acupuncture is not characterized as pseudoscience at WP (cf Category:Pseudoscience). Middle8 gave a very good overview on this (complex) situation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#WP:FRINGE/PS answers this question: No
- 2.) Yes, Ernst got a chair. Yes, he's a scientist published by respected scientific academic publishers. Yes, The Times has called him a "leading expert" (on whatever). But you still haven't produced any reliably sourced evidence that Ernst is the internationally accepted "go-to expert on all things acu". He's just one scientist among many, even though you love him. In comparison to Vickers meta-review, Ernst's commentary doesn't even constitute a MEDRS. Putting the two in direct context gives undue weight to an inferior source. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Middle 8 gave an acupuncturist's view after everybody else had moved on. However the consensus on that thread is against it, as it is in RS: acupuncture is pseudoscience (or at the very least, as an altmed practice, fringe) and so falls under the WP:PSCI policy. As to Ernst, requiring some source that uses the exact words "internationally accepted 'go-to expert on all things acu'" is silly. By any reasonable measure, and as stated in RS, he's a "leading expert" on the topic for the reasons I have already given. If these reasons are not good enough for you, then we shall have to disagree; they're good enough for me. So in my view his opinion is worthy of inclusion. Alexbrn 09:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, I would suggest that except for acupuncturists here, there is consensus that it is a pseudoscience, and we would expect people who practise this pseudoscience to want to defend this dubious 'medical' treatment. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn - "Acupuncturist's view"? Oh really? By your logic, does the fact that I'm also a scientist give my words greater weight than your non-scientist's view, or do the science and woo cancel each other out? Ad hominem is lazy, and sure enough you offer no rebuttal to my argument. Of course you're right that it has fringe-aspects, but it also has non-fringe ones, and neither has to do with a semantic argument.
- @Roxy the dog - there's exactly one acupuncturist here. And he's curious if you're going to clarify your assertion that acupuncture's good for nothing) in light of gold-standard sources that say otherwise. I see above you've perhaps walked it back to "dubious", which is actually about right, all things considered (i.e. given all the stuff it's said, falsely, to be good for). --Middle 8 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- When you boil it down to basics, those "gold-standard" sources say it is good for a bit of placebo induced pain relief. That is all. It is bonkers that we big it up like we do. Also, and this goes to competence, how can a scientist actually be an acupuncturist? The former actually would be expected to totally obliterate any belief in the latter, assuming normal scientific understanding of the world. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, I would suggest that except for acupuncturists here, there is consensus that it is a pseudoscience, and we would expect people who practise this pseudoscience to want to defend this dubious 'medical' treatment. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Middle 8 gave an acupuncturist's view after everybody else had moved on. However the consensus on that thread is against it, as it is in RS: acupuncture is pseudoscience (or at the very least, as an altmed practice, fringe) and so falls under the WP:PSCI policy. As to Ernst, requiring some source that uses the exact words "internationally accepted 'go-to expert on all things acu'" is silly. By any reasonable measure, and as stated in RS, he's a "leading expert" on the topic for the reasons I have already given. If these reasons are not good enough for you, then we shall have to disagree; they're good enough for me. So in my view his opinion is worthy of inclusion. Alexbrn 09:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Roxy - Funny how those same gold-standard sources (Ernst re Cochrane; Vickers '12) say it's good beyond (sham) placebo. For nausea, too ("Acupoint P6 reduces PONV"). I know others like Novella believe the import of those same sources (for pain, anyway) ultimately show placebo, but we have a well-documented range of views, and Cochrane's and Vickers' meta-analyses obviously have more weight than Novella's blog articles. Of course Novella may be right, but WP lags the science, and there's no sci consensus yet.
- On your question, this isn't the place to dwell on my biography, but: (1) both the evidence and my understanding of EBM were different when I trained to be an L.Ac.; (2) my views have evolved and I now figure it's all up for grabs, and that it's a question of science not belief; (3)
I'm not practicing anymore,(true; might change; but irrelevant)so even if it weren't the right thing, I can afford to put the science first;(strike knocking-down of ABF straw man)(4)as is obvious from even some of the better sources here, some scientists seem to find merit in it; ask one sometime -- scientific opinion isn't as homogeneous as opinion among non-scientist skeptics, FWIW. For example, the map (qi and meridians) isn't the same as the territory (results). Mechanism isn't that implausible; it's not like it's action at a distance or something. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC) edited --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- On your question, this isn't the place to dwell on my biography, but: (1) both the evidence and my understanding of EBM were different when I trained to be an L.Ac.; (2) my views have evolved and I now figure it's all up for grabs, and that it's a question of science not belief; (3)
- @Middle 8 The presence of interested positions in a consensus-forming process distorts it which is why, at more serious venues than Misplaced Pages, declarations of interest are often required and conflicted people often withdraw. You are correct that I did not bother to rebut your argument (by which one could argue that homeopathy was not pseudoscience, since it has been subject to serious investigation). I think you'll find that there's more than 1 acupuncturist participating here - of which more soon ... Alexbrn 12:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn - Simply having a profession isn't considered a conflict on WP, and rightly so. See my comments above to Roxy-t-d, and bother to read them at Talk:GERAC, if you wonder about my interests and views. With respect to my qualifications, editors should be thanking me for having the topic and scientific literacy to actually make this a good article, and for caring enough to follow sources and talk pages. (But no good deed goes unpunished.)
- Now I know that you haven't read WP:FRINGE/PS, because the determining factors don't include the presence of serious research (although that can be informative). We had an ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience (which adopted some of my suggestions on demarcation), and incorporated their points into NPOV and then NPOVFAQ and then over FRINGE, precisely to bypass endless arguing, based on dueling criteria. My post at WT:MED was nothing more than a straight recap of policy (or maybe it's technically guideline now, but it's basically NPOV) that nobody else had bothered to read. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Belatedly @Roxy the dog: "I would suggest that except for acupuncturists here, there is consensus that it is a pseudoscience" -- demonstrably false, and anyway, we go by NPOV's guidelines on demarcation (
- Of course, Cochrane doesn't address the question of where topics lie on the science/pseudoscience continuum. We need to turn to expert RS that does deal with this. And acupuncture has its own entry in Shermer's encyclopedia of pseudoscience, I see. Alexbrn 14:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Add) And in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. I feel a category coming on ... Alexbrn 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You need a better RS than that. I've pointed you to the germaine policies already and it's been discussed plenty in the archives and elsewhere ... you guys are now into IDHT and approaching WP:POINT, not to mention a lovely ad hominem above from Alexbrn. This has been global consensus since WP:ARB/PS. I summarize generally-accepted logic explained on my user page -- User:Middle_8#Using_Category:pseudoscience -- if you can be arsed to read it. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't given a reason to use a better RS than that. The source is RS compliant. We can expand the article with the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Objective standards exist for this under NPOV, and that source fails. Please continue below at Talk:Acupuncture#Category:Pseudoscience_again. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't given a reason to use a better RS than that. The source is RS compliant. We can expand the article with the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You need a better RS than that. I've pointed you to the germaine policies already and it's been discussed plenty in the archives and elsewhere ... you guys are now into IDHT and approaching WP:POINT, not to mention a lovely ad hominem above from Alexbrn. This has been global consensus since WP:ARB/PS. I summarize generally-accepted logic explained on my user page -- User:Middle_8#Using_Category:pseudoscience -- if you can be arsed to read it. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hang on
But, looking at the article I see the Vickers study and Ernst's reaction to it is duplicated in two sections, and we have a socking great quote from Ernst in the reference. We don't need all that, just a brief summary will do. I've attempted to de-duplicate and slim Ernst down. See what you think ... Alexbrn 09:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. :-) A good start. I'd prefer that we give more space to discussing Vickers, and include his reply, for the sake of WP:WEIGHT and because it just lays out the areas od disagreement nicely. Here's my suggestion, including a minor reorg, putting the '12 efficacy study ahead of the '13 followup, for better flow and because it's an efficacy section.
- On the disagreement with Ernst: Vickers' belief that the difference between real-acu and no-acu is more clinically relevant than the difference between real-acu and sham-acu is indeed perverse (per Novella et. al.) from the standpoints by which medicine ordinarily evaluates placebos, but it is a significant view in medicine -- e.g. also held by independent German body who evaluated the results of GERAC. (And in the case of GERAC, there was no statistically significant difference between sham and real acu. At least with Vickers, there is, though it roughly splits the difference between no-acu and real-acu, and is small. Vickers has pain relief at about 30%, 42.5% and 50%, respectively, for no acu, sham acu, and real acu. I mentioned this in my edit.) --Middle 8 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I mucked up the section headers, but anyway, we can continue below at Talk:Acupuncture#Pain_section. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidence Based Science
Correlates Biomedical
I am concerned that the top paragraph stating that no biomedical correlates have been discovered for aspects of acupuncture is incorrect. See citation below. I suggest amending it or deleting the antiquated assertion. The citation below involves prominent researchers from Georgetown University Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, U of M Dept. Anesthesiology and more. They note: "Phase II/III sham-controlled clinical trials have been successfully completed, and a broad range of basic research studies have identified numerous biochemical and physiological correlates of acupuncture...."
I am concerned that this type of misinformation, or at the very least, highly controversial and peer reviewed controverted data is in the top paragraph. Please comment or deletion is appropriate.
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2011, Article ID 180805, 11 pages
doi:10.1155/2011/180805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhealth (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS for Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing biomedical information. That article is not MEDLINE-indexed, which is generally expected of biomedical sources.
Zad6818:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting deletion, but seems to contradict other aspects of the article. There are at least two papers in the references list from a peer-reviewed journal that have been part of this article for some years, yet they manage to stay in. 'Medical Acupuncture' is not MEDLINE-indexed, yet references 78 and 96 have not been deleted! Tzores (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- They're not being used to source biomedical claims, are they? Alexbrn 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I
User:QuackGuru was kind enough to add some material about the German acupuncture trials here... You know, the set of large trials that resulted in acupuncture being added to the list of reimbursable services in the German statutory health system.
Interestingly, the text that was added by QG reads: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments. The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community."
I try to AGF in this case, but unfortunately I know that QG knows that the GERAC resulted in acupuncture being reimbursable in Germany (as we have been working on that article together)... To leave this tiny fact out, and instead only present the side-note material about some health insurances allegedy not reimbursing acupuncture anymore and alleged negative impact on the international community, is a disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts. I know we have our differences in perspective here, but there're some rules for chrissake. If you're willing to skew the facts in this way, maybe you should stop for a minute and ask yourself whether your POV got the better of you. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal_and_political_status_recent_edits. We must use secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. II
This source QG uses: "He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L. et al. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine 33 (3): 403–7" is an analysis done by Chinese doctors, published in a Beijiing-based journal. It does not constitute a reliable source regarding details about the German health care system. Their claim about some health insurances not reimbursing acupuncture anymore has not been echoed by any other source about the GERAC (and there are a lot them), it hasn't been backed up with a source by the article's authors, and they didn't specify on it either (which health insurance are they talking about?). It has to be suspected that their claim is just hearsay. I'd invoke WP:MEDSCI ("Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" - in this case, a TCM journal that reports details about the German health care system) to delete this source, unless someone objects. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Adverse events, redux
See ES here (it's actually five in one million; same logic applies) --Middle 8 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- So acupuncture can have Medically significant outcomes! - probably worth mentioning for that reason. And 1 in 200k is not great odds. Alexbrn 08:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's pretty low for rate of SAE's, AFAIK. But we should find a source. And remember, most SAE's happen when standard good practices aren't followed -- that should be explicit. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn - just found where the "very low" came from. White 2004 : "The risk of serious events occurring in association with acupuncture is very low, below that of many common medical treatments." --Middle 8 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Very rare" is NPOV language. The NHS says: "When it is carried out by a qualified practitioner, acupuncture is safe. Serious side effects or complications arising from treatment are extremely rare." --Middle 8 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry - my error: "very low" is justified for SAEs. Alexbrn 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Very rare" is NPOV language. The NHS says: "When it is carried out by a qualified practitioner, acupuncture is safe. Serious side effects or complications arising from treatment are extremely rare." --Middle 8 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn - just found where the "very low" came from. White 2004 : "The risk of serious events occurring in association with acupuncture is very low, below that of many common medical treatments." --Middle 8 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's pretty low for rate of SAE's, AFAIK. But we should find a source. And remember, most SAE's happen when standard good practices aren't followed -- that should be explicit. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The NHS
Apparently "recognizes" acupuncture "for certain minor conditions" (so we say), sourced to this and this—a fair summary of these documents? Alexbrn 12:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence you mention is supposed to summarize multiple sources from gov't bodies, and it's not clear that it does so, so we should look at them all. Plus, see just below. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the page we should be using for NHS: , and not really the other. It's actually a good template for what the lede could say, being a reliable source for summarizing different POV's. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Effiacy in lede
The latter two para's of the lede are problematic; they need to be updated to reflect the best and most current sources. Also, we have an undue weight problem putting a few individual scientists against NIH, NHS and WHO -- that's just silly. We can unpack it in the article but in the lede, it suggests parity of sources, and as we've seen before, it's top-tier vs. bottom. That said, the older NIH and WHO sources (along with the '05 skeptic sources criticizing them) should be de-weighted compared to the more-recent NHS (which is not criticized by the skeptic sources cited).
I'm not sure chronic pain and PONV are minor conditions; better to just say what they are. It's not as if we have that many types with evidence for efficacy.
Re efficacy, we should have in lede: Cochrane on PONV (acu works as well as drugs), Ernst on Cochrane pain reviews (works for some conditions), Vickers re pain (which is the most recent and statistically rigorous meta-analysis to date), and (Vickers re: little variance in outcome depending on type of Tx). We don't need to keep Ernst '06 (too old), but certainly should keep Madsen (little if any difference between sham and verum for pain) and Ernst '11 (similar to Madsen).
Finally, as mentioned above, the NHS summary is a good summary addressing multiple POV's, and could guide our wording. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Acupuncture's use for certain minor conditions has been recognized by the United States National Institutes of Health, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, the World Health Organization, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine."
- The NHS summary is not a very good source. A Cochrane review is a better source, for example. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Adams 2011 text was deleted without consensus and replaced with a dated 2004 source that was not about child acupuncture
Resolved
There never was any consensus to delete the Adam 2011 source. A 2011 review found that pediatric acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained, licensed practitioners using sterile needles; however, there was limited research to draw definite conclusions about the overall safety of pediatric acupuncture. The same review found 279 adverse events, of which 25 were serious. The incidence of serious adverse events were few; the incidence of mild adverse events were estimated at 11.8%. The most frequent adverse effects were bleeding and pain. The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million, which included children and adults.
This edit was not an improvement.
A 2004 cumulative review showed that serious adverse events (SAE's) are frequently due to practitioner error, exceedingly rare, and diverse. The rate of SAE's is on the order of 5 in one million, below that of many common medical treatments. The most common SAE's are infection due to unsterile needles and injury—such as puncture of a major organ or nerve damage—due to improper placement of needles. Most such reports are from Asia, possibly reflecting the large number of treatments performed there or else a relatively higher number of poorly trained acupuncturists. Infectious diseases reported include both bacterial and viral infections. Though very rare in practice, traumatic injury to any site in the body is possible by needling too deeply, including the brain, any nerve, the kidneys, or heart. Many serious adverse events are not intrinsic to acupuncture but rather to bad practices (such as improper needling or unsterile needles), which may be why such complications have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists.
A 2011 meta-review showed that serious adverse events are frequently due to practitioner error, rare, and diverse. The same review found 95 cases of severe adverse effects, including 5 deaths. The most reported adverse event was pneumothorax. The most common encountered adverse event was bacterial infection. Most such reports are from Asia, possibly reflecting the large number of treatments performed there or else a relatively higher number of poorly trained acupuncturists. Infectious diseases reported include both bacterial and viral infections. Though very rare in practice, traumatic injury to any site in the body is possible by needling too deeply, including the brain, any nerve, the kidneys, or heart. Many serious adverse events are not intrinsic to acupuncture but rather to bad practices (such as improper needling or unsterile needles), which may be why such complications have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists.
A lot of the text is duplication too. QuackGuru (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think all but the first two paragraphs of this section (which reference 2013 & 2014 systematic reviews) can be cut without losing anything valuable. Who knows, with such slimming, one day this article might be ... readable! Alexbrn 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- A 2004 cumulative review showed that serious adverse events (SAE's) are frequently due to practitioner error, exceedingly rare, and diverse. This is an older source and "exceedingly" rare in not consistent with the newer source.
- A 2011 meta-review showed that serious adverse events are frequently due to practitioner error, rare, and diverse. Sourced text using newer source.
- This is duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was unbelievable IDHT and this is just more. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have never explained your reason to delete the Adams 2011 source from the article. You also added a lot of duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of Adams 2011 was an error; my edit was meant only to restore White as the ref to the sentence for which is was originally used. As pointed out above -- in the section where consensus was reached -- White 2004 is the original source for the 5-in-on-milion number that Adams quotes. Proper form is to cite the original; please tell us whether you disagree with that standard. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You did a lot more than restoring the White 2004. You also added a lot of duplication. Do you understand what was the duplication. Do you see the two paragraphs are very similar. What was your reason to restore an entire paragraph that was duplication. You ignored my comment about the duplication so I went ahead and removed the duplicate text. As you can see the White 2004 source is still in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the duplication, and am fine with pruning it. My main issue is that we include White 2004 in the article since it's the original source for the number. It wasn't in the article before my edit, it is now , so we're cool. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have a repeated pattern of deleting sourced text from newer sources. Your edits were in fact against consensus. You claimed you just moved the newer Ernst 2011 source but you did delete the text from the newer source. There was only agreement to use the 2004 source, not to delete a newer source. This was not "cool" at all. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- "We're cool" = "I am OK with content outcome". For the record: You keep saying or implying that my first edit removed Adams '11, but once again -- it didn't. See, it remains in that version. Here, I called it Ernst '11 when I meant Adams '11. My outright removal of Adams in this more recent edit was accidental; thanks for fixing. Time to move on. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have a repeated pattern of deleting sourced text from newer sources. Your edits were in fact against consensus. You claimed you just moved the newer Ernst 2011 source but you did delete the text from the newer source. There was only agreement to use the 2004 source, not to delete a newer source. This was not "cool" at all. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the duplication, and am fine with pruning it. My main issue is that we include White 2004 in the article since it's the original source for the number. It wasn't in the article before my edit, it is now , so we're cool. Thanks. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- You did a lot more than restoring the White 2004. You also added a lot of duplication. Do you understand what was the duplication. Do you see the two paragraphs are very similar. What was your reason to restore an entire paragraph that was duplication. You ignored my comment about the duplication so I went ahead and removed the duplicate text. As you can see the White 2004 source is still in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of Adams 2011 was an error; my edit was meant only to restore White as the ref to the sentence for which is was originally used. As pointed out above -- in the section where consensus was reached -- White 2004 is the original source for the 5-in-on-milion number that Adams quotes. Proper form is to cite the original; please tell us whether you disagree with that standard. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Something's gone wrong. The text "When used on children, acupuncture carries a modest (11.8%) ..." should be sourced to a 2014 systematic review I added this morning, but it's been sourced to "Adams 2011". Some repair needed ... Alexbrn 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- This seems like the same source from 2011. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry yes you're right, now I am getting in a tangle. Alexbrn 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the confusion happened when I restored the original ref name. QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry yes you're right, now I am getting in a tangle. Alexbrn 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscience again
Every so often (see archives) the issue of whether to use category:pseudoscience comes up. We have specific standards for that at WP:FRINGE/PS, and acupuncture isn't "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community". To show it is, we'd need a source so indicating, i.e. meeting WP:RS/AC. That logic has been accepted for several years, for this article and others (including alternative medicine).
Continuing from here, QuackGuru said, re Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: "You haven't given a reason to use a better RS than that. The source is RS compliant. We can expand the article with the source." My response to that is: sure we can use the article according to its weight, but since it doesn't meet WP:RS/AC we can't use it to justify categorizing as pseudoscience. Also, Williams is dated (2000) and (IIRC) the entry on acupuncture is far from unequivocal. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want us to take this seriously, I think you need to find some sources that acupuncture is a proven medical intervention for something more than a little lower back pain. Perhaps some sources that show that meridians and that can actually be found in the body, some sources that relate sticking pins in somebody to, you know, curing illness. Till you do, it is pseudoscience. Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- We don't have to meet your standards, we have to meet WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC. (We had an ArbCom case, WP:ARB/PS, in part to clarify this exact issue.) Show me how under those policies, we can use category:pseudoscience. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no policy or guidance which says WP:RS/AC is needed before a category can be assigned, that is a spurious argument (by which, BTW, hardly anything could ever be categorized). Acupuncture is "obvious pseudoscience"; RS from the portion of academia which considers pseudoscience says so, and Misplaced Pages should follow RS. Or are there sources saying meridians and qi are part of real science? Alexbrn 06:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Addressing your points in turn:
- (1) How else are you going to determine whether something is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", besides RS/AC?
- (2) Scientists (as opposed to many skeptics) are sparing when labelling things as pseudoscience. We follow the science.
- (3) "Obvious pseudoscience" is for tiny-minority things that have virtually no RS commentary and no following. Otherwise astrology would go under "obvious", but it doesn't. That's because proposals that "have a following" go under either "generally considered pseudo" or "questionable science". (See alsoWP:ARB/PS)
- (4) Show me MEDRS -- which we follow for scientific claims -- demonstrating that acu is generally considered science by the sci community. How many of the MEDRS commenting on acu call it pseudoscience?
- (5) Acupuncture isn't only meridians and qi. Those articles can go under category:pseudosci since they fall under vitalism. Acupuncture includes other facets/hypotheses, such as evidence for efficacy. If researchers thought acu, on the whole, to be pseudoscience, they wouldn't keep studying it. Instead, the voices we hear arguing that "acu is pseudoscience and therefore shouldn't be studied" are scattered throughout the skeptical blogosphere, most of which isn't RS let alone MEDRS. (The literature also addresses the "reasonable amount of debate" criterion.)
- As I said earlier, read the archives. What I'm saying has long been accepted by most editors. The upshot is that under current policy category:pseudoscience cannot be populated as much as you think it should, and that's because categories are unambiguous (cf. WP:CLT#Disadvantages of a category. So what? There are plenty of other ways to convey the idea. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Addressing your points in turn:
In answer:
- We look at what RS says which has considered the question.
- See 1 - yes, pseudoscientific determination is a specialist area.
- Is there any serious source (let alone serious person) claiming qi and meridians are really science? They are obviously pseudoscience.
- MEDRS is for biomedical claims. Categorization of a system of thought is not biomedical.
- We need to follow the sources rather then reason out for ourselves what the whole/part relationship is. The point about it being studied legitimizing it is just wrong: researchers study bollocks all the time. Just look here !!
Alexbrn 09:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn on above points:
- That's how you get confirmation bias. It's like googling for which politicians have "considered the question" of whether Obama should be impeached. You don't get a random sampling, or consensus of a non-self-selected group, that way.
- Really? According to whom? What is the name of this specialty, and what qualifications are necessary to practice it? Note that a pubmed search for "acupuncture" and "pseudoscience" gives a single (and silly) hit, so this specialty must be rarefied indeed not to have its literature indexed by Medline!
- Sure, but still, "Citation needed". That's why astrology (of all things) doesn't go under "obvious", at FRINGE/PS (and this, from which it sprang). The exception for "obvious pseudoscience" is made for extremely fringe topics that lack RS.
- See #1. If you want to know what is "generally considered science by the scientific community", you have to meet RS/AC. (Which source would probably meet the looser criteria of MEDRS).
- See #4 -- those sources are what we follow. WP:BURDEN. Generalizing from part to whole is your OR. We're talking about unambiguously calling something pseudoscience: that's what categorization is (per both FRINGE/PS and here, #8). Topics like acupuncture are handled by, e.g., List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, with annotation. More common sense: When groups like the NHS, NIH, American Cancer Society and WHO give even qualifed endorsements of acupuncture -- and while there are positive findings in reviews (unlike with homeopathy) -- WP should not be unambiguously calling it pseudoscience. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Back at you:
- That's politics, with its own crazy dynamics. We're interested here in science & scholarship. To find out what experts think, on this as on any scholarly topic, we look at RS. Most doctors are shruggies and so say nothing.
- We'd use PubMed for biomedical information; what we need for this topic is experts in topics like human understanding of science, the sociology of science, etc. This new category has some good/relevant people in it.
- You can stop after "Sure" :-) It's obvious it's obvious.
- I've covered this before, and won't repeat myself. Applying this invented rule would mean de-categorizing Homeopathy and much else.
- Again, we follow the sources - from which there is no doubt. Or, have you got counter-sources arguing that acupuncture is a real "science"? Alexbrn 10:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn Please excuse me for bailing on point-counterpoint; my long comment below ("Why acupuncture is a grey area, per RS") covers most of it. I don't agree with, but for the sake of argument do address, your preference for weighting individual RS. And no, of course I don't have sources defending TCM "theory" as science -- this is low-hanging fruit for critics; try swatting at the higher ones -- or saying acu as a whole is science. What I do have are very strong RS establishing that acu is in a grey area, with mixed elements of pseudo (qi etc.) and science (falsifiability, efficacy). These are enough to establish the "grey area" thing as a significant enough POV to preclude "generally considered pseudoscience". In a way, this has been a fun exchange, other than the lost productivity, and the realization that none of this would have even come up had I not poked a hornet's nest. :-/ :-) --Middle 8 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The more relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, the most relevant guideline (which comes out of WP:ARB/PS and NPOV) is the one I mentioned, WP:FRINGE/PS. How do I know that? Read the last sentence of WP:PSCI). But of course the one you mention also applies, especially the parts about NPOV and VER. Hence WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC, respectively. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Acupuncture is widely regarded as containing some kernel of truth enveloped in a lot of pseudoscientific thinking. (for example, see "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method". We are making a dis-service to readers by removing categories that are supported by our guidelines.
- In google books and google scholar there are lots of sources with interesting takes on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Enric Naval: I know that there are all kinds of sources calling acupuncture pseudoscience, but per WP:FRINGE/PS we need at least one that reliably shows the opinion of the scientific community at large (cf. WP:RS/AC). It's a matter of apples and oranges... --Middle 8 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Alexbrn and Enric Naval: WP:FRINGE/PS is exactly the relevant policy for deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience, and if the topic has a significant following -- even astrology! -- we don't say it's "obvious pseduoscience". See findings 14-18 of the ArbCom case: Misplaced Pages:ARB/PS#Serious_encyclopedias. If pseudoscience demarcation were as obvious as you say, it wouldn't have gone before the ArbCom. More later on above; anyway, sounds like we may need a request for clarification. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Arbcom doesn't rule in content issues, and their decisions are not binding for policies nor guidelines. And you are still referring to the wrong guideline.....
- How about these sources:
- "Science cannot be distinguished from pseudoscience simply on the basis of the results each produces (...) even if it turns out that something in acupuncture theory is right or even on the right track, the theory will remain an artifact of pseudoscientific thinking until it can be confirmed, modified, or rejected on the basis of controlled experimentation." (emphasis on the original) Stephen Carey (1 January 2011). A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method. Cengage Learning. pp. 123–. ISBN 1-111-30555-2.
- "While used for centuries in Eastern cultures, alternative medicines are classified as pseudoscience because they have not been subjected to the same level of rigorous experimental designs as used in the medical profession. Acupuncture, as shown in figure 7.1, (...) To date, there is not significant evidence to support the claim that acupuncture helps any ailment. (...) The holistic-based outlook for curing places these alternative practitioners at odds with the science-minded ANA (American Medical Association). (...) The public continues to flock to these cures despite the lack of data in their support. Another pseudoscience with roots anchored in our science history is astrology." Peter Daempfle (2013). Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 112–114. ISBN 978-1-4422-1726-3.
- "Medical researchers often have little scientific interest in acupuncture because its theory depends on nonscientific notions such as vital energy. (...) Government research funds are limited because the scientific community remains skeptical of acupuncture theory and the validity of its method." Merck (14 December 2011). The Merck Manual Home Health Handbook. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-17123-3.
- "(...) do not imply that drawing the boundary between science and non-science is an easy or straightforward task. For instance, the practice of acupuncture has a 'scientific' rationale in China, but in the west it remains a curious empirical technique at best." Willy Østreng (2010). Science Without Boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in Research, Society and Politics. University Press of America. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7618-4830-1.
- "Why the Study of Pseudoscience Should Be Included in Nature of Science Studies (...) Believing in something like chiropractic or acupuncture really can help relieve pain to a small degree and for a short period of time, but many related claims of medical cures by these pseudosciences are bogus. By now it should be clear that belief and its resulting placebo effect can be a very important tool in the pseudoscience toolkit, specially where pain relief is involved. (...) Willingness and ability to critically analyze one's belief regarding pseudosciences like ID and chiropractic and astrology and parapsychology and acupuncture and magnetic healing and so on should be an important part of science literacy." Myint Swe Khine (18 September 2011). Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies. Springer. pp. 103, 105. ISBN 978-94-007-2457-0.
- "Whole 'disciplines' (as their followers would call them) have been rejected as pseudo-sciences, from astrology to scientology. Some of these disciplines were regarded as sciences in one period, only to be rejected as unscientific in another. Chinese medicine, for instance, including acupuncture, was taken seriously by European doctors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However, when western medicine was defined as scientific, alternative medicines were rejected. The European interest in acupuncture first 'subsided' and then became 'submerged'. It was only in the late 1960s and the 1970s that an interest in this technique revived in the West." Peter Burke (17 January 2012). A Social History of Knowledge II: From the Encyclopaedia to Misplaced Pages. Polity. pp. 152–. ISBN 978-0-7456-5043-2.
- --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Enric Naval: Well, the ArbCom did rule on this particular issue, probably to settle endless debates over NPOV, and it was by consensus incorporated into NPOV (then NPOVFAQ, and now FRINGE). And yes, WP:FRINGE/PS is exactly the right guideline, although the other one applies too. It's a special case. From WP:NPOV#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience (italics mine): "See Misplaced Pages's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience." --Middle 8 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, because WP:FRINGE/PS says: "Generally considered pseudoscience: (...) may be categorized as pseudoscience.". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, duh! That's what this whole thread is about - whether acu falls under "obvious...", "generally considered.." or "questionable...". Please re-read the thread. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, because WP:FRINGE/PS says: "Generally considered pseudoscience: (...) may be categorized as pseudoscience.". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @Enric Naval, and generally: Whether or not efficacy is part of demarcation is an interesting question. Here's an article on richarddawkins.net: "New Study Exposes Acupuncture As Pseudoscience" -- that says a lack of efficacy (in the study cited) is exactly what suggests acu is pseudoscience. On Dawkins' blog! So effectiveness and pseudoscience are tied together in some people's minds.
Opinions on demarcation vary, which is why on WP we write facts about opinions rather than inferring opinions -- like, e.g., "qi is obviously pseudoscientific, so acu in general must be as well". WP's standards for unambiguously calling something pseudoscience (which is what categorization is) are laid out in WP:FRINGE/PS, and they require us to find out whether or not it's generally held in the sci community that a topic is pseudoscience.
Enric, did you see my comment about apples and oranges? The sources you posted above are fine as far as they go, and we can use them, but not for this purpose: they don't tell us about general opinion. Do you really think that 5 more, or 10 more, hits from Google scholar is going to settle that question? Alexbrn suggests looking to RS's that have "considered the question", but that's likely to give skewed results, just as most Congressmen who have spoken about whether Obama should be impeaced tend to be in favor of it.
But let's step back here and remember that we're really only talking about category:pseudoscience here. That's the only thing connected with FRINGE/PS and unambiguous depiction. Everything else in article space stays the same.
Sure, qi and meridians are archaic and not to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean we can or should say the same about acupuncture as a whole. Maybe we will someday: the NHS is a source much closer to what we need, and they call homeopathy pseudoscience in all but name -- and that's a relatively recent development. Compare that with the tone and substance of their pages on acupuncture, which describe traditional beliefs (without bothering to bash them) and then say that some scientists and acu'ists believe there may be some neuromuscular mechanism. They also describe a spectrum of scientific views on efficacy -- which, cf. Dawkins' blog, can go to demarcation -- and mention disagreements over study design. This is all consistent with a "grey zone" of demarcation, "gateway woo", not as obviously bogus on the whole as other alt-meds. The literature is obviously in flux with respect both to efficacy and mechanism. It would be misleading to depict acu as unambiguously pseudoscientific -- at least today -- unless we had a solid, sci-consensus source, because there are plausible arguments pro and con, and we're just guessing at general opinion. But again, with proper annotation, we can/should/do cover RS's mentioned in this thread. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Middle8, but I think that those sources are more than enough for "generally considered pseudoscience". There are a lot of interesting caveats and you are free to write them into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Those "interesting caveats" go directly to NPOV. Remember Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Articles? (itals mine) "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." --Middle 8 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not controversial because the general opinion of scientists is that it's pseudoscience. I have provided several sources saying so.
- And you haven't provided any source saying otherwise.
- Where is the controversy? A category becomes controversial when an editor makes a lot of noise in the talk page? Even if he doesn't support his position with any source? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no controversy. Unfortunately, Middle 8 can't let go of his COI. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Woof! (equally in-depth comment, minus the ad hominem) Stay tuned for below where I will demolish your assertion. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no controversy. Unfortunately, Middle 8 can't let go of his COI. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Why acupuncture is a grey area, per RS
@Enric Naval (and all) -- In turn: (1) You're putting the cart before the horse with your assertion that it's noncontroversial; the general opinion of scientists is what we're trying to establish. Your sources are the opinions of the authors, which we must weigh alongside other sources.
(2) Sure I can provide good sources.
- Michael Shermer, in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci and M. Boudry (2013), classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. (cough WP:FRINGE/PS cough) He also says demarcation depends on a variety of factors, including attempts to test it. Shermer and Pigliucci are heavy hitters and this is the best source so far.
- Here's another name we've seen, Beyerstein, who also puts acu in a "grey area" of disciplines that are "clearly not pseudoscientific in their entirety". He says it's "plagued by a mix of pseudoscience with reliable research". Its "its traditional explanation must be placed firmly in the category of pseudoscience", but it also "undoubtedly works in some people as an analgesic."
- Whoa, now here is a seriously ass-kicking
sourcepublication: The Age of Expert Testimony, from a workshop of the United States National Research Council (see also here). From pp.17-18:
| “ | "A scientist at the workshop emphasized several reasons for this perception. He said that at one extreme of an imaginary spectrum are the “hard” sciences, such as molecular biology, physics, and chemistry. At the other end of the spectrum are the “pseudo-sciences,” such as astrology and numerology. In the middle, he said, are many topics whose status is less clear, including acupuncture, handwriting analysis, and psychological profiling. | ” |
The NRC source goes on to say that refutability is an important criterion in demarcation, and discusses further caveats in demarcation.
I'm sure there are more sources along the whole spectrum, but the weight of these, plus similar ones (just google-book acu and "demarcation", "gray area" etc.), is enough to balance others above, and establish a lack of general agreement about acu's demarcation. Which places it "firmly" in a grey area, a.k.a. "questionable science".
(3) Controversy? See #2, meets NPOV! We've already established that, for some sources, testability (cf. Popper) and efficacy go to demarcation, and that acupuncture -- almost uniquely among alt-meds -- is testable, and actually has some good evidence for efficacy (some here, not complete or balanced, but indicative).
So here are some BIG group statements on efficacy, all at least partly positive: NHS, American Cancer Society, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Heavy hitters indeed, far outweighing any individual source given so far. And we know that scupuncture is called "gateway woo" and "grey area" and "borderlands", etc., all of which go straight to "questionable science" under FRINGE/PS.
Are we done yet? Remember, this has little practical implication other than no category:pseudoscience -- and of course, not misleading our readers. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good find in the Shermer/Pigliucci book! This looks like a considerable complicator of a straightforward "pseudoscience" classification (I am less convinced by the other sources, and the invocation of effectiveness testing is irrelevant IMO). I am glad we are now looking at RS. In the light of this new source I think I am now tending towards being neutral as to whether we categorize acupuncture as PS or not (though the PS basis should be clear in the article text). What do others think? Alexbrn 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks ... Just to be clear, the reason for the efficacy stuff is that Shermer/Pigliucci (among others mentioned, e.g. Beyerstein) list it as a criterion for demarcation:
- No doubt about it, evidence for efficacy can be a deciding factor in dermarcation. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) edited, Middle 8 (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Obvious Pseudoscience still trumps any of the Acuapologists in this talk page. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are appallingly ignorant if you think Shermer and Pigliucci, or any of the sources I just cited are acuapologists. --Middle 8 (privacy • talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Obvious Pseudoscience still trumps any of the Acuapologists in this talk page. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article covers qui/meridians that are obvious pseudoscience, with flawed studies that are bad science, with rigorous studies that are good science. Adding the category is unfair to one part of the article, removing it is unfair to other part. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is a strange brew. Same idea as chiropractic being a mix, cf. Brangifer's comments on that talk page. (Now let's see if any of our shoot-from-the-hip editors label that guy a chiroapologist.) I honestly think the solution is to use the category only on the topic pages where it clearly applies and use article space to explain the rest. There is also a problem with overuse of the term, insofar as it muddies the waters -- conflating really flagrant pseudoscience with mixed/borderline stuff is a good way to make people doubt demarcation altogether. It doesn't make sense to put the whole of acupuncture in the same boat as ID and global warming pseudoscience, without explanation. You can explain in article space but not in category space. --Middle 8 (privacy • talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Acupuncture has elements that are clearly pseudoscientific, qi, meridians and even points are up for debate. It is being seriously investigated as a non-pseudoscientific treatment for, at minimum, pain and nausea. I would agree that while it is not purely pseudoscientific, the aspects that are strongly so merits the category. This should be dealt with by having a section that discusses pseudoscientific aspects of it. There are numerous sources to expand such a section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- @WLU - I agree we can address V RS's discussing pseudoscience in the article. On your categorization: do you think that your logic squares with WP's demarcations in WP:FRINGE/PS? That is, acu has to go under either "generally considered" or "questionable"; "obvious" is for tiny fringe areas with minimal following, which is why even astrology doesn't go there. Is acupuncture, on the whole, generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community? There is no sci-consensus level source (such as an academy of sciences) commenting on the question; among individual commentators, there's a range of opinion, and those who see demarcation as a fuzzy rather than bright line (which is the nuanced view most academics take) seem to put acu in the fuzzy area. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 05:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is not clear that acupuncture is pseudoscience. You are correct. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- @WLU - I agree we can address V RS's discussing pseudoscience in the article. On your categorization: do you think that your logic squares with WP's demarcations in WP:FRINGE/PS? That is, acu has to go under either "generally considered" or "questionable"; "obvious" is for tiny fringe areas with minimal following, which is why even astrology doesn't go there. Is acupuncture, on the whole, generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community? There is no sci-consensus level source (such as an academy of sciences) commenting on the question; among individual commentators, there's a range of opinion, and those who see demarcation as a fuzzy rather than bright line (which is the nuanced view most academics take) seem to put acu in the fuzzy area. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 05:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Acupuncture has elements that are clearly pseudoscientific, qi, meridians and even points are up for debate. It is being seriously investigated as a non-pseudoscientific treatment for, at minimum, pain and nausea. I would agree that while it is not purely pseudoscientific, the aspects that are strongly so merits the category. This should be dealt with by having a section that discusses pseudoscientific aspects of it. There are numerous sources to expand such a section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is a strange brew. Same idea as chiropractic being a mix, cf. Brangifer's comments on that talk page. (Now let's see if any of our shoot-from-the-hip editors label that guy a chiroapologist.) I honestly think the solution is to use the category only on the topic pages where it clearly applies and use article space to explain the rest. There is also a problem with overuse of the term, insofar as it muddies the waters -- conflating really flagrant pseudoscience with mixed/borderline stuff is a good way to make people doubt demarcation altogether. It doesn't make sense to put the whole of acupuncture in the same boat as ID and global warming pseudoscience, without explanation. You can explain in article space but not in category space. --Middle 8 (privacy • talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- The article covers qui/meridians that are obvious pseudoscience, with flawed studies that are bad science, with rigorous studies that are good science. Adding the category is unfair to one part of the article, removing it is unfair to other part. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we can use common sense and recognize that the categorization of acupuncture as "pseudoscience" is accurate in several important ways, particularly in how its effectiveness is explained by many, many practitioners and even researchers. Since the categories on wikipedia do not allow for this distinction, we must choose to either use the category, or not. I think that until there is a sea change in the general community to drop the ideas of qi, acupuncture points, meridians and "energy", the use of "pseudoscience" is quite accurate, and the category should stay. It is a second-best option, the best option would be to have a way of alerting readers to the nuances of the category - but we can't really do that.
Certainly any subpages on qi and acupuncture points should be unambiguously labelled as pseudoscience, in the same way creationism is pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 07:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly agree re appropriate subpages. I don't know if we're quite there with acupoints, but qi and stuff, sure.
- Alerting readers to the nuances of the categorization is the rub. See WP:CAT#Articles:
- "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate."
- (See also WP:BLPCAT.) I think it can be fairly said that depicting acupuncture, on the whole, as unambiguously pseudoscientific would be controversial. Scroll up a bit to where Shermer, among other skeptics, says acupuncture is borderline (precisely because it's a mix: demarcation depends on multiple factors), and not unambiguously pseudoscientific. That sounds like FRINGE/PS's "questionable science". Category space doesn't allow the nuances to be explained, but article space certainly does, in lots of ways. It's not that big a deal, really, but I think it's misleading, particularly compared to other pseudoscientific topics. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 09:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It could go either way - I think the way to avoid protracted discussion is to follow RS (on the topic of pseudoscience) and the fact that Shermer wavers in his categorization is enough for me to waver too. Alexbrn 09:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Middle 8 over here. The grey area begins with the question of whether acupuncture is a placebo or not. There is considerable evidence proving that it is not a placebo. If I may quote from a mainstream medical textbook for physiology students:
"......Because the Chinese were content with anecdotal evidence for the success of AA (acupuncture analgesia), this phenomenon did not come under close scientific scrutiny until the last several decades, when European and American scientists started studying it. An impressive body of rigorous scientific investigation supports the contention that AA really works (that is, by a physiologic rather than a placebo/psychological effect)..."
— Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems (2013)
- If anyone disagrees, I respectfully ask that you cite a serious medical textbook or review (prefably the most convincing one) that supports your particular view. -A1candidate (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Textbooks are good MEDRS's, but not the only ones; still, the sources for efficacy do weigh, assuming you think efficacy matters in demarcation. That's the thing about it.... some (like you, Shermer also) say efficacy is a critical factor; others say something can be pseudoscientific whether or not it's effective. There are multiple demarcation criteria, some of which are multifactorial, many of which are fuzzy. Some topics obviously fall outside the fuzzy area(s); it's hard to see how this does. Calling acu pseudoscience outright is like calling pot a hard drug. Which of course recalls the "gateway woo" designation for acu, and even that implies threshold-ness. The only way acu is for sure pseudoscience is if one accepts a single bright line for demarcation. Which isn't what most scholars seem to do... (cough RS cough). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 10:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, so it's lucky for us we can leave the complicated weighing-up to the RS pseudoscience experts, and then just: use their work. Alexbrn 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty much my point (hence the fuzzy), though it does depend on how you demarcate this expertise, and I'm still dubious about this. If it's a real "specialty" then it should involve something... specific. Shouldn't it? An advanced degree in the sciences or medicine or philosophy or history is probably necessary. What else? Passing WP:N and having an opinion? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, so it's lucky for us we can leave the complicated weighing-up to the RS pseudoscience experts, and then just: use their work. Alexbrn 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Textbooks are good MEDRS's, but not the only ones; still, the sources for efficacy do weigh, assuming you think efficacy matters in demarcation. That's the thing about it.... some (like you, Shermer also) say efficacy is a critical factor; others say something can be pseudoscientific whether or not it's effective. There are multiple demarcation criteria, some of which are multifactorial, many of which are fuzzy. Some topics obviously fall outside the fuzzy area(s); it's hard to see how this does. Calling acu pseudoscience outright is like calling pot a hard drug. Which of course recalls the "gateway woo" designation for acu, and even that implies threshold-ness. The only way acu is for sure pseudoscience is if one accepts a single bright line for demarcation. Which isn't what most scholars seem to do... (cough RS cough). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 10:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- e/c Are you guys all starting to agree that sticking pins in people to cure them might not be Pseudoscience? Yea, right. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I would categorize it as PS (and wouldn't argue with this article being so categorized). However, as far as Misplaced Pages goes we need to take a strategic view and hold the line of allowing the category to flow from RS on pseudoscience. If Shermer wants it to be "borderland" rather than PS, then that's enough of a complication for me to say: "Meh" ... it is, after all, only a category: It is important OTOH that the pseudoscientific aspects of acupuncture are clear in the article text. That's where I am anyway. Alexbrn 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, content here is about more than just showing up on the talk page with an opinion. The fact that we're an encyclopedia and use sources 'n stuff is... relevant. Have you looked at Brittanica's acu article? It doesn't have a "What Skeptics Say" section. What Scientists Say is weirdly considered enough. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I would categorize it as PS (and wouldn't argue with this article being so categorized). However, as far as Misplaced Pages goes we need to take a strategic view and hold the line of allowing the category to flow from RS on pseudoscience. If Shermer wants it to be "borderland" rather than PS, then that's enough of a complication for me to say: "Meh" ... it is, after all, only a category: It is important OTOH that the pseudoscientific aspects of acupuncture are clear in the article text. That's where I am anyway. Alexbrn 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- e/c Are you guys all starting to agree that sticking pins in people to cure them might not be Pseudoscience? Yea, right. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess Roxy adhere more to the Petr Skrabanek line (that we mention), that "ideas should be rejected out-of-hand that lacked a testable hypothesis". (Echoed by David Gorski in this video where he makes the case that CAM has blindsided evidence-based medicine). Other critics, such as Ernst, are totally invested in the evidence-based approach, thinking this is the way to go and supposing that once good trials have been designed, acupuncture will be shown to be ineffective - while we have to bide our time for now and report what the "flawed" trials say. Both "skeptic" approaches exist, and Misplaced Pages being encyclopedic will cover them both, but it does complicate the pseudoscience categorization ... Alexbrn 13:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Or they can be the same thing (efficacy being what you test, as opposed to whether qi exists,). There are all kinds of criteria depending on whom you ask, including the view that demarcation is impossible (cf. the NRC panelist above, who echoes the views of some philosophers). (Roxy's view? Who knows. He's indicated the he doesn't consider Cochrane reviews or Ernst's reviews of them to be gold-standard MEDRS/EBM sources, and that he considers Shermer, Pigliucci et. al. either "acuapologists" or irrelevant, so we know he's given these matters a certain degree of attention... Look, a squirrel!) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The bigger point, though, is that the range of RS views, and the inherently mixed bag that acupuncture is, indicate a lack of general agreement. There's that, and WP:CAT#Articles seems pretty clear that the preference is to avoid categorization in these cases. I can't think of anything more to say and I agree this is getting distracting. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The aspects of acupuncture that are pseudoscientific are not point selection or even whether or not it's placebo. The points that are unambiguously pseudoscientific are the explanations for how it "works" - the continued claims, cited in nearly every damned article, about the manipulation of a nonexistent energy that flows and stagnates in lines and points. That is utter nonsense, and that is by far the most salient and unambiguous piece of pseudoscience that is involved. The fact that there is a pretty vigorous debate over whether it does a damned thing is totally unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion. The entire section on theory is what causes acupuncture to be considered pseudoscience. The debate over efficacy is a debatable cherry on top, and one whose veracity is redundant and unnecessary to the discussion of the PS category. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 22:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your view on what the single most important criterion for demarcation is, and your conclusion. We have RS with varying (and multiple) criteria and varying conclusions, e.g. Michael Shermer's recent book chapter on demarcation: . --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The aspects of acupuncture that are pseudoscientific are not point selection or even whether or not it's placebo. The points that are unambiguously pseudoscientific are the explanations for how it "works" - the continued claims, cited in nearly every damned article, about the manipulation of a nonexistent energy that flows and stagnates in lines and points. That is utter nonsense, and that is by far the most salient and unambiguous piece of pseudoscience that is involved. The fact that there is a pretty vigorous debate over whether it does a damned thing is totally unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion. The entire section on theory is what causes acupuncture to be considered pseudoscience. The debate over efficacy is a debatable cherry on top, and one whose veracity is redundant and unnecessary to the discussion of the PS category. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 22:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The bigger point, though, is that the range of RS views, and the inherently mixed bag that acupuncture is, indicate a lack of general agreement. There's that, and WP:CAT#Articles seems pretty clear that the preference is to avoid categorization in these cases. I can't think of anything more to say and I agree this is getting distracting. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 16:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Link to website in the sentence
I think a link to a website as part of a sentence in not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- agreed... pretty sure it's discouraged in MOS someplace --Middle 8 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation
A newish review:
- White AR, Rampes H, Liu JP, Stead LF, Campbell J (2014). "Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Systematic review). 1: CD000009. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000009.pub4. PMID 24459016.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Alexbrn 16:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:POV-lead
Because of concerns that I and others have expressed about the lede, especially the "current evidence is consistent with acu being no more than a placebo" and the relatively old sources used to support it, I've added this tag. It will take a little while to iron out the lede, so the tag may remain for a few weeks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 21:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- 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
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- Skepticism articles needing attention
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists