Jump to content

Talk:Acupuncture: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
2over0 (talk | contribs)
17,247 edits
→‎Ice Man: new section
→‎Ice Man: according to some experts
Line 749: Line 749:


The Ice Man thing is decently well sourced, but I think it has been pretty well rejected. I would like to remove it unless we have more than the current small slice of scientific speculation. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 19:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ice Man thing is decently well sourced, but I think it has been pretty well rejected. I would like to remove it unless we have more than the current small slice of scientific speculation. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 19:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:The source says: "Bizarrely, the ‘Ice Man’, who lived in the Alps about 5000 years ago, displays tattoo marks on his body which correspond to acupuncture points. To '''some experts''', this suggests that an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago [15]."[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x/full]
:The source does not say it is speculation. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]) 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:09, 16 August 2014

Template:Vital article

Menopause syndroms

  • Frisk, Jessica W.; Hammar, Mats L.; Ingvar, Martin; Spetz Holm, Anna-Clara E. (30 January 2014). "How long do the effects of acupuncture on hot flashes persist in cancer patients?". Supportive Care in Cancer. 22 (5): 1409–1415. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2126-2.
Commenting on the Chiu paper today, Steven Novella called the results "entirely negative" and concluded ..."A reasonable person can only conclude that acupuncture does not work, and that all the clinical research consistently shows that acupuncture conveys only illusory and nonspecific placebo effects for subjective symptoms." [1]
ScienceBasedMedicine.org is not a reliable source. Anyone is welcome to submit content regardless of credentials. This blog does not even meet WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS. -A1candidate (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous discussion about this blog. Editors decided to keep it in the article. User:JzG insisted it was reliable. Mallexikon originally added the source to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and there was no consensus for it. The blog has no formal peer-review. -A1candidate (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there a previous discussion and editors decided to use the blog in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was considerable opposition to using the blog -A1candidate (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided evidence there was considerable opposition to using it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page archives -A1candidate (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already read the discussion because I was part of the original discussion on this. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should know that an editor said "A personal website is not RS material", which I fully agree with. -A1candidate (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_13#MEDRS_and_ASF_violations_are_continuing_to_happen_at_ACU_and_TCM for the original discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors observed that "There is strong opposition to including the first here" and "And there was no CON at TCM either." -A1candidate (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:LEDE and WP:V

This change to the first sentence is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV policy.

"Acupuncture therapy is believed to have developed in China over thousands of years and refers to the stimulation of precisely defined, specific points on meridians (or channels) that lie along the surface of the body and within organs. Stimulation of acupoints can be accomplished through a variety of methods including application of heat, pressure, or laser or insertion of thin needles.1"[2] The source does not support the change. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More original research added to the lede using a 2005 primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why acupressure should be the second sentence in the lede. It's way off topic. I removed the sentence and the ref. Perhaps an appropriate place in the body. Jim1138 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the body under Acupuncture#Related practices using a systematic review. I have restored the other text that was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The restored text is appropriate. It is a feature of acupuncture practice that needles are not the only tool used to stimulate the points or channels.Herbxue (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that there is no "puncture" ? isn't that then something else? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, depends on how we are defining acupuncture. In China it is referred to as 针灸 zhen jiu, literally "needles and moxibustion", and it is assumed that needling, moxa, cupping, gua sha, and other auxiliary techniques are performed by the acupuncturist.Herbxue (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like "针灸" connotes a broader concept than English "acupuncture". In English the word acupuncture means "A method of medical treatment, originating in China, in which fine needles are inserted into the skin at specific points on the body surface" (OED primary definition). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be misleading to claim that acupuncture uses only needles. Yes, I read up on acupuncture before I originally added the first sentence to the WP:LEDE. I also added the definition of traditional acupuncture to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS says: "Acupuncture is a form of ancient Chinese medicine in which fine needles are inserted into the skin at certain points on the body". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that in the US, in most states the practice act defines the practice as needle insertion, though many states also include the auxiliary techniques. If the article were just about the specific procedure of needle stimulation then the narrow definition would fit, but the article has a broader scope. "Acupuncturists" are almost always trained in the auxiliary techniques, with moxa being considered by many as a primary technique with equal importance to needle insertion.Herbxue (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Add) And Ernst defines it as an "Insertion of a needle into the skin ...". We have a separate article on moxibustion. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! While acupuncturists might normally do more than strict acupuncture, we have separate articles here. I don't expect Herbxue to reply, since he is now topic banned for six months. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have RS that acupuncture involves far more than needle insertion. It does not benefit the reader to alter the broader definition of acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My dear QG, that's from possibly the fringey-est journal in the world. Wouldn't you say the NHS, the OED and Ernst are better? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is common knowledge that acupuncture involves more than needles. Traditional acupuncture also involves more than needles. These are mundane claims. The current wording is correct and accurate. Shortening the definition would make the text factually incorrect. QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not common knowledge. Sure, "what acupuncturists do" might include other things – but that's not the topic of this article. According to the strongest RS, acupuncture is needling into certain points on the body; a fringe journal defines "traditional" acupuncture (whatever that is) more broadly, citing a single Chinese source tellingly entitled "Acupuncture and moxibustion" (my emphasis). We need to follow the best sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(add) Consider also:
  • Karchmer EI (2009). "Acupuncture and Moxibustion". In Davis EK (ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-415-77716-2 http://books.google.com/books?id=2rLBvrlKI7QC&pg=PA4. Acupuncture refers to the therapeutic manipulation of needles at specific sites on the body, and moxibustion to the therapeutic warming or cauterizing of those sites with slow-burning moxa leaves. They are commonly used together in clinical practice ... {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
The English definition for the word acupuncture is not factually accurate.
We are using good RS to verify the first sentence for the definition of acupuncture. The second sentence is the explanation for "traditional acupuncture". Both statements are accurate and from a NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced text was deleted

And some original research was added. At least three sources are obviously MEDRS violations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify the MEDRS violations? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the primary sources and poor sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify the MEDRS violations, what were the primary sources and what were the poor sources you removed? Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the edit history and each edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer my question. Can you please provide a description of all your edits you made on the article? Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to provide a description of each edit on the talk page too. Do you have any specific objection? QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the unexplained ones[3][4][5][6]. I just can't see what you are looking for if you don't explain. Seems like revertable edits. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every edit was explained. You have not given a reason to restore the primary sources[7][8] or the impact factor of 0 sources.[9][10] QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All QG's edits yesterday were given a reasonable edit summary. Are the edit summaries not appearing on your screen Jayaguru-Shishya? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These two[11][12] were removed per MEDRS without explaining what the violation is. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources and other poor sources were restored against consensus. The 2009 journal of pain source is a primary source (PMID 19409857). QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Myofascial Meridians below. This has been discussed in the approved. MEDRS does not say all primary sources should be removed. Please instead work on doing some of your own research to help improve sources, not eradicate them. - Technophant (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not approved according to MEDRS standards. You are using primary sources and poor sources to argue against much better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact factor 2

Hi! I was wondering, what is the minimum impact factor of a source according to WP policies to be sufficient enough in order to be published in an article? I couldn't find such information myself, but I think you can help! Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an impact factor of 0 is a poor source.[13][14] QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Back to my question: what is the minimum impact factor to be sufficient enough? Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is a hard and fast rule on impact factor/reliable sources. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There isn't any. There can be many situations where it's not a factor, but in some it might be a decisive one. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myofascial Meridians revived, NPOV

I've revived this discussion from archive. With the above arguments in consideration, as well as some new sources I've reworked long-standing and un-challenged content form myofascial meridians into this article in the section regarding research. It was awkward trying insert this into what looks like an very calculated and systemic attack on the fundamentals of TCM. Accordingly I added the the NPOV banner because there's no way this article in the way it sits now can be called neutral by community standards. - Technophant (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the content from the other article is challenged. Did you read this diff? See Talk:Acupuncture#Sourced text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the mainstream, "myofascial meridians" appears to be a fringe concept with one mention only in a dodgy (chiropractic) journal, according to a PubMed search. If that is so, it is doubtful that Myofascial meridians should exist, and it would certainly be undue to mention it here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. AFD? QuackGuru (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some clear specifics are needed to support an NPOV tag and discussion. This article is extensively discussed and worked out on this talk page. The content reflects well reviewed material based on evaluated sources. The article has been developed through extensive consensus building. An NPOV tag for the entire article based on a single editors vague assertion is not appropriate.
Myofascial meridians and referred pain along such meridians as support for evidence of acupuncture meridians from a single researcher over five years ago without replication and recognition in academia is not a valid basis for content. Did Dorsher's 2009 publications lead to mainstream academia and medical science recognizing and accepting acupuncture meridians as having an anatomical basis? If so provide some sources that state that. The high quality sources that review the effectiveness of acupuncture that I have read all make reference to meridians as unsupported theory. One author getting published once in a reputable journal does not create the current medical understanding on a topic, especially if after five years there is no substantial validation. The Journal of Pain has published more on acupuncture since Dorsher's article and they don't seem reflect an acceptance of anatomical correlation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Pigliucci and Boudrey, "Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of 'Qi' energy, channeled through the human body by way of 'meridians,' though, is a different matter. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory." - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pseudoscientific piffle which should probably be deleted, not merged. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mallexikon, here's a reliable secondary source (editorial control and fact checking) from the WSJ stating: "Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves." That statement and source, with Dorser's Journal of Pain article cited for background and further info should be sufficient. It does not contradict the 2008 review being these are recent findings. - Technophant (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is a great source in general, but should not be used for medical claims per MEDRS. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find WSJ far more reliable than blogs by different news sites. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. All news sites suck for medical claims and they are also shoddy for science claims (WSJ in particular). Second Quantization (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are being used as a source in other alt med articles, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_note-Brown2014-214 . I'd like to see both discarded, but it is apparent that WSJ is more reliable than some blog in a newspaper. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not follow. WSJ is garbage, but its possible that a blog could be much more reliable, particularly if written by a scientist blogging for example, WP:USERG:"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". But anyway, newspapers are not generally reliable for medical claims.
The other source you highlight is not being used for a medical claim, its being used to give the views of chiropractors from a survey. Second Quantization (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jayaguru-Shishya, you are failing to make a difference between MEDRS type content and non-MEDRS content. The sourcing rules are not the same. Brown's source is not used to support medical claims, but the opinions of a noted expert on the intersection between spirituality and chiropractic. That's actually a huge area, since chiropractic was created on the basis of a religious seance, and D.D. Palmer later (1911) considered making it a religion. Brown's comments have nothing to do with medical claims, so that content is not governed by the MEDRS guideline. MEDRS only covers medical claims, no matter which article at Wikipedia. It does not govern non-medical claims, even in medical articles. You have previously seemed to fail to understand this. I hope you understand it now so we don't have to continually explain it to you. It has also been explained to you that we don't deprecate a source just because its a blog. Blogs by experts and journalists are often used as RS here. So please stop your obsession with not using blogs since you clearly do not understand that issue either. I'm really beginning to wonder if you aren't an incarnation of User:Khabboos / User:Dr.Jhingade. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can refer to the original source that the blog is pertaining to, right? Of course if the original source that is adequate. No need to list some blogs as sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A news source can be used to show that there's a debate. If language such as "According to the Wall Street Journal: Many of the 365 acupuncture points correspond to nerve bundles or muscle trigger points. Several meridians track major arteries and nerves." that should be acceptable. It doesn't make a clear medical claim, rather shows that other opinions exist. - Technophant (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. If we accept blogs, why don't we accept an actual article by journalists where they are not allowed to write according to their heart as in blogs they are? ^^ Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: Blogs are such forums were even experts of a certain area can write very liberately without fear of the scrutinizing look of academic peer-review process. When making claims, for example, about a profession, blogs are certainly not a source to be relied on. If Robert Shapiro made a claim that all lawyers are crooks, we certainly won't assert in articles about jurisprudence that "lawyers are characterized as crooks". At best, blog can only be used to support opinions of the very writer herself/himself, not to assert any other sort of facts. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Second Quantization:Then you can refer to the original source that the blog is pertaining to, right? Of course if the original source is applicable. No need to list blogs as sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|BullRangiferIf I were you, I'd be really careful when making such claims about one being an incarnaton of Khabboos / Dr.Jhingade, or whatever. If you feel that's the case, I'd advise you to file an appropriate report on the administrative noticeboards; do not start slandering me here. Meanwhile, I expect you to strike your comment. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abusing MEDRS to cover a minority scientific opinion does not comply with this directive: "1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." Controversy among researchers, historical background, and opinions about acupuncture don't strictly fit the definition of "bio-medical information". - Technophant (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant, you misunderstand what is meant by "making a medical claim". Please reread the guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed pov-section tag for "Scientific view on TCM theory"

Due to the apparent debate about neutrality evident in this talk page I would like to add the template "pov-section" under the subsection "Scientific view on TCM theory".- Technophant (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The debate is over including primary/poor sources. I don't think a tag is necessary. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's people on the NPOV noticeboard that disagree. - Technophant (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tag not needed. This is an invented controversy, and appears disruptive. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that controversy exists isn't disruptive but accusing someone of "inventing controversy" is by all accounts disruptive. -A1candidate (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Myofascial meridians

This subject appears to be a minor topic of speculation within a much larger field. There does not seem to be significant enough mainstream medical coverage to warrant an article dedicated to this subject however it may be a useful addition to the general article on Acupuncture. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose - This one doesn't make any sense. Myofascial meridians an anatomy article under WikiProject Anatomy. This article is about a medical practice whose scope covers many areas. The argument that it doesn't have "significant enough mainstream medical coverage" shouldn't apply to an anatomy article. This book reviews declares that it's a "must read for anyone that works with the musculoskeletal system." How does shoving it into this article serve anybody except the few who want it to go away? - Technophant (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a random blog review. It means nothing. WP:SPS Second Quantization (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fascia planes proposal probably needs to be mentioned here, but if anything the article looks more closely related to Rolfing. A good wave of the credulity wand is certainly in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support, myofascial planes, and the information in the article, are very relevant here. I would like to see additional information such as "jing jin" or the sinew system be added into the article along with modern research into this field. Alternatively, I would support redirecting but not to the acupuncture page itself, but to a section on fascial planes within the article, which should be expanded beyond just the Thomas Myers information in the article, "myofascial meridians."LesVegas (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) as it is not notable as a stand alone article. See ref for support [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Repeated insertion of essentially the same material coupled with removing sourced content is unacceptable edit warring. This article is both contentious and under discretionary sanctions. Discussion and consensus are needed for making changes if they are challenged. Once reverted reinserting content without discussion is edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by User:Technophant did not improve this article. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science it's decidied that

1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

I'm only trying, in good faith and through good practices, to help improve this article, despite User:QuackGuru's Wikihouding and Fringe Pushing. I do not mean to be edit warring and if that's what I've been doing (unintentionally) I will refrain from doing so - Technophant (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appropiateness use of QuackWatch

I removed the critcism from QuackWatch from the Scientific View section. Anything in this section should meet the requirements of WP:SCIRSen WP:MEDRS. This comment could be acceptable in the Reception section or Criticism section, but not here. Also, this statement is a criticism of TCM, not acupuncture, and is repeated on the TCM page. A more appropriate statement should be more narrowly focused on acupuncture alone. Also, I think the section should be titled "Scientific view on acupuncture theory" not "Scientific view on TCM". - Technophant (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch is established RS for altmed topics. Maybe check out the WP:RS/N archives ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuackWatch does NOT pass MEDRS and should NOT be used to refute bio-medical claims. I made a bold edit moving the section to a new Rececption/Skeptics section which I feel is more appropriate. - Technophant (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which archives and what edits in exact? Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Alexbrn Could you please explain why you reverted my edit without an edit summary? - Technophant (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was one. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was - made very good sense too. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Alexbrn Well, what is it? - Technophant (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Technophant: A more petinent question would be why you made these contentious edits without first discussing here? Jim1138 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)/[reply]
If not explained, then reverted. "Please have the respect towards other editors to at least explain what you are doing.", I think. A diff would be welcome, indeed! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Alexbrn Yes I made those bold edits. They didn't seem contentious at the time. Now please answer my question. - - Technophant (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate criticism section is generally deprecated, as the material can be more neutrally presented by integrating it with the text. Also, QuackWatch is just fine for this article, see innumerable past discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2/0 -Right, by having a critcism section NPOV would require an equal and opposite Support section. By using a source that has been only conditionally approved to further a scientific/bio-medical claim isn't allowed. Check this out this decision from RSN: "In the past there have been attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the same high status as scholarly sources or even statements by scientific organisations. These were of course not successful. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" - Technophant (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Technophant. I am not familiar with the past discussions, and I don't thin anyone who hasn't been involved in those discussions years ago would spend hours and hours in reading them. What Moses said approx. 1500 BC does not hold today. What might have been the conclusion several years ago, why would it be the eternal truth for this day? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Hans Adler source is not WP:MEDRS compliant. It is out of date. (I remember Hans patiently taking homeopaths apart on the Hpathy forum years ago. Is he still around?) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS isn't used for non-medical information. -A1candidate (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle for why we should not have duelling Support/Criticism sections. Seriously, this is an ages old no-go.
Hans Adler is generally a fine editor, but he is not offering an independent opinion there. QW has been debated to death and back, and the result is that we are always enjoined to use it but use caution. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because blogs and self-publishing websites are preferable to properly peer-reviewed journals and authoritative textbooks? -A1candidate (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there has to be some compromise between a strict legalistic view of Medres and the mandate to have a neutral point of view. The article could show that while the medical consensus is this, other opinions do exist. This in no way would affect the accuracy of the medical information in the article, indeed it would enhance it. - Technophant (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this idea and posted this question to MEDRS talk page here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Issues with alt med not being able to maintain NPOV - Technophant (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, "NPOV would require an equal and opposite Support section" clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the NPOV policy. The policy is not the false balance of equal space for he said and she said but an accurate reflection of published secondary sources in proportion to their prominence. Please take some time to actually read with an eye to understanding the entire NPOV policy. Take note of the section DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There shouldn't be undue weight on either side of controversy. I see this article's treatment of TCM as being positional, not neutral. - Technophant (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN ACTUALLY READ THE POLICY. NPOV says "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance" and "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." FRINGE views do not carry much DUE weight at all. The position of mainstream academia is the position reflected in a WP article. An editor's ideas of neutrality and positionality (False balance) are irrelevant and not policy. Representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic is. Note the words proportionately and significant and the explanations that follow. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't fringe views at all. Fringe means "members of a group or political party holding extreme views." Fringe would be a chiropractor publishing an unverifiable paper on his website. Peter Dorscher of the world renowned Mayo Clinic being published in the reputable Journal of Pain isn't fringe science, it's just new science. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."- Mahatma Gandhi - Technophant (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If acupuncture will win in respect to the medical consensus, Wikipedia will write that in big shinny letters. We are not there yet, perhaps we will never be there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A precise and accurate definition is better

User:Sunrise, a more vague definition is not an improvement. The wording "acupoints" has a specific meaning for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "acupoints" is not too much jargon there since the meaning of the term of art is clear in context. We certainly need to maintain a dispassionate outside view, but this particular use seems efficient and allowable. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! My own opinion is that it's easier on the reader if they don't have to figure out the context, even though it's clear after a few seconds of thought, so using the term is better saved for the third sentence. But it was meant to be a bold edit; I'd only suggest that if you revert, the term should be wikilinked. It's unfortunate that I made the change right before the page was protected, and I suppose it shouldn't be edited without consensus right now, but if it helps, I wouldn't object to a revert through protection in the spirit of BRD. Added: actually, I see that your comments here came before the protection. If you don't feel strongly enough to revert, I won't object to that either. :-)
(FYI @QuackGuru, to ping someone you need to link their name in the same edit in which you use your signature.) Sunrise (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can make the edit if you'd like. Any objections to adding the wikilink as well? (I can see why that would be helpful, since as a newcomer I have never heard the term "accupoints" before today.) Also, in looking for the first usage of the term after the Lead, I noticed that the first sentence of the Lead is a verbatim copy of the first sentence of the "Clinical practice" section...not sure if that was intentional. Let me know if I should add the wikilink or not. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The protection is very short. I can go ahead and wikilink the term when the article is unprotected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to source

Current wording is "For the use of acupuncture for post-operative pain, there was contradictory evidence."

Closer to source would be "For the use of acupuncture for post-operative pain, there was sometimes contradictory evidence.[75]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first wording above is grammatically correct. "Sometimes contradictory" (the equivalent of saying "sometimes sometimes") is rather awkward and not an improvement. The many copy edits made by User:Sunrise have been a net plus, including this one. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Something can't be at one time contradictory, and at another not. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not outdated

The text says "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.[n 1][21]" The 2008 source is not outdated. Your edit summary was incorporate information from the article "myofacial meridians" into this section. But you also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians." Technophant, did you accidentally delete the sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 is outdated according to WP:MEDDATE which says "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." - Technophant (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published". That meridians are nonsense is long-settled so older sources are fine. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what MEDDATE says, then we have to obey. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For fringe subjects we are often obligated to use older sources. In cases where the content is still accurate, the date of the source could just as well be several thousand years old and we could still use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what WP:MEDDATE says. If newer research contradicts a 6 year old review of that area of research then that review is outdated. - Technophant (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the years and links for the "newer research" and the "6 year old review." -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a review of what I've found so far:

  • The "six year old source" #1: Singh & Ernst 2008, Chapter 2: The Truth About Acupuncture (not a scientific journal)
  1. 2: . (2008). *Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: A systematic review (does have references to below articles)

The best evidence I've found so far is

The anatomical and physiologic nature of the acupuncture point/meridian remains elusive. Our limited understanding, however, is not for lack of existing hypotheses. Numerous physiologic and anatomical associations have been proposed within the literature. This summary provides a brief review of the scientific assessment of the acupuncture point and meridian. The discussion is limited to reported associations that reflect common belief, are sufficiently specific to the acupuncture point and meridian, or are supported by more than 2 good-quality studies. With this criteria, the talk focuses on two anatomical associations (nervous system and connective tissue), and three physiologic associations (trigger point, nuclear tracer migration, and electrical properties) are discussed.



That's enough for now. - Technophant (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe supporters keep churning out new "evidence" for certain claims. This evidence is often flawed. But they are aiming for quantity, not quality. they hope to show legitimacy by pointing at the sheer amount of papers. In wikipedia, we follow the principle that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The existence of meridians is an exceptional claim, because it has been discarded by so many sources as siply impossible and not based on scientific evidence. You will need very strong sources to counter that. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Enric Naval Find a review of research after 2008 that has discredited these papers. If you find one, did it cite and refute these findings? I can find nothing that refutes this. - - Technophant (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream sources don't need to discuss every single paper brought forward by proponents of a theory. Reviews don't get automatically outdated every time a new paper appears. If mainstream opinion has changed, then a mainstream review will say so. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last mainstream reviews were both in 2008 (above). The one used in the article focuses only on electrical properties and says there no valid theories. The one not used says there's many valid theories. - Technophant (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one not included in the article, The Status and Future of Acupuncture Mechanism Research is a summary of invited lectures on an acupuncture conference. That rates very low for WP:MEDASSESS.
The one included in the article Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: A systematic review is a systematic review of the best available clinical evidence. That rates very high for WP:MEDASSESS.
--Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Enric Naval Yes, but it's still limited to only electrical properties. Can in no way be considered comprehensive. - Technophant (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

In the section "Scientific view on TCM theory" this sentence appears:

Despite the scientific evidence against such mystical explanations, academic discussions of acupuncture still make reference to pseudoscientific concepts like qi and meridians, in practice making many scholarly efforts to integrate evidence for efficacy and discussions of the mechanism of impossible.
  1. The penultimate word "of" should be deleted.
  2. The sentence is unnecessarily hostile to TCM and can be worded more neutrally while remaining true to sources. The point to be made is as above in the article, namely that concepts like qi and meridians don't integrate with modern science; there's no need for "mystical" and "pseudoscientific" here.

I suggest the sentence is changed to:

Despite the scientific evidence against such explanations, academic discussions of acupuncture still make reference to nonscientific concepts like qi and meridians, in practice making many scholarly efforts to integrate evidence for efficacy and discussions of the mechanism impossible.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: if it's "controversial" to remove clearly biased language then there's something seriously wrong with the consensus that led to the article being the way it is. This seems like one of those Wikipedia discussions that sensible editors avoid, and so will I – removed from my watchlist. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, don't give up. My only objection was that "protected edit requests" of this type are reserved for edits which are clearly consensual or very minor edits, such as the first part of your request. As for removing "clearly biased language", if sources are biased, then we are required to preserve that bias in our edits. The content is not required to be "neutral", only the editors, who are required to edit in an NPOV manner. That means that fringe subjects will cite mainstream opinions which describe them with very biased language, and we are not allowed to censor those words, whether they be quackery, pseudoscience, fringe, or other pejorative words. NPOV requires we preserve the spirit of the sources. Again, I'm not saying the wording is ideal,... so don't give up. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I don't see enough consensus for #2. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 2

Due to the apparent debate about neutrality evident in this talk page I would like to add the template "pov-section" under the subsection "Scientific view on TCM theory" - Technophant (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the fact that reviews from high-quality medical journals about the mechanism of acupuncture have been repeatedly removed from this article, I think the POV template is long overdue.
1. A 2008 review article titled Neural mechanism underlying acupuncture analgesia in Progress in Neurobiology, with impact actor of 9.035, was removed.
2. A 2010 review article titled Mechanisms of action for acupuncture in the oncology setting in Current Treatment Options in Oncology, with impact factor of 2.422, failed to be included.
3. A 2011 review article titled Ancient Chinese medicine and mechanistic evidence of acupuncture physiology in European Journal of Physiology, with impact factor of 4.866, was removed.
4. A 2012 meta-analysis titled Characterizing Acupuncture Stimuli Using Brain Imaging with fMRI in PLOS ONE, with impact factor of 3.730, failed to be included
5. A 2013 review article titled Acupuncture in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with impact factor of 5.698 failed to be included.
6. A 2014 review article titled Acupuncture, Connective Tissue, and Peripheral Sensory Modulation in Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, with impact factor of 2.949, failed to be included
7. A 2014 review article titled Mechanisms of acupuncture-electroacupuncture on persistent pain in Anesthesiology, with impact factor of 5.163, was removed.

There are a lot more sources removed but I don't have time to retrieve all of them. POV tag should stay until they're added back. -A1candidate (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:A1candidate - Thank you. Perhaps we are getting somewhere. - Technophant (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't thank A1candidate too quickly since (s)he is a professional acupuncturist with a huge COI who really shouldn't be editing these articles so boldly and pushing fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this comment is struck, I'd like to reiterate that simply being a member of a profession does not cause COI to arise, cf. the "COI?" link in my sig. -Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to add using what source? I do not see a need for a POV tag at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before we even start discussing which reviews, I suggest the following overview statement from a highly authoritative medical textbook:
"The emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management. Yet its acceptance appears to stem from more than just its communal appeal.
Since the mid-1970s, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter central pain-processing pathways, possibly by triggering release of neural mediators that bind to specific receptors in the brain regions that modulate pain perception."
- Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. McGraw-Hill. 2011. p. 2-5. ISBN 9780071748902. (Google Books)
If we could start by agreeing that some of the most authoritative medical textbooks consider acupuncture to be empirically validated to certain degrees, perhaps we can then proceed to discuss the details. -A1candidate (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be so, but the whole research that shows that sham acupuncture works as good as real acupuncture ruins your whole thesis. We could just randomly insert needles and pretend to treat people by doing that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for real vs sham acupuncture, see PMID 24595780 -A1candidate (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sham acupuncture can't be considered a true control because it involves activating the nervous system in some way. There's many, many articles criticizing the way sham controls are used. Take a look at this papers conclusion. - Technophant (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. A healthy combination of editing and talk page discussion after the protection has expired will probably go farther than a protected edit request. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least remove that personal attack by User:BullRangifer against me? Such personal accusations are completely false and untrue. -A1candidate (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken the comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to say using Harrison's? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to make it concise and keep it as short as possible:
1a. Proposed inclusion - There is a growing belief among researchers that acupuncture may be effective.
1b. What Harrison's says - "Although methodological problems continue to plague acupuncture trials, belief has been growing even in academic centers that acupuncture may be effective", as quoted directly from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. McGraw-Hill. 2011. p. 2-5. ISBN 9780071748902. (Google Books)
1c. Rationale for addition - A fringe theory, by definition, departs significantly from mainstream view. In the case of acupuncture, however, there is a growing belief in academic centers that acupuncture is effective, not fringe.
2a. Proposed inclusion - It is used in some major medical centers as an ancillary approach to pain management.
2b. What Harrison's says - "The emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management", as quoted directly from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. McGraw-Hill. 2011. p. 2-5. ISBN 9780071748902. (Google Books)
2c. Rationale for addition - Alternative medicine, by definition, is not part of standard medical care. Acupuncture, however, is "ancillary" when it comes to managing chronic pain and it should not be labelled otherwise
3a. Proposed inclusion - In recent decades, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter pain perception in the central nervous system, possibly by triggering the release of neurotransmitters that subsequently bind onto specific receptors in brain regions responsible for pain perception.
3b. What Harrison's says - "Since the mid-1970s, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter central pain-processing pathways, possibly by triggering release of neural mediators that bind to specific receptors in the brain regions that modulate pain perception." Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. McGraw-Hill. 2011. p. 2-5. ISBN 9780071748902. (Books)
3c. Rationale for addition - This is a scientific fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated numerous times by now. We really need a section for mechanism of action if we are serious about sticking to mainstream science.
Also, would Goldman's Cecil Medicine be an acceptable textbook for an additional source? Once we're done with the textbook basics, we could go on to discuss more specific details as reviewed by high impact factor journals. -A1candidate (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So exactly what text are you wanting to add to what part of the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1b "problems continue" "has been growing...may" 1c "...is..." MAY and IS are quite different. If problems continue to plague it seems a clear statement that there is NOT empirical support of the type needed to validate a medical treatment. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, we're only talking about the beliefs of the academic community which has been growing rather than may be growing. Can we agree on this first? -A1candidate (talk)
It seems there is an effort to inflate the idea that there MAY be some elements of interest to the mainstream academic community while the evidence is still PLAGUED by methodological problems and the theoretical basis is still not validated into a false assertion of a change in the mainstream academic consensus on the validity of the theoretical basis and the evidence for empirical support. As there is no deadline if these concepts are valid surely empirical research not plagued by methodological failures and theoretical bases that are accepted are forthcoming and can be included WHEN this actually occurs. Until then the article should clearly reflect the widespread academic position on these questionable concepts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of speculating about my motivations to improve the article, you may want to check out what mainstream academic literature says about the topic. Or better yet, read what Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine says and come back once you're done. Methodological problems has already been mentioned in the article. -A1candidate (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make a note here that A1's use of medical textbooks here is very promising as is Doc James straightforward question about "what content, and where, do you want to create based on this?" Folks, it doesn't get more mainstream than the most-relied upon medical textbooks like Harrison's and Goldman's Cecil. So everybody breathe a bit here and just go step by step. These are serious sources. A1 step wisely and conservatively in proposing content and quack-fighters put away your knives. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me "second that emotion", though I would add a caution; One must keep in mind that authors, even of notable medical textbooks, do include their personal opinions in those books. Sometimes the personal opinions are "pearls" (of crap) included by the authors (with poor crap detectors), sometimes positing hypothetical ideas as if they were fact, and many readers then fall for their words, as if they were firmly established scientific fact, and become fans of the guru author.
What I'm trying to say is that many medical textbooks, while considered eligible for RS status, are far from reliable sources for all medical knowledge. While much of the content might be fine information and helpful in practice, such gems of speculation should not be swallowed whole, but should be subject to trumping by better sources. In such cases, it's much better to use properly performed scientific reviews of the mainstream literature. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i hear you. the quotes from the textbook are pretty gentle, I don't think this is going to drive huge changes. but some simple straightforward statements in wikipedia'a voice can be confidently generated using these sources, I think...Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 99% of the time we're likely on safe ground. I'm sure that any controversial uses will get noticed and a discussion can deal with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with BR and Jyt. This article receives enough scrutiny to prevent misuse. @A1 to moderate my comment I can agree with content as described by Jyt. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the kind words of encouragement, Jytdog. I really appreciate them! After taking a closer look at the article, I think there is one section that could be updated with the suggested additions and that is the historical development of acupuncture.
If you take a look at the "Modern era" subsection, we have a great deal of information about acupuncture during Mao Zedong's leadership, followed by two paragraphs of anecdotes about how acupuncture gained atention in the West. After the early 1970s, however, we suddenly arrive in 2006 with absolutely no mention of what happened to the historical development of acupuncture during a time period of almost half a century (!)
I think the best place to fill this gap would be the last paragraph, just before the 2006 documentary.
The current text says:
Acupuncture has been the subject of active scientific research both in regard to its basis and therapeutic effectiveness since the late 20th century, but it remains a controversial topic. In 2006, a BBC documentary Alternative Medicine filmed a patient undergoing open heart surgery allegedly under acupuncture-induced anesthesia....
How the new text (in italics) may look like:
Acupuncture has been the subject of active scientific research both in regard to its basis and therapeutic effectiveness since the late 20th century, but it remains a controversial topic. In recent decades, biochemical and imaging studies have begun to yield evidence that needling can alter pain perception in the central nervous system, possibly by triggering the release of neurotransmitters that subsequently bind onto specific receptors in brain regions responsible for pain perception. (Reference to Harrison's) There is a growing belief among researchers that acupuncture may be effective and it has been used in some major medical centers as an ancillary approach to pain management. (Ref Harrison's)
In 2006, a BBC documentary Alternative Medicine filmed a patient undergoing open heart surgery allegedly under acupuncture-induced anesthesia....
This is obviously not meant to be a final proposal, but I do feel that adding it there would be more appropriate and necessary to fill a huge gap in our documentation of the historical development of acupuncture after the early 1970s.
I'm done with this discussion for now, so if anyone manages to find consensus for my proposed additions, please be bold and edit the article accordingly. -A1candidate (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latest changes proposed by A1candidate seem reasonable to me. If there is some consensus I don't object to them. Unless someone points to a problem with them I support them. They seem carefully and neutrally phrased. I think they are factual and add some value to the article. The sourcing seems adequate/appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read this source: "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain."[16] We have a 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews that contradicts the proposal.
This part of the proposal makes little sense: "There is a growing belief among researchers that acupuncture may be effective" QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QG see 1a and 1b above. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews suggested that acupuncture may alleviate some but not all kinds of pain,[10]"
We should not include text that contradicts high-quality evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more exact? In science, especially medical science, lots of contradictory results do exist. You call one as "high-quality evidence", is the other low-quality then? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide the high-quality evidence.[17][18] I think it is unproductive for me to repeat my previous comments on this talk page when the evidence was clearly presented.
Your continuing to ask questions as you did before.[19][20][21][22] You claimed two were removed per MEDRS without explaining what the violation is. But I did give a reason for removing those two. All you had to do was check the edit history rather than ask questions. See Talk:Acupuncture#Sourced text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to your very own post here at the Talk Page doesn't answer my question. Please anwer my questio above, thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane Reviews provide an explanation of the criteria they use for including or excluding particular studies, often with specific details on individual studies. This provides clear reliable third party sourcing for the evaluation of studies. If you identify a Cochrane Review that discusses a source in question I have full text access and will provide relevant information. Additional guidance on evaluating evidence is available at WP:MEDRS.
I agree with QG that growing belief..may is not appropriate as an encyclopedia with no deadline WP should reflect the conclusions of the highest quality evidence available, Cochrane Reviews and a review of reviews published in a major journal are such evidence. As the research in this field continues if new high quality evidence emerges and receives acceptance in the scientific community it can be added at that time. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the history of acupuncture, not its clinical efficacy. -A1candidate (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"may be effective" is about clinical efficacy. Couching it as a "growing belief" does not exempt the topic of efficacy (be[ing] effective) from MEDRS. Please don't strain good faith. If other editors consider this an acceptable description of the beliefs and appropriate content, I won't stand in the way of progress with reasonable consensus. Apologies for tone, constructive collaboration is appreciated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? Is there some source in the mix here which describes the "beliefs" of researchers, and how those "beliefs" are changing? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. see discussion of content from Harrison's above, 1a and 1b (just below the red dot with the "i" in it) Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, gotcha. But the source doesn't say belief has been growing among researchers, but that it has "even" been growing in "academic centers". Wouldn't that be because CAM is now more widespread in such centers (what some call the quackademic medicine phenomenon). If there are more irrational people in these centers it naturally follows the "beliefs" there will swell. Not sure how this can be couched neutrally, but the proposed wording ain't it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source says that because that is the mainstream scientific consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A1 I don't think you can bring a source that supports such a broad claim. Again you are just hurting your own cause by being so broad and sloppy. Alexbrn, while I hear where you are coming from, reasonable people can disagree on the why. One could also easily say that academic medical centers are doing it a) to meet a demand (people want it and will come to a place that offers it); b) in an acknowledgement even the most cutting edge medicine cannot adequately manage pain and anxiety, and this is exactly - and only (with a few narrow exceptions for side-effects of treatments and other hard-to-treat and somewhat psychosomatic conditions) - how CAM is deployed in such centers. Not broadly -- not to treat infectious disease or as a primary treatment for cancer - but to assist in managing things like pain and anxiety. I think it reasonable to say that such use - complementary and limited- is pretty darn mainstream. (and here i will trot out the mayo clinic why Mayo uses it, MD Anderson, Memorial Sloan Kettering.... the list of high quality places that offer it goes on and on, and the things they offer it for is consistent. Even if the effect is placebo, it is relatively cheap, very safe, and gives comfort, and those are good things for very sick people. There is a reason that Harrison's discusses it, in the way that it does. I think that this article and related ones would be improved a lot by focusing on what is relatively mainstream and stop fighting quack battles. I think (for what that is worth) we could get a pretty useful article out of that, IF both flanks stopped pressing to dominate and self-limited..... we could work pretty peacefully together on an article with that scope. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (added a bit to make this accurate Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Hear, hear. "Mainstream = middle ground" is a very promising way to look at articles about CAM's that are used in mainstream (academic) settings. With regard to the "why" of such usage, Ernst has commented along the same lines as Jytdog [23]. The source is 2006, and should not be relied upon for efficacy, but this particular quote remains relevant (and particularly so, I think, given acu's continued use in light of its placebo-ness): "Some clinicians argue that the main point about any medical intervention is that it alleviates the suffering of patients regardless of mechanism and that ‘it is not meaningful to split complex interventions into characteristic and incidental elements’ [157]. If acupuncture alleviates suffering through a powerful placebo effect which theoretically could exceed the total therapeutic effect of conventional therapeutic options, it should be accepted as a useful treatment. Some scientists, however, might find this notion difficult to accept." To say the least!
Ernst continues, pointing to further resolution: "Of course, the scientific study of placebo effects and mechanism is both feasible and important [158–161], and the results of such research may significantly contribute to our understanding of how acupuncture works. But, if nonspecific factors are that relevant, we should not study them with a view to harnessing them for clinical practice in general and not just for acupuncture?" --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noticed I was unintentionally parroting Jytdog re: both "sides" working together. Well, it's never a bad idea. Actually the best thing is to get beyond the idea of "sides" altogether.... it is possible, just by being steadily source-centric. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst may be a very well-respected researcher, but we still have to treat such statements per WP:RSOPINION. I don't quite understand what exactly is the point you're trying to make, so perhaps you may wish to be a little more direct? -A1candidate (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A1candidate: The main thing I'm getting at (and sorry I was unclear) is that the "let's use acu as a CAM" (pro) side and the "acu is little-or-nothing more than a placebo so why use it at all" (anti) side are looking at the same evidence differently. The anti say that we don't use a drug that's no better than a placebo and the same rules should apply here; there are other ways to invoke the placebo effect besides an invasive (albeit quite safe) intervention, like empathic care. The pro say that the relevant issue is the difference between acu and no-acu, not acu and sham. Even though it turns out that the nonspecific effects are most of the treatment, a lot of patients really like it; even if it's all placebo, it's a humdinger of a placebo, not readily duplicated via other means. This is the view espoused by Vickers and (IIRC) the editorial introducing Vickers, and (implicitly anyway) by the body that acted on GERAC; and it's the view that Ernst is talking about ("Some clinicians argue..."). We could source this up and make a nice "rationale for use" section, I think -- as long as we just lay out each side in an NPOV way and avoid trying to have one trump the other (since both are demonstrably significant). Because both sides are sharing the evidence base. (As for the second part of Ernst's quote, I had in mind Kaptchuk's research, more as an aside.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A1candidate: more.... but I apologize for digressing; for now, suffice it to say I agree with your proposed additions. Not all mainstream researchers, but some; a "growing belief" doesn't imply universality, so the wording is fine. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's difficult to find a middle ground when it comes to such a controversial issue. The good news is that there are lots of authorities whose job is to determine what is factually correct and what isn't. Our job as editors of Wikipedia would be much easier if we could simply stick to their consensus instead of relying on the opinions of Ernst, Vickers, or any other notable individuals. They may be excellent researchers, but they only speak for themselves, not the scientific community as a whole. However, I agree with you that both sides are esentially looking at the same evidence differently. -A1candidate (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-said. The closer we can get to MEDRS that meet WP:RS/AC, the better. For sources less strong than that (and particularly editorials), we should be wary speaking in WP's voice. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 02:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 3

Withdrawn by initiator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the section about reception/Mayo, please add the quote "They concluded "Since acupuncture has few side effects, it may be worth a try if you're having trouble controlling pain with more-conventional methods." from the same source."" - Technophant (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: are you sure you've read and completely understood the instructions? It clearly states that you have to establish a consensus first. I highly doubt this is an edit many users will agree with. --Six words (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Technophant, your abuse of edit requests (and RfCs elsewhere) is not constructive. Edit requests are reserved for minor and totally uncontroversial edits. RfCs are part of the dispute resolution process and should be reserved for when a very long discussion has gotten bogged down and one needs third party input. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request is specific and not controversial (the source does indeed say this and it's appropriate). Please stop Wikihouding me. - Technophant (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Do you think there's a consensus for this edit? --Six words (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't these same criticisms being made to @Peter coxhead's request above? Why am I being singled out? His edit is clearly controversial and non-specific. - Technophant (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant, Six words is correct. An "edit request" is reserved for totally uncontroversial edits for which a consensus is guaranteed. Since this hasn't been discussed, and you're already getting resistance, this edit request is already against policy and is dead in the water.
As for Peter's request above, since you admit that it's controversial, why are you supporting it? I have added a dissenting view above. Take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your paranoia and repeated personal attacks against other editors is tiresome. BTW, it's spelled "wikihounding", and it's definitely a personal attack. Stop it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: WP:BOLD does not say that ALL edit need consensus before being added. If I weren't an experienced editor I might have fallen for that advice. - Technophant (talk)

The guideline doesn't apply here - the article is locked to prevent BOLD edits. As for your earlier question: I didn't advise Peter because I regarded the changes he proposed as minor and pretty uncontroversial. He also doesn't appear to be engaged in discussions here, so I had no reason to suspect that he thought his proposal would be controversial. --Six words (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Locked to prevent bold edits?" That's hilarious. That's not why pages are semi-protected. - Technophant (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand WP:Bold and protection policy. The article was full protected to stop an edit war in which you were the main participant, and in my experience you narrowly escaped blocked. And when the protection expires, if you jump right in and start making Bold edits without any regard for consensus, you probably will be blocked. When an article is full protected, no admin is going to make a Bold edit unless they believe that there is clear consensus for that edit. Heck, we usually won't even revert bad edits that took place right before the protection was applied, unless they are really, really bad edits (vandalism, copyvio, BLP issues, etc.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now a familiar edit is being pushed again ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A second 3RR NB filing has been made. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias and journal quality

Hey all! I've been on the systemic bias talk page and there has been discussion on Eastern medicine and acupuncture. Amongst those who edit here, what standards have been adopted as to what journals should and should not be cited? We have talked about reporting standards in acupuncture studies specifically. STRICTA was one that was mentioned, but I'm aware there are others. Are journals excluded because they don't subscribe to reporting standards, or is generally anything allowed?LesVegas (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically nothing is allowed that contradicts the POV set forth in the article as it stands. No unbiased science found here. - Technophant (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah man, it would seem to me that we would want journals with the most robust evidence as possible. I'm just a lay researcher, but it makes sense to me that reporting standards are essential. Otherwise you could find any piece of research to support whatever POV you have. LesVegas (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm kidding? The some of sources for the "good" POV, like Quackwatch, are used inappropiately. Other's don't verify. If you are interested in systemic bias hang around here.- Technophant (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What source is required depends on what content one is trying to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Man and acupuncture

This line in the lede: The tattoo marks identified on the Ice Man who died around 3300 BCE suggested that a form of stimulatory treatment resembling acupuncture developed independent of China. Seems to be rather speculative for lede material ref. Should it even be mentioned in the article at all? Also a photo caption in Acupuncture#History Jim1138 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wild hypothesis based on speculation rather than archaeological evidence. Image is completely unrelated to acupuncture and should be removed -A1candidate (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - removed both. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring rather than getting consensus

Repeated insertion of reverted content without consensus is not appropriate. When forum shopping has not resulted in support to edit against consensus is not appropriate. Multiple issues have been raised about edits that have been reverted there is not consensus support for these edits. Discussion across a number of forums does not support making changes to this article without consensus. Tendentious editing and IDHT behavior on talk pages demonstrates POV Pushing and a lack of genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. This behavior is not in keeping with policy and is not constructive participation. A revert to previous stable version is likely appropriate with protection again and changes made only after consensus on this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: wp:AN/I#User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant for wikihounding and tendentious editing Jim1138 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Boomerang, with Technophant indefinitely topic banned from all alternative medicine topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that MrBill3 and BullRangifer were forum shopping and canvasing multiple admins to get me banned, yet they accuse me of forumshopping and canvansing. That's a sad commentary on how Wikipedia really works. Any way, I was here to talk to you about something in confidence. May I email you? - Technophant (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you doing here?! Don't answer that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring edit of confirmed sockpuppet

I previously explained the source was invalided: "The most recent meta-analysis appearing in Fertility and Sterility on acupuncture was reevaluated in view of the marked heterogeneity of interventions, controls, data analysis, and timing of interventions in the trials that were included. After removing some of the trials and data based on more rigorous standards for a high quality meta-analysis, a significant benefit of the intervention could no longer be shown."[24]

  • Meldrum, David R.; Fisher, Andrew R.; Butts, Samantha F.; Su, H. Irene; Sammel, Mary D. (2013). "Acupuncture—help, harm, or placebo?". Fertility and Sterility. 99 (7): 1821–1824. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.046. ISSN 0015-0282. PMID 23357452. If editors want to use the journal Fertility and Sterility we would use the 2013 source not the invalided 2012 source, anyhow.

This edit restored the edit by a confirmed sock account without discussion or consensus. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_13#A_massive_revert_-_What_just_happened.3F. I explained it in my edit summary. User:Kww previously explained the policy covering the block evasion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our policies do not prohibit restoration of such material. It also does not allow you to continue to remove it simply because it was added by a sockpuppet originally. You have to discuss the edit on its own merits.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by QuackGuru:

Per policy: WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. User:Kww previously explained the policy covering the block evasion....

If, for example, user QuackGuru got banned, it doesn't mean that any sources used by QuackGuru could no longer be used in the article. I think there is faulty logic here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I previously explained, there was a problem with the source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 2013 source that shows the 2012 source was invalided.[25] QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that WP:BAN no longer enters into it, and that the 2013 source (Meldrum) must be cited if we're going to mention the 2012 source (Zheng). I don't think this edit is the way to go about it; it's too granular and doesn't cite the 2012 source at all. Why not just say something like "a 2012 review found that acupuncture may be a useful adjunct to IVF, but those conclusions were rebutted by a 2013 review", and leave it at that? Here's a try. If "rebut" is too strong a word, someone else can fix. Trying to keep it simple; the article isn't aimed at specialists. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: survey of rheumatologists

I added [26] some V RS material [27] about a survey of rheumatologists' views on CAM's, including acu. This was quickly rv'd [28] with the ES "Not sure this is due, or even RS - and the title is too broad.".

  1. I don't get the UNDUE objection. Views of docs are germaine to the section Acupuncture#International_reception, and rheumatologists treat pain. We had another doctor survey for a long time until it got outdated.
  2. The journal is AFAIK MEDRS and is used elsewhere in the article & 'pedia [29].
  3. I don't get the title objection ("What rheumatologists in the United States think of complementary and alternative medicine: results of a national survey"). Too broad? They asked about acu, spinal manip'n and four other things.

Discussion? To be honest, I can scarcely think of a less controversial cite. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary research in a fringe journal telling us what "rheumatologists in the United States think" (or rather, thought, in 2010) can't be broadened into a universalized statement about how "physicians" (section title) have received acupunctur. Giving a section to the reported view of this group of people would in any case be undue. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to meet RS, not MEDRS, and as far as such surveys go, it looks fine. Per your link, Orac doesn't like a recent editorial, but that doesn't mean it's a fringe journal.
Re section titles: the source is an example of acu's reception among physicians. Under Acupuncture#Government_agencies, we cite only NIH and NHS, but we're (obviously) not saying that they're representative of all such agencies. If there's a better way to present the information, great, but we shouldn't leave out a source on A just because we lack sources on B through G.
By the way, the source isn't an outlier. That 54% favorable number accords with the 2005 survey we used to cite. And here's another we can use: [30]. Doctors' opinions are (a) noteworthy and (b) sometimes lag those of scientists. That's why this isn't an efficacy (MEDRS) claim (but is relevant to the topic). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


We have a simlar issue at chiropractic where are using a survey made in 2003 about the views held by chiropractors in North America. There we are saying that: "A 2003 profession-wide survey found "most chiropractors...".
I don't see any problem here with being undue or too broad.
Ps. Isn't a 2003 survey somewhat outdated? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey J-S, yeah, agree '03 is rather out-of-date.... ah, but for opinions within the profession, not such a big deal imo. For reception among MD's/DO's let's see what editors there think of the 2010 rheumatology source. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not from a 2003 survey. We are using a 2014 secondary source to verify the claim at chiropractic.
The alternative medicine source is not a quality source for controversial claims. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per recent proposed sources and discussion about the use of acu in mainstream settings, the contention that a significant percentage of doctors have a favorable view of acu is no longer controversial. The exact number varies from survey to survey, which is expected; Ernst '06 mentions a source or two that found about a 25% favorable rating. I haven't yet retrieved the other one I mentioned above. There are undoubtedly others. I'll post later with more proposed sources and wording. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is another primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't a major problem given that it's used as an RS and not a MEDRS. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SECONDARY. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are using a 2003 survey at Chiropractic: "McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M et al. (2003). How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors. Ada, OH: Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University. ISBN 0-9728055-5-9.[page needed] Summarized in: McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M (2004). "How chiropractors think and practice: the survey of North American chiropractors". Semin Integr Med 2 (3): 92–8. doi:10.1016/j.sigm.2004.07.002. Lay summary – Dyn Chiropr (2003-06-02).
The 2014 source you are referring to is a Huffington Post blog referring to the very same source, removal of which has been discussed at Chiropractic (talk). (The 2014 source: Gunther Brown, Candy (July 7, 2014). "Chiropractic: Is it Nature, Medicine or Religion?". The Huffington Post.)
Anyway, if you don't find the source reliable, please discuss it first before making any removals. IMHO, the edit can be restored. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So QG is saying that a research article is primary and therefore not OK as RS, but it becomes OK if the Huffington Post mentions it? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 18:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer thought the Huffington Post source is RS. Talk:Chiropractic#Problem with WP:WEIGHT.3F. The other source is being used for context. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Huffington Post blog even. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article all over the place

This article looks like it was written by some sort of amateur not sure what to say. The article is full of contradictions and statements that negate each-other. Does anyone know of a good book to read over to get a proper felling for this topic. All that is here is this guy said this and that guy said that - the valuable info is surpassed by what looks like an academic fight happening out in the article. -- Moxy (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anesthesia & Analgesia editorials

This editorial [31] -- Acupuncture#cite_note-Colquhoun2013-9 -- by Colquhoun and Novella is a good critical summary of the literature, but since it's an editorial I'm not sure where it ranks in the MEDRS scheme of things, and it's cited a lot. And its "counterpoint" editorial, the "pro" editorial by Wang et. al. [32], isn't cited at all. (Both were invited by the publication Anesthesia & Analgesia.) To fix this sourcing and weight problem, I think we should mainly try to cite to sources cited by the editorial(s) (and they're very good places to find MEDRS's and RS's), and should specify that they're a pair of invited editorials. To what degree we cite to them directly, I'm not sure: I would say yes, cite them, but sparingly. (I suppose we can use either or both of them for WP's voice, too, as long as we're not contradicting the other. Right now we cite to Colquhoun for saying in WP's voice that findings on efficacy are "variable and inconsistent" for any condition.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a violation of NPOV to cite Colquhoun many times and completely omit Wang. I think your suggestion of using them sparingly is good. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I agree. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Steven P. Novella and David Colquhoun are notable experts on the topic. The source by Wang et. al is not notable and does not seem it would add anything to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are from the same journal. Either the journal is reliable and we include both, or it's unreliabale and we remove both. -A1candidate (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. QuackGuru, you said that Wang et. al is not notable, can you give us any explanations for that? They are both from the same Journal and shall be both included to the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I previously explained both authors are notable experts on the topic while the other article seems not notable. Can you give an explanation if you think it is notable? Many sources are from the same journal but we don't include all or nothing. When we cite notable authors, we are citing the mainstream POV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier. See WP:RSOPINION. -A1candidate (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, no you didn't explain anything. You just said that "Wang et. al is not notable" without giving any explanation. Can you please support your claim? Anyway, I'll be out for this weekend so happy weekend everyone! ^^ Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I previously asked: Can you give an explanation if you think it is notable? QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru Please quote the policy or guideline that says that a source or author must be WP:NOTABLE in order to be used as a source. I do not believe you will find anything, but am interested to see if you can. You may have other reasons to object, but let's deal with the one you have stated. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe QG did provide an explanation Novella and Colquhoun are notable experts on the topic, published multiple times in a variety of sources, cited as experts on the topic in multiple sources etc. Sources are evaluated individually, every article in a particular journal does not recieve the same due weight, nor is an article considered reliable based solely on the journal it is published in. The NPOV policy at WP:DUE also provides explanation of the weight due to mainstream scientific / academic view. This actually has all been explained in this thread. IDHT is tendentious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) MEDRS says nothing about the notability (WP:N) of authors. It says "experts in the relevant field". Most MEDRS's are written by people who are experts but not notable. (See WP:ACADEMIC.) There is nothing in MEDRS that gives preference to Colquhoun & Novella's editorial over Wang et. al.'s. However, it doesn't give much preference to editorials in general. They are only mentioned once, and are not mentioned at all in WP:MEDASSESS. Which is why we should use them sparingly, at most.
apropos of MrBill3's comments: Yes, of course we take DUE into account. But these are a solicited pair that are given equal prominence by the journal. They agree on the evidence base and disagree on what it means (i.e. the observed effects are small; is that small margin real or just artifact). Brangifer argued awhile ago that there is no unified mainstream scientific view on acu, which I think is pretty obvious given that some academics are busy using acu as a CAM while others denounce such use as "quackademic medicine". [33] So these editorials represent views within a spectrum (which might be closer to an RS than a MEDRS use). I think their main strength is as gateways to high-quality MEDRS's; maybe we can glean a few more meta-analyses. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FRIND: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.
This is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. On Wikipedia, we continue to represent the mainstream spectrum. We should keep this ship on course. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U:QuackGuru, thanks for providing the basis in policy and guideline for the "notability" objection to a source. I have no idea what that means so I cannot have a rational conversation with you about it, other than to say what I wrote below. With respect to "notability" used with respect to a source, I just opened a subthread at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#First_sentence_needs_improvement to discuss changing this, or making sense of it. So I will not be responding further to this for now. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Template:U:QuackGuru, I was moving to fast this morning. WP:FRIND says nothing about a source or author being "notable" so your argument about that has no basis. We are left with the question about whether everything about acupuncture is fringe. Everything about acu is not Fringe, as other sources on this page have demonstrated. some uses of acu are mainstream. So you cannot shoot down every source with WP:FRIND - if it discusses mainstream uses of acu, that no more fails WP:INDY than an oncologist writing an article about cancer. With respect to the invited article, it is as good as the other. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight and see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let's be clear, QuackGuru, you are contending that the entire field of acupuncture is WP:FRINGE and that no part of it is mainstream, is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, please have the respect to point out what you are exactly trying to say rather than make obscure references to Wikipedia Policies. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the ship has sailed with regard to some uses of acupuncture in some settings, which have become mainstream. Not the whole field and definitely not many uses, but use of acu as CAM as an adjunct for relief of some pain conditions, nausea from chemo, and a few other things. Please stop treating this like it is black and white. QG it is just as wrong and POV for you to deny this, as it is for others to claim mainstream validity for the whole field and for its model of the body. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (including a missing word! Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Despite having veered off the precise topic of this thread Jytdog has made a good point and done so well. I tend to agree while validation for the field and it's theoretical basis is still clearly lacking, it seems there is some mainstream acceptance of it's use as an adjunct. True NPOV would mean the article should include this without giving undue weight or mischaracterizing it. This should be approached in a collaborative and cooperative manner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MrBill3, QuackGuru said: "I previously explained both authors are notable experts on the topic while the other article seems not notable."[34]
He said that "I previously explained", but the diff he presented isn't saying anything else than: "The source by Wang et. al is not notable..."[35]
QuackGuru is making a claim, so I am looking forward to him supporting his claim. So far, I thing he has failed to explain why Wang et. al would not be notable. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
notable is the wrong question. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should use review articles instead of editorials

I don't understand why there's such a long discussion. How about using none of these editorials and replacing it with review articles instead? All of them are from journals dealing with anesthesiology and pain research:

Remove the editorials, replace with reviews. -A1candidate (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-said. Editorials are not very strong as MEDRS; as I mentioned above, they're not even mentioned in WP:MEDASSESS. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 02:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

Acupuncture and placebo

The first review found some evidence that "biological differences" exist between a placebo response and sham acupuncture. The second review concluded that "acupuncture is more than a placebo". Are there any recent reviews that suggest otherwise? -A1candidate (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nocebo

Article fails to discuss the nocebo effect of acupuncture:

-A1candidate (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy

Article fails to mention acupuncture treatment for allergic diseases:

-A1candidate (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism of acupuncture

Article fails to mention mechanism of acupuncture:

-A1candidate (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture and the brain

Article fails to mention acupuncture's effect on the brain:

-A1candidate (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We might add a bit about contraindications for certain points, i.e. the "fordidden points" during pregnancy like LI4, SP6, and GB21. I don't remember the source that mentioned that but AFAIK it was a MEDRS. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These studies are of the brain's reactions to the body being poked with sharp things. They don't lay the foundation for the effectiveness of acupuncture, just that the brain does, indeed, react to the body being poked with a sharp object. I'm not aware of anyone that denies that.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do. Read the meta-analyses carefully. -A1candidate (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide exact quotes from the meta analysis which you find relevant, something that tells us more than is already obvious, which is that every spot in the body has areas in the brain which not only control it but also areas which react to anything which affects it. That's too basic and "duh". What do you have from that source which we can use? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. (bold text indicates subsection header): Acupuncture at non-acupuncture points in close proximity to acupuncture points" Two third (64%) [15], [23]–[37] of 25 studies showed that acupuncture treatments were associated with more activation, mainly in the somatosensory areas, motor areas, basal ganglia, cerebellum, limbic system and higher cognitive areas (e.g. prefrontal cortex). That's 16 of the studies. Different or contradictory results were found in the remaining 9 studies. Also see other quotes under section titled Descriptive findings of differences between verum and sham acupuncture. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not conform to scientific consensus

This article fails to conform to scientific consensus

Mayo Clinic
"The current scientific theories provide a basis for stating that acupuncture has an effect on the nervous system" [1]
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
"The modern scientific explanation is that needling the acupuncture points stimulates the nervous system to release chemicals in the muscles, spinal cord, and brain." [2]
National Cancer Institute (USA)
"Acupuncture may work by causing physical responses in nerve cells, the pituitary gland, and parts of the brain" [4]
National Health Service (Britain)
"It is based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue." [5]
A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
"In the manual form of acupuncture, the mechanism of effect appears to be through sensory mechanoreceptor and nociceptor stimulation induced by connective tissues being wound around the needle and activated by mechanotransduction. In the case of electroacupuncture, the effects appear to additionally involve the stimulation of peripheral nerve fibers, including vagal afferents, that in turn activate central opioid (and other) receptors or anti-inflammatory reflex pathways. Reflex increases in sympathetic activity may also be reduced by electroacupuncture. The role of mechanoreceptor stimulation in the BP reductions in animal models is supported by the ability to attenuate this effect by gadolinium, which blocks stretch-activated channels. Both forms of acupuncture have similar central nervous system effects, although electroacupuncture tends to have a greater intensity of effect as determined by functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in humans." (PMID 23608661)

-A1candidate (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are really good MEDRS's that we've neglected but I don't see how they meet WP:RS/AC any more than some of the meta-analyses we quote. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent summary by A1! Given there is still doubt about exactly how acupuncture works, a true 'Mechanism of Acupuncture' section is probably still premature, but you have undoubtedly presented an outstanding case for rewriting the article to make it consistent with current scientific thinking and including a 'Possible Mechanism of action' section. Yet, we have been here before! I painstakingly set up a 'Possible Mechanism of Action' section for this article over a year ago - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&oldid=561592493. It lasted about a week before its reversion. The subheadings for that section are still current and in-line with A1's summary, although some of the refs might need updating. I'd consider putting it back in again, but would this put me up for another bout of reversion and a caution? Tzores (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have made your homework pretty well, A1candidate! I find it quite impressive all the sources you have listed above. With respect to the scientific consensus issue, what would you suggest? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already state, of scientists, that "They, along with acupuncture researchers, explain the analgesic effects of acupuncture as caused by the release of endorphins, and recognize the lack of evidence that it can affect the course of any disease." This (or some tweaked form of it) is enough - much more would be undue and a section on 'Possible Mechanism of Action' especially so, probably veering into OR territory. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You'd omit MEDRS even if they don't fully accord with what you just wrote (re: no point specificity)? See PLOS One source supplied by A1Candidate above [36] and my diff giving e.g.'s of quotes from same [37]. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific research paper. Its articles are not supposed to "conform to scientific consensus", although they do report it. They are encyclopedic articles, and of a special nature, largely because of our NPOV policy, which requires coverage of all significant aspects of a topic, unlike normal encyclopedias.
Secondly, those nice snippets are basically saying "duh". Those are not surprising or unique results, and are about the same results as would be expected if you pinched someone or scratched them. Acupuncture does actually touch the body. It affects the body. It's not Therapeutic touch, where hands are waved over the body without actually touching it. These are real effects, but they are non-specific responses to external influences on bodily tissues. This proves nothing special about acupuncture, and says nothing about any specific and unique results from a specific poke in a specific acupoint. There is no consistent, specific, and reproducible reaction from acupuncture which applies to everyone.
There do seem to be some generalized reactions, sometimes of a somewhat positive nature (pain relief), but nothing one can count on, or that could not be obtained by any other method which triggered endorphin production, and certainly not better than, or as strongly or consistently or reproducibly as any of several standard analgesic drugs. That electroacupuncture seems to have a stronger effect is also unsurprising, and it's NOT acupuncture. It's electrotherapy.
So, what specific wordings are you proposing to make to the article? This is all speculation about possible mechanisms, but it really adds nothing we don't already know, so do you have something specific and unique to acupuncture which is a new addition to the article? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously failed to read the articles above. Scientific consensus isn't "speculation". It's something we summarize and conform to. -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer, do you have anything aside from your own ponderings? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A1, those aren't statements of "scientific consensus", they are simple statements of evidence, and that evidence is not special. Anyone, even the most ardent skeptic, will admit that they are true statements. So "...acupuncture has an effect on the nervous system". Duh! Of course it does. Has anyone denied that? No. So "... treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue." Duh! Of course it does. Has anyone denied that? No. I could go on with each one of the statements.
This amounts to a two year old finding a penny and presenting it to its mother and thinking that it has found something which no one else in the world knows about, and now it thinks it has taught its mother about the existence of money. The mother says "Oh, what a pretty penny!" If that same child does this every day, all the way up into its twenties, the mother replies "Duh. This is getting old."
So, we need to know what you're getting at, because you haven't brought anything new or enlightening to the table. How would you use these statements in the article? Don't we already acknowledge that the body does sense when it is poked? I don't think we deny that fact. The body is sensitive to anything which touches it. Duh! So what. We need more than what we already know and what we already acknowledge in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love the smell of inappropriate use of sources in the morning. Here, we have promotions for acupuncturists at Mayo and Johns Hopkins being touted as representative of scientific consensus on acupuncture. The others are lay descriptions of acupuncture used to describe services that the scientific community still dismisses as being no more effective than a placebo. That certainly is a creative way to describe the sources, but hints at a strong desire to distort reality.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings is classified in PubMed as a review article, not a promotion piece. -A1candidate (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anywhere on that page where it's referred to as a "review article", but that's really beside the point. It is a RS, in the general sense of the word, but for what purpose in this connection? What you've quoted from it isn't really worth using, even if it was a "review article" which passed the criteria in MEDRS, so what are you proposing that we can do with it? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current scientific theories provide a basis for stating that acupuncture has an effect on the nervous system, but its effects cannot be explained with a single mechanism. -A1candidate (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A1candidate: you are seriously misrepresenting the NHS source. I only checked that one since I used it not so long ago and did not remember it conforming to your description. And so it does not. This gives me very little confidence that the rest of your edits may be taken at face value. Perhaps a specific proposal where we can all vet your use of sources would be better received? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from NHS exactly as it is stated on their website. If it looks different from what you last saw, that's because the page was changed last month. They update their articles evey two years, so you need to check with the newest version.
If you want a specific proposal from me, see Talk:Acupuncture#Protected_edit_request_on_20_July_2014_2. There's still no consensus over there, so your input is very much welcome -A1candidate (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said you messed up the copy/paste. Please read more carefully to avoid wasting the time of your fellow editors. You are misrepresenting the conclusions of that source; read it again to see how they treat the subject compared to your proposed use here. They do not conform. This is *never* appropriate. We must only and exactly provide a fair representation of the sources without cherry-picking or quoting out of context. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you are misrepresenting what I propose, which is that acupuncture stimulates the nervous system. That is exactly what the source says. -A1candidate (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that inserting needles under the skin has an effect on the nervous system, at least based on discussion above. Please strike or modify your above aggressive comment in accordance with WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) 2/0, I may be missing something, but I don't see A1 giving any worse than he's getting from you on the aggression front; you both sound exasperated, and it may be just a misunderstanding. The NHS page [38], as of today, indeed includes verbatim the quote "It is based on scientific evidence....". Is there some other dispute about that source that I'm missing? What misrepresentation are you referring to specifically? Forgive some entirely possible denseness on my side (literally; my sinuses are all too dense at the moment, and it's radiating to what's left of my brain), but I'm not understanding what A1C is proposing to do with the NHS source beyond simply citing or paraphrasing that quote. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh -- you mean that A1Candidate is overstating the degree to which the NHS source represents scientific consensus? If so: yes, I think that several of these sources aren't as close to meeting WP:RS/AC as A1C is suggesting. But the NHS source is an excellent MEDRS, one of the best, and I think there's room for disagreement over how close it is to representing sci consensus. A1C, I hope you're reading this as well: The problem, which Brangifer has imo correctly identified [39], is that there is no unified sci consensus on most aspects of acu (other than its not being an established treatment). That's why there's such a broad range of views, and so much polarization; the extremes at each end (in real life and on WP) piss each other off. That there are good reasons to use it as a complementary therapy for pain and stress is a mainstream view; that that same view is unsupportable is also a mainstream view. (Note I said "good reasons", which is a superset of "good evidence". Patients really liking it is an example of what many consider a good reason.) So I think it would be better for A1C to portray his sources not as representative of sci consensus, but as MEDRS's (many of them excellent ones) that we need to weight adequately, and so far haven't been (perhaps because editorial consensus has thus far been overaggressive about depicting acu as wholly fringe). A1C, would you consider not reaching quite so far? You're losing some editors by doing so, editors who are reasonable enough to (gasp) accept that we can use good MEDRS's that don't wholly dismiss acu. The fact that many of the sources you're presenting haven't been given more (or any) weight shows how excessively editorial consensus had tended to swing past skepticism into outright, undue debunking. We need less hyperbole all around. It's not hyperbole to say that A1C has found no more and no less than a bunch of MEDRS's, not all but some about as good as they get, that deserve proper integration and weighting. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Stimulating nerves does not mean it is effective. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the mechanism of action, not its effectiveness. -A1candidate (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; it's a different aspect of point specificity (which I'm sure the text of the article will make clear). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text is under the heading "Theory" not mechanism of action. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is referring to the theories about the mechanism of action -A1candidate (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that "acupuncture has an effect on the nervous system" some sort of great or new discovery? Has it EVER been denied? Is there any other possible "mechanism of action" when one touches or pokes the skin? (Hormones could also get involved, but that too is not specific.) I'm still not getting what this is about. It's still "duh", uninteresting, not unique, and not evidence for or against any claimed specific effects of acupuncture.
Please make a specific, precisely worded and sourced, proposal that isn't as foolish as the child with the penny, who is now twenty years old and is still presenting the same penny to its mother as if it has invented money. Please place your proposed edit here, in this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing a search for "mechanism" in the current version turns up not even a "penny"-type comment. We have:
  1. "TCM is pseudoscience with no valid mechanism" (in lede and body);
  2. "The most common mechanism of stimulation of acupuncture points employs penetration of the skin by thin metal needles";
  3. "[blah blah pseudoscience]... making many scholarly efforts to integrate evidence for efficacy and discussions of the mechanism impossible"; and
  4. "[blah blah NIH]... even if research is still unable to explain its mechanism."
Similarly unhelpful stuff (with respect to mechanism) appears when one searches for the syllables "nerv" and "neur" (including examples of what is massive undue weight to serious adverse events). And the section Scientific view on TCM theory is almost absurdly weighted to sources from the skeptic movement, and at any rate only mentions endorphins. We can do better than that! Even if a penny is all there is to be found (and there does appear to be more, e.g. point-specific neurological responses), readers at least deserve to know that the damned thing is round, shiny (for awhile), coppery, and a little bigger than a dime. Let's.... de-escalate a little in terms of confrontational approach. What's obvious to editors is not always obvious to the reader. A1Candidate has found some terrific ones, and I'd rather encourage them to keep at it. A1C, how would you do this? There's probably some stuff in those sources on fascia, no? There's stuff from Napadow and Kaptchuk.... a whole lot of stuff has been neglected, which is what happens when too few editors are involved. A1C and Brangifer, you're both great assets here; don't alienate each other. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fascia (connective tissue) is discussed in the consensus statement of the American Heart Association as follows:

In the manual form of acupuncture, the mechanism of effect appears to be through sensory mechanoreceptor and nociceptor stimulation induced by connective tissues being wound around the needle and activated by mechanotransduction.

PMID 23608661 -A1candidate (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added "The mechanism of action for acupuncture is still unclear.[170] Evidence suggests that acupuncture generates a sequence of events that modulate pain signals within the central nervous system.[170]" QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it without consensus. The source is from 2008 and is way past WP:MEDDATE. We have many newer reviews to use -A1candidate (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source you proposed adding to the article. I added this source because it meets MEDRS and it was not ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the newest reviews, which are not ambiguous. -A1candidate (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was the specific source you wanted in the article and now you don't like what the source said? I added the source that was specifically about the mechanism of action for acupuncture, which was not vague or confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was proposing to use it to replace the editorials only. I am not entirely against your edit, but I think it needs to be formulated in a different way. "Modulate pain signals" is an ambigous phrase that requires explanation. -A1candidate (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They, along with acupuncture researchers, explain the analgesic effects of acupuncture as caused by the release of endorphins, and recognize the lack of evidence that it can affect the course of any disease." There is an explanation in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorphins aren't pain signals. -A1candidate (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrhythmias

7 individual herbal therapies along with acupuncture and yoga have been studied and reported as having an antiarrhythmic effect:

Despite methodological shortcomings, these studies support acupuncture as an effective treatment for AF (atrial fibrillation), paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and symptomatic premature ventricular contraction

-A1candidate (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No specific explanation was given

No specific explanation was given to restore the poor evidence. The edit summary was "I see no consensus for deleting Mayo Clinic and AMA as sources (although the latter is pretty outdated)".[40] QuackGuru (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just say why you think the evidence is poor? You could have said so in your ES or in your post above. Anyway, I agree AMA is quite outdated, and I doubt anyone will mind removing it. But Mayo Clinic falls under Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other_sources as a good MEDRS. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other sources: "however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly."
We are citing high-quality Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews. There is no need to state the opinion of Mayo Clinic or other organisations. This is poor evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enough bad evidence meets MEDRS? Lots of marginal evidence would likely be construed as validation. Jim1138 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized it's under Acupuncture#International_reception and being used as an RS there not a MEDRS. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Acupuncture#International reception section should be about the international reception. What is the point with keeping poor evidence in the wrong section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not presented as evidence. Not any more than the commentaries by Quackwatch are -- and Mayo Clinic is certainly more mainstream than Quackwatch, I think, as RS go. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quackwatch is not being used in the International reception section. It is misplaced text in the International reception. It would not be acceptable to add to the effectiveness section because it is poor evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

User:QuackGuru just made a series of edits without consensus, which I reverted. You need to discuss each and every one of these editrs before adding them.

The Ice Man hypothesis is not supported by any scientific evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely comfortable with A1C's bulk reversion, but OTOH I wasn't comfortable with QG's making a whole bunch of edits at once. Some of QG's edits are fine, but others obviously need consensus, and they shouldn't be done all at once. This fundamentally goes to to WP:CONSENSUS. QG, please do them one at a time so that anything viewed as controversial can be handled per WP:BRD. Or better, seek consensus first for major changes. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) added last sentence 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hum deleting recent systematic reviews just because... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, he needs to do the edits separately from one another. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerng et al.

Jerng et al. 2014 was recently removed without explanation. This looks like a decent source to integrate with the existing #Fertility and childbirth section. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allergies

Several studies regarding allergies were recently removed. Can we come to a consensus on this text instead of edit warring about it? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Man

The Ice Man thing is decently well sourced, but I think it has been pretty well rejected. I would like to remove it unless we have more than the current small slice of scientific speculation. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source says: "Bizarrely, the ‘Ice Man’, who lived in the Alps about 5000 years ago, displays tattoo marks on his body which correspond to acupuncture points. To some experts, this suggests that an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago [15]."[41]
The source does not say it is speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&oldid=621522411"