Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbxue (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 8 July 2014 (→Not a primary source: not here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2

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

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

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

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

WP:CIVILITY

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

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

Problematic edit

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) About misrepresentation, Ernst and fighting: I remember that incident I think, but missed that two editors had been banned. Wow - who were they? Alexbrn 11:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tippy Goomba and Dominus Vobisdu - I don't remember if it was just a temporary ban on TCM or alt med articles or if it was something wider.Herbxue (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor edit to lede and body

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

Well, the source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe this belongs back at the article talk page.Herbxue (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you have a long history of making reverts and not giving a rationale explanation for your reverts. Do you agree you have made mistakes with your recent and past reverts? Can you be more careful next time or are you going to continue to revert? QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously have NO sense of scale at all? Or self awareness? You have probably reverted JUST ME more times than I have reverted ANYONE on Misplaced Pages! Seriously, we're done here.Herbxue (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Exchanges like the above (and the fact that it was impossible to converse with QG on his own talk page) are why I ended up telling QG to stay off my talk page except to notify me of things like ANI's and so forth. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep it simple: what are the points (of edits) where QuackGuru disagrees? Instead of just giving diffs, could you please exlpain your own opinion, and how it differs from the other opinion? (yes, we all can read the diffs by ourselves, thanks) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(yawn) He filed one on me and Jayaguru-Shishya too. I wouldn't pay too much (translation: any) attention. It's just something QG feels he has to do sometimes, I guess .... some of us go to the beach to de-stress; QG goes to Misplaced Pages drama boards. As you can see, the last time he did this with me, the results weren't exactly earth-shattering: here. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a primary source

According to your edit summary is was a primary source. On the contrary, you deleted text from a systematic review of systematic reviews. Verification was also provided at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture again. I think it would be best for you to revert your edit. The discussion on the talk page shows the text is sourced. Questioning WP:MEDRS compliant sources is not a good idea. See Talk:Acupuncture#Another convenience break. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait for others to weigh in on this. The text in question is Ernst reporting on the results of a recent high-quality PRIMARY study to support the prediction that IN THE FUTURE we are LIKELY to not find any specific effects of acupuncture on pain. He is is not generalizing, nor is he using one primary study to make a conclusive statement about acu = placebo. He didn't do it here, and he didn't do it in his other reviews. You cannot just take any statement from his paper about ONE other paper and generalize it as a conclusion of the review. If he intended that, it would be in the abstract and in the conclusions. Read the source again and you can see what he is referring to in that paragraph. Herbxue (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The text is sourced only using the 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews. We are not using a primary source to verify the text. Your claim he is only referring to one source is not relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because you are generalizing his report on one study and saying it is the conclusion of a systematic review. It is not.Herbxue (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

According to your previous comment the systematic review of systematic reviews is referring to a 2009 review. Now you claim the source refers to 1 primary source. The source 89 that the 2011 is referring to at the end of the paragraph is a 2009 review. It is irrelevant whether the 2011 source is referencing one study or a review, anyhow. What is relevant is that we are using a systematic review of systematic reviews for the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it to project med