Misplaced Pages

Talk:Acupuncture: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:29, 10 May 2015 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,094 edits →Is this a reliable source (ii)?: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:56, 13 January 2025 edit undoMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers238,208 edits Restored revision 1268192201 by MjolnirPants (talk): Empty requestTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|acu|brief}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}}
{{Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience|collapsed=yes}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}}
{{tmbox
{{Controversial}}
| type = content
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
| image = ]
{{WikiProject China|class=B |importance=Top }}
| text =
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=mid}}
'''Individuals with a conflict of interest''' (COI), particularly those ] the subject of the article, are '''strongly advised''' not to edit the article. See ]. You may , or ] if the issue is urgent. See also ].}}<!-- end tmbox -->{{#ifeq:NAMESPACE|{{ns:1}}|<!--Category removed here-->}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes}}
{{Trolling}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=B |importance=mid }} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top|attention=}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid }}
}} }}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Herbxue|Herbxue|editedhere=yes|declared=|otherlinks=}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Middle 8|Middle 8|editedhere=yes|declared=no, but see my comments|otherlinks=Middle 8's comments on COI ]}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 23 |counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d) |algo = old(20d)
|archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Acupuncture/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
Line 24: Line 27:
|target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Acupuncture/Medical acupuncture |target=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Acupuncture/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Acupuncture/Medical acupuncture
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
{{To do}}
{{tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|image = ]
|text = '''There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article.''' If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review ], as well as the ]. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by ], not by majority vote.
}} }}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{Clear}} {{Clear}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024 ==
== Ernst's review of reviews ==


{{edit semi-protected|Acupuncture|answered=yes}}
is certainly a very reliable source. However, we say multiple times in the article that it found that real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture for pain (presumably all kinds of pain). But I couldn't find any statement to this effect in the paper. Could someone point out where in this paper it says that real acupuncture is no better than sham acupuncture, with respect to pain in general? ] ] 14:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1
:{{cite journal|last1=Ernst|first1=E.|last2=Lee|first2=Myeong Soo|last3=Choi|first3=Tae-Young|title=Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews|journal=Pain|volume=152|issue=4|year=2011|pages=755–764|issn=03043959|doi=10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.004|pmid=21440191|url=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/50866673_Acupuncture_does_it_alleviate_pain_and_are_there_serious_risks_A_review_of_reviews/file/504635268b703595fc.pdf|format=PDF}}
{{collapse top|collapse long requested changeset}}
:"...but real acupuncture was no better than sham." Page 762. This is about "reducing pain" in general. ] (]) 18:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
'''Change X''' - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.]
::I came across a critique of this study which I think should be added in: and he addresses almost every aspect of Ernst's review of reviews. We have critiques by Novella and others of acupuncture studies throughout the article, yet we don't have one yet for probably the most cited source in the entire article. Where should we put this? ] (]) 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::A lot of reviews are critiqued but they are not MEDRS compliant. Nothing new here. ] (]) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually, we cite David Gorski critiquing reviews from a blog, Science Based Medicine. A blog like that isn't MEDRS, neither is Quackwatch. But we allow sources like these because they're not making medical claims. A critique of a review doesn't have to be MEDRS, unless it's actually making medical claims. So I don't see why we can't have this source if we're going to allow Science Based medicine to do the same thing. ] (]) 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Fringe journal. Falls afoul of ] for starters. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::The Acupuncture Today (Huntingt Beach) magazine or whatever is rubbish. ] (]) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::WP:FRIND could also be applied to science based medicine or Quackwatch. I don't think you guys can have it both ways. You can't critique only pro-acupuncture studies with the same level of sources as what you're disallowing. Should we remove the critiques from web blogs?] (]) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Not so, you're falling into the ] trap; SBM and Quackwatch are mainstream sources for fringe subjects and good for us; fringey journals are generally not useful. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, but a quick google search shows me that on the Acupuncture Today criticism of Ernst. While I disagree with your rationale, by it, I could critique Ernst from Acupuncture Today from SBM, but not directly from Acupuncture Today. So either way, the critique would go in. So how do we proceed fro here? ] (]) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::"In essence, Morris seems to be arguing that acupuncture is even less safe than Ernst ''et al''. depicted." I don't think this adds much to the page. ] (]) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::No, and especially not when a poor conclusion about Morris's article was drawn like this. But a statement like "“For data on efficacy, it doesn’t provide information about how the studies were controlled" would add quite a bit. ] (]) 22:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


'''to Y''' – .
{{outdent}} {{U|Everymorning}}, {{U|LesVegas}}, {{U|Alexbrn}} et. al. -- in context, one sees that QuackGuru's quote (real = sham) isn't a finding of Ernst's review of reviews, but rather the finding of one particular, high-quality trial which he believes is more accurate. See p.761, ''§4 Discussion'' (1st para suffices), and then 1st para on p.762. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment.
:Oh, you're right. Now the question is why do we have a primary source so prominently displayed? So you're saying this was discussed before? What was the argument there? If it was only that it was more accurate, that would seem to be a problem.] (]) 02:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023.
::"...but real acupuncture was no better than sham." This is a finding from the review. ] (]) 04:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
::: {{U|QuackGuru}} - Not in context, per . Don't '''<font color="crimson">IDHT</font>''' please. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
::: {{U|LesVegas}} - Yes, this has been discussed before, with the ] (note that QuackGuru joined it) being to use . But that wording was so awkward that editors kept (in good faith), changing the meaning. Good alternative suggestion: --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
::::This ''is'' a quote from the source: "...but real acupuncture was no better than sham." It is in context. ] (]) 05:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


'''Change X''' – ]


'''to Y''' – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk.
{{OD}}Middle 8 was commenting about ] rather than focusing on content regarding same sentences way back in July 2014. See . See ]. Months later, Middle 8 is continuing to argue over the same text. For example, Middle 8 is accusing me of even though I directly to ]. ] (]) 06:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:Who cares about >6 month old drama? I can link to hot stuff others have said too; so what? It has nothing to do with WP:ENC. You should stop trolling, and do as others are doing here, and focus on substance. This is a legit content dispute; it's a flawed consensus -- one that another editor brought up BTW -- and on WP we can and should revisit content to whatever degree necessary till we get it right. Alert editors will note that you're insistently quoting just one part of a sentence, and thus failing to address the issue of context (hence the IDHT). --] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


'''Change X''' – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.]
::This is really a mess. Ernst did not conclude that real acupuncture was no better than sham (but only alludes to it in a study) yet, not only do we say this in the article multiple times, (misleading the reader) but we also mislead editors here. Recently we had a long debate w/ Kww about this, and he was under the mistaken impression that Ernst concluded this and even wanted to exclude other research that was contrary to Ernst's "statement." Talk about an out of control snowball! How did it even get this way in the first place? And what do we do from here? Should we just delete this altogether? We could state it's an outcome from an RCT but that opens the door to using primary sources in the article, and I highly doubt editors here would like everyone to be doing that. But above all, we can't have primary research being quoted out of context as though it was a conclusion from a review. ] (]) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


'''to Y''' - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.”
{{OD}}Later in the paragraph Ernst ''et al'' states "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham". The review is not quoting other studies, but is their own drawn conclusion, not referenced to any specific source, but a statement of what they had found in reviewing the current evidence. As editors we have to adhere to follow what reliable ] sources say, not place our own ] interpretations on them. ] (]) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points.


'''Add Y''' – .
], I misinterpreted nothing. Ernst and Vickers both came to the conclusion that the difference between acupuncture's total effectiveness and the placebo effect for acupuncture was between small and non-existent. The only argument science has over acupuncture is whether it's ethical to prescribe a treatment that is primarily placebo on the off-chance that the small delta is an actual benefit instead of a statistical anomaly.&mdash;](]) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{U|Kww}}, nobody is debating what Ernst or anybody else thinks about the state of acupuncture research today, the issue is what did he say in his review of reviews spanning 2000-2009, when study controls weren't as sophisticated. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
::I already . Editors are not allowed to conduct their ]. ] (]) 01:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:::. See p.761, ''§4 Discussion'' (1st para suffices), and then 1st para on p.762. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


'''Add Y''' –
:I'm sorry if I misquoted you, or misremembered the conversation here a couple of months ago, Kww. But yet again, you interpret Vickers and claim 'science' says when it's not the case at all. One thing I do remember clearly from that conversation long ago was that you never commented on the Hopton/Macpherson source which stated that "since acupuncture is more effective than placebo shouldn't the research towards shifting research priorities away from asking placebo-related questions and towards asking more practical questions about whether the overall benefit is clinically meaningful and cost-effective?" anyway, back to current matters: what are we going to do about the misrepresented Ernst comments? ] (]) 01:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:: We need to correctly represent the CONCLUSION of Ernst's review, not quote his statement about a primary source. QG we've had this conversation before, and I recommend you carefully avoid misrepresenting the source. Do the right thing.] (]) 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Please read . This was a conclusion of the review not a primary source. As editors we don't read different paragraphs and come to own personal opinion of the review. We don't conduct our own review on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


'''Change X:'''
::::No, QuackGuru, you're linking to another time you IDHT'd and from now whenever you IDHT, I think you lose your all valid objection and don't count in a consensus tally. If you don't want to be ignored in future discussions, I suggest you do is the courtesy to not ignore us. And since nobody else sees things your way (because they don't IDHT everyone else) let me point out that we're no longer talking about if Ernst was making a conclusion about a large amount of research, we're moving on to the question of what do we do with these statements? To that end, I say we work to reword them appropriately. If we can't do that, then we need to delete them because we don't make references to primary studies. ] (]) 21:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
[Clinical practice
Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to


'''to Y:'''
Coming back to this discussion. First, ], my opinion about what people should study in the future isn't particularly relevant, but if you want it, here it is. Since research has adequately demonstrated that acupuncture is form of placebo, we should build on that to discover precisely ''why'' it is associated with such a strong placebo effect. What is it about the setting, the lies to the patient about mystic channels, the impressive looking needles or lasers, the impressive diplomas on the wall, that all combine to make the patient believe that he will feel better and how does that belief translate into something useful? When people discard the notion that acupuncture actually ''does'' anything they can begin to study something useful, because the key here is to learn how to control the patients' environment in a way that makes them feel better. It would be nice to know how to do that ''without'' lying to them.
Clinical Practice

Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles.
That whole paragraph on pg. 762 is worth parsing. {{quote box|These findings should be seen in the light of recent results from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Cherkin et al. have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture with a toothpick that does not penetrate the skin. All 3 forms of acupuncture, however, were more effective than usual care. The authors consider, therefore, that the benefits of acupuncture ‘‘resulted from nonspecific effects such as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm, or receiving a treatment believed to be helpful’’ . This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis examining the effects of acupuncturists’ communication style . Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham. Moreover, a communication style generating high expectations in patients resulted in improved outcomes compared to a normal style, regardless of the type of acupuncture administered. In the primary studies included in the systematic reviews evaluated above, the risk of bias was often considerable. Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain .}}
There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. ] (]) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question, "''Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham''" is a summary of Suarez-Almazor, not specifically Ernst's conclusion. That said, and the reason why I object to this mindless quote-pulling literalism we've allowed these articles to degenerate into, he does pull that ''particular'' conclusion as an important and representative conclusion, along with Cherkin's conclusion that he was dealing with a placebo effect, not a real effect. That, combined with his own prediction of what better controls would bring, makes it fair to characterize Ernst's ''personal'' conclusion as being that acupuncture is a placebo. It is not, however, the formal conclusion of the study.

If I were going to generate a lay summary of that conclusion, it would be "Ernst's efforts to come to definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture were frustrated by the poor quality of the underlying studies, but indicated to him that adequately controlled studies were likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain". &mdash;](]) 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
:There is some text in the lede and body about the placebo effects: "Some research results suggest acupuncture can alleviate pain, though other research consistently suggests that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo." If you think the article is lacking enough information about the placebo effects it would be better to use a source that specifically discusses the placebo effects such as the 2006 review. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x/full The ref citation is <nowiki><ref name="Ernst2006"/></nowiki>. ] (]) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{U|Kww}}, thank you for taking the time to read and parse that quote. I agree with your take on Ernst's intentions and summary. As far as I'm concerned you can go ahead and add it, and finally we'll have resolved this misrepresentation. {{tq|"Mindless quote-pulling literalism"}} -- phrase of the week. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The source said "Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain ." A "future" prediction is not current evidence. Literally what the source determined as of today is verifiable and current evidence.
:::], ], ], ],, and ] preferred the concise wording for the text. ] (]) 06:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::It's perfectly possible for competent editors to get this wrong at first. {{U|Kww}}'s reading, however, is essentially correct, and numerous editors who have read the source carefully have agreed. I'm not going to link to them all. Except one: ] . Apparently you no longer trust that editor's take -- and I'm sure you're not alone. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)<small>edited 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::::Having read both the source and now a decent amount of the debate on this, I not only agree with KWW's reading, but I think his suggested change is the absolute best anyone has suggested while this debate has been going on. Excellent work, Kww! ] (]) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to summarize these things (which we damn well should), then I suggest we take care of Ernst and Vickers together. "Ernst's efforts to come to definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture were frustrated by the poor quality of the underlying studies, but indicated to him that adequately controlled studies were likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain. Vickers later corroborated this view, finding that any specific effects of acupuncture were small in relation to the placebo effects". Then we can delete this long laundry list of individual studies.&mdash;](]) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{U|Kww}}, given how pointedly Ernst and Vickers have disagreed , saying they agree would do violence to both. (And while the laundry list can be condensed to, say, a table, some brief summary of the reviews shouldn't be removed, because unlike Ernst and Vickers, they're not just about pain. See also Hopton & MacPherson on chronic pain and Lee & Fan on PONV, who find for efficacy without significant caveats; I haven't seen you address either of these yet). So your formulation goes against both ] and WP:SYN. And again... if there were general agreement, we wouldn't be seeing (i) fresh RCT's undertaken by Stanford Univ etc., nor (ii) epithets like "quackademic" (and similar criticisms) thrown around by lesser MEDR's critiquing better ones, nor (iii) invited pro/con editorials. Kww, I'm honestly not how you concluded there was sci consensus here; who else has expressed your view that Ernst and Vickers substantially align, let alone that all tert sources do? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::P.S. And there is a WEIGHT problem (insufficient coverage of -efficacy views), when the article still (a) omits Hopton and (b) cites only the "con" editorial from ''Anesth. Analg.'' --] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC) <small>edited 17:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::Vickers believes the small effects plus the base placebo effect are worth paying for, but still categorizes the effects as small. The discussion of the ''ethics'' of paying for placebos is completely separate from the discussion of whether the effects are primarily placebo. Vickers confirmed Ernst's conclusion, in that he found that any specific effects of acupuncture were smaller than the placebo effects, and small in any absolute terms as well. I've got no problem highlighting the difference in value judgements in any summary, but that should not be used to obscure the fact that they were in alignment on the fundamental results. A disagreement about ethics and social policy is not a disagreement on the underlying science.&mdash;](]) 17:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Ernst said "This important analysis confirms impressively and clearly that the effects of acupuncture are mostly due to placebo" - which sounds like agreement in one direction. Did Vickers comment on Ernst? ] (]) 17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::On Ernst's original study, or to Ernst's response to Vickers. I'd have to dig around for quotes, but the main response I remember is similar to the argument I'm having with Middle 8, centering around Vickers's willingness to classify the small results as significant and worth paying for.&mdash;](]) 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Something that has small results and is still worth paying for seems contradictory. ] (]) 17:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::''(e/c's -- wow, active today)'' {{U|Kww}}, I get that there's some convergence; I do. And I agree we can add the points you make re the deltas, since they are echoed in some of the commentaries on Vickers. BUT... we can't ''only'' frame Vickers that way. Not only does he not say specific effects are ''clinically'' small, he doesn't say they're "small" relative to placebo: "smaller" (what Vickers' numbers show) ≠ "small" (your suggestion). To be specific, 5.75 isn't exactly "small" relative to 8 (and these are in fact his deltas in pain scores for back and neck). We need to present Vickers' conclusions the way ''he'' does (STICKTOTHESOURCE), and that's more than just an ethical difference.
:::::::Re Kww's proposal to remove the non-Ernst, non-Vickers stuff... to my & Les's counterexamples we can add (iv) responses like these to Vickers.
:::::::{{U|Alexbrn}}, here's to . Vickers' review itself also shows points of divergence, c.f. "BUT..." above. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Acupunct Med is a fringe journal. ] (]) 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{U|QuackGuru}} -- (a) Vickers' point is that the delta between verum and no-acu is the basis for the clinically relevant decision, not the delta between verum and sham. The former delta being greater than the MCID. (b) Per WP:SOURCES we can still quote experts even if their comments aren't in a great MEDRS. And we have parity with Ernst's comments since the latter weren't in a journal at all. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
By my reading Ernst suspects future will research will show that the small effect of acupuncture will be due entirely to placebo; Vickers that it won't. I'm not sure where that leaves us on whether or not these fellows disagree about the ''current'' state of knowledge. ] (]) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:Right, which is why I always center around summaries like "non-existent ''or'' small". No one thinks the difference is large, or that any future study will suddenly find a large delta. Vickers's conclusion that we should be focusing on no treatment vs. acupuncture instead of sham acupuncture vs. acupuncture is what I keep referring to as the ethical debate. Vickers is comfortable recommending treatment even in the cases where he is aware the treatment is primarily placebo, while others are not. I have my personal opinion about that, but the article should neutrally frame that as a debate over ethics, and not take a position as to which side is right. Unfortunately, people (including Vickers and Ernst themselves) allow that ethical debate to colour their debates over the statistics. Middle 8, it would be nice if you could link to a summary or analysis of Vickers's response that ''isn't'' hidden behind a paywall. The paper you link to appears to be a response to the wide range of vitriol that he received for his conclusion, and it's not possible from the abstract to specifically identify a response to Ernst himself.&mdash;](]) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::A free version's . ] (]) 19:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::OK, based on that: "Ernst's efforts to come to definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture were frustrated by the poor quality of the underlying studies, but indicated to him that adequately controlled studies were likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain. Vickers later corroborated this view, finding that any specific effects of acupuncture were small in relation to the placebo effects. Upon review of Vickers's results, Ernst concluded that Vickers had overstated the positive nature of the results and that instead of supporting the position that the results were small, they supported the position that the specific effects were, in fact, insignificant. Vickers rejects that analysis, stating that while the effects were small, they were clinically significant".&mdash;](]) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::For now I added the mainstream view per weight. See ]. ] (]) 02:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Not even close to consensus for that at this point. More later --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Actually, it may be OK as long as we cover other views (cf my comments above); mulling over. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I wasn't okay with using the fringe journal. I only added it because that is what editors wanted. In the future there will likely be a review covering the debate about the Vickers source and claims. When a better source is available in the future the fringe journal will probably be replaced. ] (]) 04:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Back to the issue of fixing the misrepresentation of Ernst's comments on real & sham: any more comments? Any reason not to reword per Kww above? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:What was misrepresented? Any reason not to reword per Kww above? See ]. ] (]) 05:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
::The version we have does confuse the conclusion of a study quoted in the review with the conclusion of the review itself. My summary avoided that, and it doesn't violate ]. You seem to believe that all summarization violates ]. Where did you get that impression?&mdash;](]) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I read and then added to the article what the source said. I could not verify what you originally proposed. ] (]) 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
::::That's interesting. What were you unable to verify? How could you read that source and conclude that Vickers did not reject Ernst's analysis of Vickers's paper, or that Vickers does not continue to claim that the acupuncture has a small but statistically significant effect?&mdash;](]) 05:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Current wording: "Edzard Ernst later stated that "I fear that, once we manage to eliminate this bias … we might find that the effects of acupuncture exclusively are a placebo response." Andrew Vickers, lead author of the original 2012 paper and chair of the Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration, rejects that analysis, stating that the differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture are statistically significant." Actually, a lot of what you wanted is already in the article. What was added was only sourced text. Not sure what you are proposing to change. What you originally proposed was too much editorializing. ] (]) 05:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::The bad text: {{!xt|"A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture..."}} Re which, this (per Kww): {{tq|The version we have does confuse the conclusion of a study quoted in the review with the conclusion of the review itself.}} Source: ; see p.761, ''§4 Discussion'' (1st para suffices), and then 1st para on p.762. ], ]: please comment if possible; notified ] already. Thanks very much, in advance. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::OK, Alexbrn has been heard from, and still agrees with the in-context reading of the source that led to the last broad consensus at WT:MED and on which all editors above, save one, agree. The question is then how to summarize the source based on this correct reading, and it looks like editors favor Kww's proposal. Any other comments before proposing specific edits to the lede and body? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=654755110&oldid=654727107 Alexbrn has been heard from, and now you are putting words in his mouth. He did not specifically comment about the current wording. Kww's proposal was not sourced to the review of reviews. ] (]) 18:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} None here. Just that I support Kww's wording entirely for the body. For the lede, though, I'm curious if there are any ideas on how to make it work per ]? Commentary on a hypothesis isn't something we usually use in ledes, yet I want to keep the peace around here so I'm not proposing omitting it altogether from the lede, unless other editors feel similarly. I just wonder how we're going to work it into the lede? ] (]) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
:Agree that a prediction isn't as weighty as a finding, but we can still mention it: it wouldn't be fair just to say Ernst was unable to reach a conclusion. What I think we should do in the lede -- as a replacement for the inaccurate text -- is (a) stick close to the source's conclusions that are ''stated as such'', and (b) define sham acupuncture. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::You have not shown the text is "inaccurate". Stating that Ernst was unable to reach a conclusion is original research. The article does define sham acupuncture. See ]. ] (]) 05:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Have you not read this thread? I briefly explained the problem and why it's persisted, and addressed a common objection.. And Kww parsed it in detail: ''et. passim''. Don't '''<font color="crimson">IDHT</font>''', please. If you have a rebuttal, please address these points using one of the top three tiers of ]. (P.S.: Paraphrasing isn't OR.) --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 00:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm not interested in addressing this in detail. We should not replace sourced text with OR. If you think the proposal is sourced then please try to verify the claim according to ]. There is information in the body with Vickers's response. See ]. ] (]) 01:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::: Obviously, the ]'s on you to justify keeping it. Since you're unable to do so, sounds like we have consensus to remove it then. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::I asked "If you think the proposal is sourced then please try to verify the claim according to ]." You proposed new wording and you were unable to provide V. Editors previously discussed the wording for the lede and body and did provide V a long time ago. See ]. ] (]) 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::And this (the part about the systematic review and sham) was the outcome of that discussion, which ] at the time. But as we've seen, that wording was so awkward that editors kept (in good faith), which completely undid said . Given your earlier agreement to change it, your insistence on keeping the current wording defies logic. We need some alternative that is faithful to the consensus you once supported, like , or something that gives proper weight in the lede to the numerous results that sham = real. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 02:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::], ], ], ], and ] preferred the more concise wording. We should not re-add overly detailed wording to the lede. ] stated that it does seem to be '''''a''''' conclusion Ernst is making and therefore citable as a source for that conclusion. The wording is just right. See ]. ] (]) 06:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Didn't you bring this up at Kww's Talk Page in last October, ] If I remember right, most of these "acts of support" were nothing else but blind reverts with no given rationale. Even back then, I notified you that what really counts is the quality of arguments; arguments, such as "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" carry no weight whatsoever.
I have to agree with Middle8 here. I think it's okay to proceed in this matter. Cheers! ] (]) 10:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree with Jay and M8 here. It seems clear that in accordance with PAG, QG is correct. ''It is not OK to proceed.'' -] (]) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::J-G is exactly right. It's easy to get this wrong at first, partly because the wrong answer is '']'': hence the blind reverts. But when one actually reads the , it's clear enough, assuming literacy. Only perhaps in the vaguest "spirit of the law" sense is the simple-but-wrong wording somehow OK -- and I'm cool with weighting null findings correctly i.e. strongly, but not with misrepresenting a source. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::It was too long at first to have the additional details in the lede. That was why it was eventually rejected. The shortened text is concise and therefore much better. ] (]) 00:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Not when "simplifying" = removing text so as to alter the meaning. But you know that, because you have a big to the accurate, and slightly longer, . And I can't wait for Roxy to explain how Kww and I and the rest of us are so wrong about this -- but perhaps he hasn't looked at it that closely; others have been fooled too. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 01:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Simplifying the wording improved the readability for the reader. Now that the text is no longer incoherent I don't understand why anyone would complain. ] (]) 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::So what's your real concern? Mentioning sham = real in the lede? Defining sham in the lede? We can do both without misrepresenting the source. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 11:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

== Lede ==

We have had repeated attempts to POV push the lede one way only and keep parity out. There have been strong objections to using Misplaced Pages's voice in edits like The sources used to back this claim up, don't suffice for "is pseudoscience". Why does it have to be a constant battleground full of edit warring? ] (]) 19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:Please don't add weasel words or original research to the text. We are using strong sources for the claims. ] (]) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::Weasel words like "is"?] (]) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:::To answer Les' question "''Why does it have to be a constant battleground full of edit warring?''" it is because we have to contain the excesses of advocates of acupuncture such as yourself. Also, you fail to understand why parity isn't an issue here. I suggest you read all the WP:PAG again before returning. Remember that with fringe and pseudoscientific subjects such as this, we are obliged to write from the mainstream pov, and while we are using good sources to illustrate the pseudoscientific aspects of Acu (all of it) we don't actually need to source the Pseudoscientific tag, as Arbcom has ruled that we can describe "obvious pseudoscience" as such. -] (]) 19:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::::@ {{U|Roxy the dog}} - AFAIK, Arbcom doesn't dictate PAG (anymore). Although the wording of WP:FRINGE/PS is derived from an Arbcom decision, it's only by community consensus that it remains; that's my understanding anyway.
::::That said: FRINGE/PS distinguishes among "obvious PS", "generally considered PS" and "questionable S" (and used to do so more clearly ). And there's a pretty strong PAG case for acu falling under "questionable science", cf. the guideline's criteria: (a) has a following (used in mainstream academic settings); (b) significant debate exists (over efficacy and when to use, efficacy itself being seen as a criterion for demarcation by e.g. Shermer). Also cf. Kww's comment below to QuackGuru below, 2nd para, re practice ≠ theory. Consequently, the "questionable science" designation has actually flown in a number of discussions, probably more often than "obvious" from what I've seen. Wonder what the estimable Hans Adler would make of this argument? Any wagers? :-) --] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed some tenses in the article. ] (]) 22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:], can you explain to me how can possibly be described as "tenses"? My first impression was that it was a blatantly deceptive edit summary, but I will extend you the courtesy of allowing you to defend it.&mdash;](]) 22:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::] I'm curious why you asked Jayaguru-Shishya about that edit, but didn't also ask QuackGuru about ] (]) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:::QG's summary at least included "wording". I agree, it was weak, and I should point out to ] that he needs to leave better edit summaries. It didn't seem to rise to the level of actively trying to deceive others as to what the contents of the edit were, though. JG's edit changed far more than "tenses", so that edit summary was worse than weak.&mdash;](]) 01:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Three times now with a completely inadequate ES for the same edit and despite being asked not to; it's getting GAME-y. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:I have reverted the tense change per my edit summary, also restored previous characterization. <code>]]</code> 04:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::It's not about tense -- "has been described" is adequate for present-day -- it's about using WP's voice. ] is a non-trivial judgement call, not a ]. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::You previously added (along with the past tense). Now you restored the . The past tense implies it is no longer pseudoscience. ] (]) 06:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::This is ''not'' an issue of tense. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "Has been described" is a perfectly good way to describe the situation where it continues to be described as pseudoscience. The issue is whether acupuncture is so clearly pseudoscience as to be stated as fact, or whether it can only be attributed. If you keep arguing about the wrong things, you can't persuade ''anyone''. Not even people inclined to agree with you.
::::In my mind, it's a demarcation issue. Acupuncture is clearly ''based'' on pseudoscience. If it has any effect at all, no one has put forth any credible scientific explanation for how it could have it (and please, don't anyone mention "endorphins" again ... that's not a credible explanation when people are claiming that it treats rhinitis and breech birth). However, the word "acupuncture" is also used to describe the procedure itself, not the underlying nonsense, which makes the statement "acupuncture is pseudoscience" a bit hard to parse. You need to work out something like "acupuncture is based on pseudoscience" before you can have a supportable statement that also parses correctly.&mdash;](]) 06:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::@QuackGuru - as Kww says, the grammar is fine. It's the ] tense and is not wrong, which is why I reverted. But simple present is just as good; it doesn't really matter. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::I prefer simpler wording for non-controversial facts. ] (]) 17:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As simple as possible, but not simpler, as the old saying goes. I could support "founded on pseudoscience", "based on pseudoscience", "derived from pseudoscience", etc.&mdash;](]) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I am not fully supportive of the current wording but I think Alexbrn was compromising with the wording. If you try to replace it with that wording you will get too much drama. Maybe if there were three refs at the end of the sentence to verify the claim the wording can be more straight forward. ] (]) 04:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

== Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine again ==

Quote from ]: ''An integral part of finding high quality sources is avoiding articles from journals without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A red flag that a journal article is probably not reliable for health claims might be publication by a publisher that has a reputation for exhibiting "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles. (See "References" section below for examples of such publishers.) Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE, or its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal). Determining the reliability of any individual journal article may also take into account whether the article has garnered significant positive citations in sources of undisputed reliability, suggesting wider acceptance in the medical literature despite any red flags suggested here.''

The source is . The previous discussion resulted in no consensus. See ]. ] claims require high-quality sources. It is usually better to use independent source. See ] and see ]. We are currently using better sources in that section. ] (]) 21:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

:As said, "Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine" is already used in the article (7 times, as far as I can count). Please do not edit war over the content that has already widely been accepted. Cheers and happy Easter, ]. ] (]) 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
::Perhaps those other seven references need to be removed as well. Care to individually justify precisely why we should consider these citations to be acceptable?&mdash;](]) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:::As Middle 8 pointed out, . This shows global consensus beyond the borders of this article, in places that aren't POV war zones. Kww, should we remove it from those articles too? And on what grounds? Lack of Medline indexing? MEDRS doesn't say that that's a clear reliability issue, only a possible one, and when you consider the journal's impact factor the protestations become moot. I have a better idea: if you can convince the MEDRS folks that we need to change MEDRS to read, "Sources are absolutely unreliable if they aren't Medline indexed" and, if you can do it, I will personally remove the source all over this article. We should focus our efforts on making our sourcing rules more clear instead of arguing ad nauseum about each source from partisan standpoints. ] (]) 02:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::No, it doesn't work that way. The appearance of a use of a journal somewhere else doesn't make it automatically RS for use in every case here. I started taking a look at that list of 84 uses, first one was as a primary source talking about animal studies, that should probably be removed; second was to describe the color of a substance bees make; third was one of two sources to support a general statement about some use people try to get out of a mushroom. A source can never be blanket "reliable" or "unreliable", you have to look at each proposed use in context. So, "84 uses" really holds absolutely zero weight here.<p>To answer, Yes, each and every use of that journal's use here should be reviewed here, and if that journal is being used to support a biomedical claim, it really needs to be addressed, possibly removed. <code>]]</code> 03:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I find it disappointing but not surprising that such a poor quality source has been used 8 times in this article. I'll take a look to see if the article can be improved by removing that poor source and the material that it supports. <small> That a journal should call itself "''Evidence Based'' Complementary And Alternative Medicine" is a source of endless amusement in this household. Imagine the excitement each month when the subscription arrives in it's brown envelope, the anticipation mounts as the package is ripped apart, the glossy well illustrated (normally a happy Merkian family eating salad) cover has so much promise, but when opened ... all the pages are blank.) </small> -] (]) 10:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::No, Zad, it doesn't work that way either. There is no consensus to remove the source. It's currently subject to an edit war. We need to go about it another way, either an RfC (which likely won't show consensus, either) or, better, what I suggested which was an amendment to MEDRS. Why not get that through? ] (]) 12:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::"Consensus" must be based on arguments grounded in policy and guideline. 100 !votes or supports that aren't grounded in content policy and guideline carry no weight at all, and can be overturned by the first argument that is. Regarding your MEDRS suggestion, you still aren't actually connecting to what I and others are saying. You should read through the archives at ] regarding previous discussions about how MEDRS should address being indexed (or not) in MEDLINE and other services. Getting MEDLINE-indexed is a particularly ''low'' bar, as there are a lot of not-particularly-great journals that are indexed. One way to think of this is that if a journal is not MEDLINE-indexed, that puts the journal in doubt to start, and a strong case must be made for it using other parameters. An impact factor of 2.175 does not in any way make it "moot." <code>]]</code> 16:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::But Zad, you're a smart guy. If we are to only use sources indexed in Medline, MEDRS should say so. It doesn't. So there is no policy or guideline that this is violating. It's just another silly edit war, really. ] (]) 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Your responses continue not to connect to the points being made and so I am disinclined to continue the conversation. We'll start with the weakest use of inappropriate sources. <code>]]</code> 17:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:I did look at the MEDRS talk archives, but that's not a policy or guideline. Come on, if it's really a terrible source only because it's not in Medline yet, then it stands to reason it would be easy to change MEDRS to say that sources not in Medline are absolutely unreliable. Why is it that hard? And for the record, it's you who haven't addressed that question. Yes, MEDRS says that if its not Medline indexed, that's a possible red flag, but not a red alert. A red flag is only a warning to investigate further, not for supporters of the source to have to make a strong case for, and be dismissed for arbitrary reasons, all of which MEDRS says nothing about (like impact factor not being high enough). ] (]) 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::Actually, I would like to point something out. Here is MEDRS's language, in full:
::'''Other indications that a biomedical journal article ''may'' not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE, or its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal).'''
::Please note the word 'may', which MEDRS emphasizes in italics. Please also note the second part about "a journal's normal scope" and ask if Western biomedical journals like Nature or JAMA, prestigious as they are, are more appropriate than a CAM journal? Or should we only have acupuncture journals in an acupuncture article? How strict are we really going to choose to be with applying MEDRS? ] (]) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I think it's reasonable to be extremely strict with sources that promote magical thinking. It bears repeating that there is no such thing as "alternative medicine": when there is sufficient evidence that something works, it's just "medicine".&mdash;](]) 18:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Why then did you want an allergy meta-analysis showing reductions in serum IgE deleted, even though it was published in an excellent journal.? Was it the magical thinking aspect or the medicine you objected to? ] (]) 19:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Les, go and try this on with the medics please, and see what happens. Let us get on with editing the article. Believe me, it wont fly. -] (]) 19:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Wow! Viking dog? Why the change? Or was it a metamorphosis? By the way, you misspelled "own" as "on", but I'm not about to squabble with a freaking Viking Dog over something as paltry as spelling. ] (]) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Refresh my memory, Les. There are so many dubious studies being crammed into this article that I can't reproduce my objections to each one from memory.&mdash;](]) 20:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Sure, Kww. Here was your comment:
'''This is an example of precisely why I think having this rack of individual studies distorts the POV of the article. If this new study had documented the prevailing view on acupuncture, would there have been such a rush to add it? I think not. Instead, because it takes the unusual point of view that jamming needles into one's body will impact the immune system, it gets presented here, well in advance of the remainder of the scientific community having an opportunity to examine and reject it.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)'''
And:
'''And while we wait, we get another advertisement for acupuncture. Funny how that works. I would suggest that we remove it unless and until it is confirmed by supporting studies.&mdash;](]) 05:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)'''
Anyway, their findings were real medicine if I've ever seen such a thing, even showing serum changes with extremely low P's. If memory serves me correctly, not only did you support deleting the source, you then attempted to have me and a few others topic banned for supporting it. ] (]) 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::I'll stand by my comment: if that study attracts supportive comments from reputable journals it's fine. If it had come to the prevailing conclusion (i.e., that jabbing needles into people doesn't have any particular effect on rhinitis), no one would have been eager to include it the moment of publication. The only reason that there ''was'' a push to include it so rapidly was because it came to the opposite conclusion. It's not that the source was unacceptable, it's that the inclusion was premature. It's been several months. Any interesting letters to the editor or similar responses that take any note of this study?&mdash;](]) 21:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::By the way, LesVegas, it's your support of pseudoscience that I believe should cause you to be banned from Misplaced Pages entirely. This particular study doesn't weigh heavily on that opinion one way or the other.&mdash;](]) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I guess it's too bad for you Arbcom saw differently, and you were roundly lambasted for bringing such a case to them. But anyway, just to be clear, where in MEDRS does it say anything about premature inclusion of meta-analyses, or that it needs letters to the editor? I'll find the letters if you find the MEDRS stipulation where we remove such sources. And not to change the subject, but we changed the subject. I was just asking editors here about where MEDRS requires journals to be indexed. Do you have anything to say about that? ] (]) 21:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::MEDRS is a minimum bar, and not the only criteria to be used. As for Medline, it mentions it solely as a red flag. That does shift the burden to people that wish to include it. As for an Arbcom decision that automatically brings all alternative medicine topics under that scope of discretionary sanctions, that was the best that I expected. That people are unwilling to block all pseudoscience advocates is a shame, but I recognized that aspect as a Hail Mary play. It would improve the lives of everyone on the project and the lives of everyone using Misplaced Pages as a source, but some apparently consider constant conflict to be preferable.&mdash;](]) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Hindawi is not on Beall's list of predatory publishers. Also, EBCAM has an impact factor assigned by JCR, something not typically associated with disreputable journals. ] ] 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Good point, {{reply|Everymorning}} if I remember correctly, there was already discussion about the same thing, maybe somewhere in between 6 and 12 months ago? :-P ] (]) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::::], haven't you been ranting about that same stuff at Arbcom you've made, not to mention the false administrative warnings over the subject. Time to drop the stick, don't you think? With due all respect, nobody is interested in your opinion. Please ]. Cheers! ] (]) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I was replying to a direct statement on the topic, JG. I'm certain that you are uninterested in anything I have to say, and there's no reason to repeat that, either. I do promise to give anything you have to say the consideration it deserves.&mdash;](]) 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

::::::], you mean the editors you asked to be banned in your Arbcom case Let me see, you said that: {{quote|My view is diametrically to John's: that it is our role as administrators to actively detect the users that are attempting to block a reflection of scientific consensus in the article, block them as appropriate, and help provide an environment that will allow our scientifically-minded editors to prevail. I would resolve this problem by blocking or topic-banning LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, A1candidate, and, indeed, any and all editors that attempted to portray acupuncture as having medical legitimacy.}}
::::::I'd be careful if I were you, ]. You are continuing to make similar claims as you did in your Arbcom case that ''did not succeed''. There's a long list of such accusations even before that. As an admin you should know better. Please do throw your own considerations into the corner and focus on improving the article instead. Cheers! ] (]) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I do focus on improving the article. Please follow indentation standards, BTW: replies indented one step in relation to the comment they are replying to, inserted after the last thread that is ''also'' a reply to the same comment. LesVegas's comment at 21:05 is a reply to me, your comment at 20:37 was a reply to me, and the comments in between are at least indented to appear as if they were a reply to one of my subsequent comments (although it seems that they may not be). You should note that the Arbcom decision did make all alternative medicine articles subject to discretionary sanctions, which was a substantial step in and of itself. The next issue is to make those sanctions effective in reaching the goal set for all alternative medicine and pseudoscience articles on Misplaced Pages: that the article should reflect the scientific point of view on the topic, and take note of other views as existing, but not as being of equal merit.&mdash;](]) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::@KWW. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. -] (]) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
KWW I don't think it is appropriate for an admin to be putting editors that disagree with you into a category and seeking to silence them. If JS, A1, or Les Vegas individually violated sanctions or are trying to push edits knowingly violating our sourcing guidelines (like QG, Tippy Goomba, and Dominus Vobisdu have done), that would be one thing. But this is the second time you have suggested wholesale banning of people your perceive to have similar POV's that are counter your own. It is not justifiable to say that because they agree in disagreeing with your reading of certain sources that means they are somehow behaving inappropriately or violating WP policies. ] (]) 21:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
:I don't argue with anyone that disagrees with me over the reading of certain sources. I argue with editors that consistently attempt to incorporate material that portrays pseudoscience and mysticism as being based in fact, as such material is completely incompatible with the notion of an encyclopedia. It's been a consistent stance of mine, dating to before my adminship, and is much wider than acupuncture. There's no reason to tolerate editors that use Misplaced Pages to elevate such things.&mdash;](]) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
::We're getting off-track relative to article content. I'm still dubious about EBCAM but LesVegas's point about pay-to-play -- i.e. that it's used in non-predatory contexts -- weighs, along with EBCAM's having been accepted in the past, and the fact that it's not on Beall's list. Thoughts? --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 00:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC) <small>typo fixed 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::The section is long and we are using Cochrane reviews among other independent reviews. We can use high-quality sources going forward. ] (]) 01:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:::: KWW if you want to talk about banning people, please cite specific instances of them acting inappropriately, instead of unfairly casting very different individuals in the same light.] (]) 03:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::: Please, let's take non-article discussions to a user talk page. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 06:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, I agree. I don't even know how we got so off-topic. Regarding QG's objection, I agree that the section is a bit long, but then again, it is low back pain so if any section needs to be longer than all others, this is the one. The review Everymorning added was from 2015 so it's topical and relevant and if we're going to trim it would be better to take out older sources. Alexbrn objected that it's a fringe source, but I don't see that the argument has been made that MEDRS supports this idea. However, if anyone can find a policy or guideline statement that states otherwise, please post it here. Going forward, I think eCAM is a useful source and, since it deals in CAM topics, it might provide information that we can't find anywhere else. ] (]) 17:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::A non-MEDLINE indexed source devoted to fringe medicine has sufficient red flags that I would think the presumption would be that it is not a reliable source. When studies have sufficient merit to be included in journals devoted to medicine, they will appear there.&mdash;](]) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::: rather there any source for a mature lengthy article. See ]. ] (]) 17:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I have to agree with Kww and QuackGuru here: eCam is not a MEDLINE indexed source, and therefore it sure does raise red flags. According to ], though, this does not mean that the source would be unreliable. Instead, it means that one should look further into the source. That's a good cautious procedure we should embrace.
::::::::When we examine eCam a bit closer, we can rest easy: it is not on the Beall's list — a list mentioned at ] — that describes publications "''by a publisher that has a reputation for exhibiting "predatory" behavior"''". And like Everymorning well noticed earlier, eCam has a JCR assigned impact factor.
::::::::Summa summarum, 1) the source raised red flags (investigated), 2) it was not by a Beall-listed publisher "''that has a reputation for exhibiting "predatory" behavior''", 3) it has an impact factor assigned by JCR, and 4) the source is completely MEDRS compliant. Cheers! ] (]) 15:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::You didn't address the oxymoronic title or its inappropriate focus. Saying it is "completely MEDRS compliant" would appear to be a personal opinion.&mdash;](]) 21:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}Given that even if the journal met MEDRS it would be a poor one, I'm not sure why editors are arguing in favor of it when we have many unambiguous MEDRS that address the same topics. It's also unclear to me why absence from Beall's list is being cited as a point in its favor - it's a very low bar (the list is about questionable business practices, rather than being directly related to quality), and we have a statement from Beall himself published in Nature that it doesn't clear the bar by that much. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Well, not being on Beall's list is simply one point amongst several. You have to look at the many favorable aspects, one being a Thompson Reuters impact factor as well. JCR won't assign impact factors to journals that are predatory. It's used throughout Misplaced Pages with no contention anywhere I've seen, except here. ] (]) 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

::Impact factor is not a very useful metric, as we discussed before, but feel free to raise this at ]. Just ''having'' a JCR impact factor is also an extremely low bar, requiring only the "basic publishing standards" such as publishing on time, articles having references, and peer review. Exclusion of journals is typically only due to questionable citation practices (and predatory journals can definitely get included), so we return to the same point; I'm not sure why editors are arguing in favor of it when we have many unambiguous MEDRS that address the same topics. Unfortunately, it is very common for unacceptable sources to be used widely across Misplaced Pages before they can be removed - there actually used to be a "Long-term cleanup" section at the top of ] that was used for this sort of thing. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 04:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

== Citation needed - Quality of Cochrane ==

If we are telling readers that Cochrane Reviews are "high-quality", we should provide an appropriate citation.__] (]) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:I have removed your unneeded CN tag. it isn't needed, so please don't place it again. thanks. -] (]) 09:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:"Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of '''high quality'''." ] (]) 09:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::The source you quote is a primary source and should not be relied upon as indicated by ]. It requires a secondary source. Please replace the CN tag.__] (]) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Per my comments above, no. -] (]) 09:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Review. ] (]) 09:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Calling a ] review "high-quality" is kind of ]; if sourcing is insisted on it need only be light-weight for such an uncontested label. I don't think sourcing is necessary. ] (]) 09:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I repeat, this is a primary source. It is like an experimenter saying in an experimental paper, "I have found X" and me including it in the article. ] would not allow this. It needs a secondary source to review the information about the strength of quality of Cochrane reports. The quality/existance of Cochrane might be obvious to some subject-experts, but it would not be obvious to many non-experts. In fact, I would imagine many non-experts have not even heard of Cochrane. I must say I am a little surprised to see such knee-jerk opposition to a suggestion that would only improve the strength of the article for the sake of providing one more source.__] (]) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I repeat, this is a review. ] (]) 09:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::The url provides a list of reviews. Just so we do not get distracted, please can you specify which review you are referring to. I really am surprised by this response. I had expected a flurry of responses from the medic guys providing overwhelming evidence of the high quality of Cochrane.__] (]) 09:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Acupuncture for pain: an overview of Cochrane reviews.
:::::::Lee MS, Ernst E.
:::::::Chin J Integr Med. 2011 Mar;17(3):187-9. doi: 10.1007/s11655-011-0665-7. Epub 2011 Feb 27. Review.
:::::::PMID: 21359919
:::::::Related citations ] (]) 09:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for that. The review states "Cochrane reviews have the reputation for being more transparent and rigorous than other reviews" Surely this is a primary source when used to make a statement about the quality of Cochrane. What we should be providing is a source which reviews papers that assess the quality of Cochrane reports and indicates the statement is correct. This is what ] guidelines indicate.__] (]) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::If we've already got ] open, note that it says "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality" right in there, so it's already in the Guideline, a cite isn't needed. <code>]]</code> 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For grading the quality of evidence (''high quality'', ''moderate quality'', ''low quality'', and ''very low quality''), please see the . Cheers! ] (]) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::@Zad But if we are to be using the WP:MEDRS guidelines as the support for this, it is like citing WP articles as sources, which we all know is inappropriate. A statement has been made that Cochrane articles are "high quality". The community needs an independent, external secondary source to support the contention that Cochrane reports are high quality...that is what WP:MEDRS requires.__] (]) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not to be a stickler Zad (and I don't edit this article much), but in your quote it specifically says "generally" (meaning not always but usually the case). Normally, I have zero issues with the claim of Cochrane reviews being high-quality (and I certainly agree that they are). However, a Cochrane review on a separate topic (the whole ] debate) generated significant controversy and was opposed by numerous scientific bodies with respect to that specific issue. Just some reminders that Cochrane isn't perfect and perhaps shouldn't always automatically get a free pass on being high-quality just because it comes from Cochrane. I have no specific comments to offer about the cited Cochrane review itself but I don't see a compelling reason for Lee's review of reviews cited above not to be reassuring to DrChrissy since it says right in the abstract "Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of high quality." Also, please note that I'm also not saying that the oseltamivir Cochrane article wasn't high-quality (but their methodology was questioned by several opposing medical bodies during the controversy). The source of information should always be questioned and critiqued regardless of what journal it comes from, what collaborative group it comes from, etc. and evaluated for its merit so I don't agree with the spirit of it's Cochrane, therefore it's automatically okay, but I think you're on the verge of making a mountain out of a molehill on this one DrChrissy and I think your concerns have been adequately addressed. ] (]) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks for this insightful comment. I really am not trying to make a mountain here. Earlier today, I read the ] article (for the first time I think) and I baulked when I read that a WP editor had written the articles reviewed were "good-quality". I wanted to know who said they were "good-quality". I realised that the writers of the review article described them as "good quality" but then got to thinking "it's a primary source of this view". If I was to write a WP article on Animal Intelligence and I wrote "There was a review of articles written in Animal Behaviour which the author described as good quality...." I think you would question this and deem it to be a primary source. Is this not the case? Is it not simple enough to find a secondary reference which states that Cochrane reports are good quality -- that is really all I am asking...not even ALL Cochrane reports.__] (]) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I already explained above the wording is accurately sourced using a ] review. ] (]) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
{{OD}}], you wrote "Calling a ] review "high-quality" is kind of ]; if sourcing is insisted on it need only be light-weight for such an uncontested label. I don't think sourcing is necessary." Actually the source verifies the claim. See "Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of '''high quality'''." ] (]) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, and while Zad is correct that MEDRS states Cochrane reviews are high quality (and in many cases they are) we cannot cite a claim that they're "high quality" with a WP source. What we can do is use Cochrane reviews, and even give them higher weight versus a source that's less well known/established. But everything must be verified. And, yes, for the record, Cochrane reviews are great sources, but I've seen specifically with acupuncture research they're not the final word by any means. They currently seem unaware of acupuncture specific reporting standards adopted by CONSORT, for instance, and they take in plenty of sources which are unaware of these as well. Anyway, Cochrane is great, but we're misleading the reader if we act like Cochrane is the voice of God. And, just to be clear, we verify everything else on the page, even no-brainer statements like "it aims to treat a range of conditions," so the "high-quality" nature of Cochrane should get no special treatment. ] (]) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::This is not about what MEDRS states. This is about what the review states. The objection was the review did not verify the claim but the review does verify the claim. ] (]) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Correct, Lee's 2011 review of reviews cited above unambiguously states that the Cochrane reviews it reviewed were all of high-quality. A review of reviews is certainly a secondary source that meets ] and is certainly a strong enough source for a relatively uncontroversial claim. That really should be the end of the matter. ] (]) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::A review of reviews is not a secondary source if it states that the papers it reviews were good quality withour an independent source to verify this - who else says they were good-quality?. I can not believe this guys - you are all intelligent and articulate; if this is so obvious to you, why not simply provide a suitable secondary source or even a second primary source and the non-experts (me) will scurry back under their rocks satisfied, but none the wiser why this was such a problem for them!__] (]) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Right, they are "high quality" according to Lee, not according to God. It should be attributed, i.e., "the Cochrane reviews were high quality according to Lee.." We attribute and don't use Misplaced Pages's voice for claims of any kind. ] (]) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::DrChrissy, are you suggesting we need a review of a review of reviews? That sounds over the top to me. How Misplaced Pages defines primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary can be seen here ]. Secondary sources review the primary studies and then discuss the strength of the evidence (e.g., a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluates those RCTs (the primary sources doing the original research of interest) and determines the strength of evidence after evaluating all of them, accounting for biases & methodology, etc etc). This does not seem different to me as a review of reviews since it appears to me to be a secondary source reviewing other secondary sources (which sounds like a tertiary source not a primary source). Your concern seems to strike at the heart of defining primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources. According to Misplaced Pages, here is how we define primary sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." My read of that would be if the Cochrane review itself said something to the effect of our review is high-quality, then that would be a primary source account of it being high-quality whereas if another independent source (e.g., different authors, etc) reviewed the Cochrane review and said yeah, this Cochrane review was high-quality (as done in this 2011 Lee review of reviews), then that would be a secondary source account of it being high-quality. If anything, it's probably a tertiary source as it seems to fit Misplaced Pages's definition of that as seen here: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." This review of reviews is summarizing secondary sources (Cochrane reviews that are reviews of primary sources). So, I really don't agree with the interpretation of this being a primary source for the claim of the Cochrane review being high-quality. Are you saying a review of Lee's overview of reviews is needed that has to say something like "According to Lee in his review of reviews, the Cochrane reviews were all of high-quality. We agree with this assessment."? I might agree with you if Lee or Ernst were one of the authors of the Cochrane review being reviewed... ] (]) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Apologies for banging the same drum but if this is such a non-problem, why doesn't someone simply supply a second source (secondary, primary, tertiary, quaternary...whatever) confirming these specific reviewed reports were high quality - I will then disappear in a puff of total confusion.__] (]) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you understand the current source being used is a review and does verify the claim? ] (]) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::QuackGuru, why are you IDHT'ing again? I would think you would be on better behavior with an Arbcom pending against you at the moment. Why have you failed to address the points Dr Chrissy and I have asked? Namely, that it is secondary for some purposes, primary for others. It was not a review on Cochrane, so it's not secondary for Cochrane. It's secondary for the data Lee/Ernst studied. Please observe TylerDurden8823's behavior and take note of how he addresses points and, even though he believes a mountain is being made from a molehill, note how responds to the concerns addressed. That is good behavior to follow in a dispute. IDHT'ing isn't. If you are going to actually start following policies, of all times, now would be the ideal time to do it. ] (]) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::...DrChrissy, did you read any of what I wrote? The Lee review does confirm that these reports are high-quality. No further confirmation beyond that is necessary. ] (]) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, I did read what you wrote and I have to say, starting a comment like that is a little inflammatory. There can be no denial that the Lee review states the reports were high quality ("All of these reviews were of high quality"). However, this is the opinion of the authors. You stated above that the Lee review "confirms" the reports are high quality, which means this has been written elsewhere. Where has it been written elsewhere, please?__] (]) 09:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well, try to put yourself in my shoes and read your comment after what I posted and you'll see how it could be a little frustrating. I genuinely did not know if you read what I wrote. I'm not trying to be inflammatory but perhaps you're also being a bit sensitive. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. A review of reviews is more than adequate. Of course it's the opinion of the authors, but the point is that the authors writing that opinion are not the authors directly involved in the primary research (or secondary research since they reviewed Cochrane reviews in this case) so their opinion is therefore secondary (i.e., they're reviewing the Cochrane reviews of interest). I disagree that we need another source to confirm or analyze Lee's evaluation. We do not need a third source saying that Lee's evaluation of the Cochrane articles as high-quality was a sound judgement and that they echo that sentiment. As I mentioned earlier, when we use secondary sources (e.g., lit reviews, systematic reviews, etc) they review primary sources and evaluate them for quality, etc and we often use those secondary sources to summarize what they say about the primary literature that they reviewed (e.g., a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded (based on its review of primary literature) that there is strong evidence (due to the high-quality methodology of the reviewed primary studies) that green is not the same color as blue). We use secondary sources in this manner all the time. The same principle applies here except this source is reviewing other secondary sources (reviewing Cochrane reviews which are themselves secondary sources). No additional sourcing beyond Lee is needed. For me, I'm considering the matter closed as I do not see any evidence that this is a primary source in any way and it confirms the uncontroversial claim of the Cochrane reviews being high-quality. ] (]) 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::OK. So, if I was to write "An overview of high-quality Association of Animal Behaviour reviews suggested that dogs are less intelligent than cats" - would you accept that statement?__<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::If you were a recognized expert on the subject, published an evidence-based analysis like that in the form of a literature review on the topic, and did so in an appropriate journal, then yes. ] (]) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Which leaves the obvious question "Who is an expert?" How do I know that Lee (et al.,) are experts?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::It's well known for example that Ernst (2nd author of this review of reviews we're discussing) is an expert in the area of complementary and alternative medicine. I'm not personally familiar with Lee but I'm sure it's not difficult to verify his expertise. This also sounds more like a semantic argument now asking for the definition of an expert rather than questioning the credibility of the article itself. If you require verification of Lee's expertise, you can find an example of it here: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/european-journal-of-integrative-medicine/1876-3820/editorial-board/myeong-soo-lee ] (]) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

== Use of edit summaries and uncivil behaviour (reintroduced) ==
] recently reverted an edit of mine and left the following edit summary "Dr. Chrissy needs to read wp:RS to brush up his primary sourcing." The ] states "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved.". Furthermore, ] left no discussion of this reversion on Talk page. I also object to the incorrect useage of my username. This is becoming uncivil behaviour__] (]) 12:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC).

'''Note:''' I previously posted the edit above here however, Zad68 deleted my edit without discussing this first - simply leaving a note at my Talk page hardly constitutes "discussion". This is extremely disruptive and uncivil. Please do not edit/delete my edits again without discussing them first. I have explained on my Talk page that I am following advice given in ] which states "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! '''If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there.''' This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." (my bold). Zad68, I consider this editing/deletion of my edits to be uncivil behaviour. Please stop immediately. For anyone else considering deleting or reverting this edit, I will deem this also to be uncivil behaviour.
__] (]) 17:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:Roxy, I happen to see how DrChrissy could view that edit summary comment as impolite and condescending and I agree that such a comment has no business in an edit summary. You should refrain from such behavior in the future as such comments serve no purpose but to inflame editors and create an unnecessarily tense atmosphere instead of a collaborative and respectful one as discussed on ]. This does seem to be an ongoing pattern of behavior despite numerous editors talking to you about this and many statements from you that you will work on these behaviors. Please refrain from further impolite or condescending comments. ] (]) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

== Acupuncture as pseudoscience again ==

I find it weird that the lead merely says that acupuncture "is described as a type of pseudoscience" while the "Conceptual basis" section flatly refers to it as "a type of pseudoscience". I think we should try to resolve this discrepancy, perhaps by removing the part in the conceptual basis section described above. There are sources that say that acupuncture is not pure pseudoscience--for example this book says that it was considered pseudoscientific in the past but now there is plausible scientific evidence for its effectiveness. Thus I don't think it's appropriate to say that acupuncture is pseudoscience as if it were an undisputed fact. ] ] 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:Agreed. As a matter of fact, for the sake of parity, we should even include that source in both the lede and the body. ] (]) 00:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::Actually, as I'm reading the source now I think it contains better parity than what we currently have in the lede in and of itself: "The claim that acupuncture is medically effective has in the past been declared a pseudoscientific claim (by e.g. Sampson, et al) (1991)), but we now have some plausible scientific evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness. (Achilles 1996, Jones 2002.)" The problem with the current wording in the lede, "many within the field of science view acupuncture as quackery" is the context, both before and after it. Here is how the source reads, in full:
::'''Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization8 as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of sci- ence view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.”4,9–14 It seems some- what naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions.''' Should we modify the lede to say "many within the field of science naively believe"? That wouldn't be popular, but that's what the source ''means''. The claim does not verify the in-context source in that instance whatsoever. Further, we have the "borderlands science" quote by two individuals who are not notable enough to be in the lede. In my opinion, the best way for parity is to use the Routledge source. ] (]) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::No one has ever demonstrated a mechanism for acupuncture to be effective beyond placebo, scientific consensus is that the primary effects of acupuncture are placebo effects, and there's nothing about being a placebo that would contradict the statement that it's pseudoscience. Homeopathy certainly has some placebo-based benefits as well, and I would hope no one here is dishonest enough to claim that homeopathy isn't pseudoscience.&mdash;](]) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::There have been plenty of sources that have demonstrated that it's effective, high quality ones too, but you either keep deleting them or ignoring them. And I thought QuackGuru was the only one with an IDHT issue! ] (]) 02:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::The two primary reviews of effectiveness for acupuncture (Ernst and Vickers) both conclude that any actual effect of acupuncture is smaller than its placebo effects, and the conclusion that there is any effect at all is widely attacked as an artifact of Vickers's biases. There are some outliers (the one I find most hilarious is the study that purports to demonstrate that moxibustion cures breech birth), but you'll have to point out the one that demonstrates that there's a plausible ''mechanism'' beyond placebo. At best. there's some handwaving studies that can't conclude anything stronger than "suggesting" a possible mode that requires "further study". Precisely what is the explanation for how jabbing someone with a needle could effect his allergies that doesn't involve qi, yin, yang, meridians, or similar pseudoscience?&mdash;](]) 02:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Affect (not effect)...just saying. Continue debate. ] (]) 02:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Kww, why do you keep failing to address, for instance, which you have been shown several times now? There's more like it, too, Kww, and you keep ignoring evidence. I just looked on Pubmed and only found one study within the last year which had negative findings for acupuncture and the rest (20+ or so) were positive. Look, it's okay to have an opinion here. Everyone does. But we quote sources, not delete the ones we don't like for no other reason than "I don't agree". That is ] to a T, and you're better than that. ] (]) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::By the way, Kww, is this what your argument has come to, where the only way you can establish in the lede that "scientists believe acupuncture is quackery" is by quoting that defends acupuncture, in context, and actually calls these very scientists "naive" for believing acupuncture to be pseudoscience? Really? ] (]) 03:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::If you can demonstrate any reason to believe that that particular study is more reliable and more highly regarded than Ernst or Vickers, I'll pay attention to it. The particular source you are using here (Routledge) is an opinion piece about the various philosophies of when a topic should be considered pseudoscience, and doesn't refute the notion that acupuncture is widely considered to be pseudoscience, simply that the author thinks the reasoning people are using is up for debate. I'm willing to entertain better sources for stating that acupuncture is widely considered to be pseudoscience, but not removal of the description from the lead.&mdash;](]) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::No Kww, IDHT'ing doesn't come with caveats like "demonstrate and I'll pay attention to it". But how about this? If you can demonstrate that it's not reliable, then I will stop asking you about sources like that every time you make a claim about scientific consensus to justify your overly restrictive editing beliefs. And at last count, the "consensus" equaled only one meta-analysis in your favor, but, hey, who's counting anyway? And I do agree with you that the Routledge source is an opinion piece on scientific philosophy. Sure, it's not the best for its claim, but a hell of a lot stronger than a pro-acupuncture source that describes scientists as "naive" for characterizing acupuncture as pseudoscience to back up the claim that "scientists believe acupuncture to be quackery." But I'll make you a deal. If you can find a good source that shows that many scientists call it quackery, I won't contest using it. However, if I find a reliable source that says there's active scientific debate on the topic and that not everyone agrees, we'll add that afterwords as NPOV policies state that we should, for parity. I won't add it in, though, if you are unable to find a reliable source saying that "scientists believe it's pseudoscience" or whatever. Agreed? In the meantime, we should remove the abysmal source from the lede. As Everymorning stated above, it is a bit weird for the article to flatly state that acupuncture is pseudoscience as if it were "an undisputed fact". It is especially weird to do it with a pro-acupuncture source that goes on to call these amorphous and unnamed scientists "naive" for their beliefs. ] (]) 04:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::LesVegas, the ''particular'' review you keep bringing up doesn't contradict Ernst or Vickers: "''In general, effect sizes (standardized mean differences) were found to be relatively small''" and won't even come to the conclusion that those effect sizes are significant, only that we should ask "''more practical questions about whether the overall benefit is clinically meaningful''". This isn't a case of IDHT on my part: try ''saying'' something that responds to my point. The underpinnings of acupuncture (meridians, yin, yang, qi) fall under the category of obvious pseudoscience. Is there ''any'' accepted scientific explanation for the purported effects of acupuncture? How jabbing needles into someone would relieve allergies? How it would have any impact whatsoever on breech birth, tinnitus, or the myriad other conditions it is used for?
::::::::::::As for this particular use of the Wang source, it's a statement counter to interests, which I use as a touchstone of reliability when I analyse something for bias. The statement it supports is "Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery." That's both obviously true and supported by the source. Our use of the source is not to make Wang feel better about himself, it's to indicate that even acupuncturists have noticed that many scientists consider them to be quacks. Certainly you aren't saying that scientists now embrace acupuncture and no one considers acupuncturists to be quacks anymore, are you? That would be quite a social revolution, and not one that I see any particular evidence of happening.&mdash;](]) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} <span style="font-size:0.9em">{{purple|'''NOTE: This is a reply to Kww's immediately-preceding comment at 15:00, 16 April 2015. To preserve threading, please do not add comments between that comment and this one.'''}} --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)</span><br>
@{{U|Kww}}, a few points:
# How do we know that consensus about efficacy has already formed around Ernst and Vickers? Where is the source meeting ] that says so? Your ]. Additionally, trials for efficacy continue (which skeptics hate); this fact indicates a lack of consensus.
# Remember that Ernst and Vickers are about acu ''for pain only''; whatever degree of general agreement has formed or will form around pain doesn't generalize to other conditions. Again, your burden; additionally, cf. Cochrane's and Ernst's disagreement on PONV.
# Wang, per WP:WEIGHT, should also be used to indicate Wang's disputation of the pseudoscience label and similar dismissals.
# While the underpinnings of acu are pseudoscience (systematic, just like astrology), the practice of acu isn't: again, we don't see clinical trials looking for qi, but we do see them for efficacy.
# Re mechanism as a criterion for demarcation: A plausible mechanism doesn't have to be ''proven'', but ''possible'' (otherwise lots of drugs wouldn't get approved). Homeopathy lacks such, but reasonable hypotheses exist for acupuncture (and even for emergent correlates of meridians &c.), e.g. Langevin's hypothesis re fascia. BTW, the proposed mechanism for UB-67's traditional indications (breech baby, inducing labor; expelling the placenta) is oxytocin release. No idea why stimulating the pinkie toe would do that, but that's consistent with what they see, and oxytocin does indeed cause uterine contractions (that's the mechanism by which breastfeeding helps expel the placenta).
happy editing, ] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
::I'm open to rewording to say "the foundations of acupuncture are superstition and pseudoscience, but scientific investigation shows that there is the possibility of an actual mechanism with some weak effects, however, no consensus that those weak effects both exist and have clinical significance exists" or some similar wording. As for it being my burden to ''dismiss'' a source: not so much, and I'm not. It, again, agrees with Ernst and Vickers as to the results: evidence of an effect beyond placebo, but so weak that it can't come to the conclusion that that weak effect is clinically significant. That places it ''closer'' to Ernst than to Vickers, except for the bizarre conclusion that demonstrating an effect without demonstrating clinical significance was worthy of notice.&mdash;](]) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:::That's actually pretty good wording re consensus & lack thereof; a good use of what RS we have. On your 2nd sentence, I didn't say you had a "burden to dismiss" any source; not sure what you mean there... you might want to re-read my #3. When you say "it" agreed with E. & V. are you talking about Wang's editorial? If so I see what you mean, but see Jytdog's asterisks 2, 3 & 4 ; we shouldn't depict mainstream use as bizarre except insofar as RS do (not that your wording above does). --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 16:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
::::I strongly object to the statement, "the foundations of acupuncture are superstition and pseudoscience" mostly because Kww believes acupuncture's underpinnings are based on concepts like meridians and mystical energy. The word, "meridian" has no basis whatsoever in the Chinese language. There are words like jing mai 經脈 and luo mai 絡脈 which these gross mistranslations are based on. Jing, 經 like all characters, has a multitude of meanings at once. It can mean primary, main, or better, trunk-like and also, at the same time, it means vertical, upright or longditudinal. The idea here is that it is seen as patterning throughout the natural world and is shared by trees, rivers or even human beings. Mai 脈 means vessel, or container, although there is a connotation it is still somewhat permeable where essential elements individual to that natural being are allowed to move in and out of. When applied to plants, it is xylem and phloem. When applied to humanity, it is blood vessels. Every respectable sinologist translates 經脈 as blood vessels when applied to humans (although one translates it as "blood rivers" to preserve the permeability idea within the mai radical.) In the human being, jing mai 經脈 are vessels where Qi and Blood move through. Now, the character for Qi 氣 is created from two different characters: “rice” (米) and the character for “steam”(气). "Qi" is the steam which comes from cooking rice, meaning it is the essence of, or the finest matter composing anything. It is philosophical in nature, and if it applied in the realm of physics it is the energy contained in matter. It has nothing to do with the vitalistic notions that have been attached to it. I contend the only thing pseudoscientific about acupuncture is the modern, Western misunderstanding and mistranslations that have been attached to its concepts. I also find these connective tissue concepts Middle 8 brings up interesting from the standpoint of language, ie "Jing Jin" or connective tissue pathways which have been confirmed to exist. But I don't want to say the concept of meridian, or the misunderstanding of Qi isn't pseudoscientific, and perhaps we can distinguish this in the article in some way?
::::Now, as for the rest of Kww's proposed wording, perhaps I can address it while also addressing the reply above at 15:00? Kww, you seized on "relatively small" yet we don't know what that was in relation to. Afterall, several pain groups showed inconsistent results. How could you miss, "for short-term outcomes, acupuncture showed significant superiority over sham for back pain, knee pain, and headache" for instance? Since when did "significant superiority over sham" get reduced to effect size of small in all cases in your world? So I also contend the term "weak effects" which you seem to apply universally, to all conditions. If we're going to summarize sources in the lede, we have to do so more widely than that. As an aside, I think it's worth mentioning that is reflected on the "The efficacy of SSRIs in mild or moderate cases of depression has been disputed." Perhaps we should start taking a cue from articles like this? ] (]) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::If you must replace ''qi'' and ''myridians'' with "imaginary conduits for imaginary forces concocted as explanations in prescientific times" or something of the like, feel free. The theoretical underpinnings of acupuncture are indisputably nonsense. If someone comes up with an explanation for the trivial effects it may have, it will have nothing at all to do with the explanations that were given when it was originally developed. As for SSRIs, of ''course'' there are other treatments that don't do much good, and some of those have certainly come from people that were trying to practice legitimate medicine.&mdash;](]) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::No, qi or meridians don't translate as "imaginary conduits for imaginary forces concocted as explanations in prescientific times" either. Again, you're revealing your deep lack of understanding on the underpinnings of Chinese medicine, which can only be resolved with understanding of the language. Jing-Mai (oft mistranslated as meridians) actually translates as longitudinal blood vessels according to the foremost sinologists, and Qi translates as essence of, or most refined matter of any given material, much closer to the notions of physics than vitalism. My point on SSRI's was not that they lacked efficacy, but how editors on that article handle this supposed lack of efficacy in certain key situations, within the lede. ] (]) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::And if I were to characterize the theoretical underpinnings of acupuncture, I think it's more accurate to say they would be philosophical in basis versus scientific. It's founded more on philosophical concepts like Yin/Yang and the 5 Phase cycle, is it not? The "scientific" term is really too Western in connotation. Why don't we use that term? I mean, it gets around the whole "before science" argument and its more accurate. ] (]) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::We don't use concepts like Yin/Yang and the 5 Phase Cycle because they are superstitions, not science. Medical treatments are a scientific topic, not a philosophical one. We don't use terms like that because they would serve to promote superstition and pseudoscience, things that we are supposed to avoid.&mdash;](]) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Kww, I just wanted to comment real quick before I have to take a prolonged absence from Misplaced Pages (and I can hear your cheers right now) for some family reasons. Anywho, concepts like yin and yang aren't superstitions at all. It's a philosophical principle where everything in the universe can be reduced to being yin or yang relative to something else. And this philosophy, like all good philosophical systems, can be applied to everything, including human beings. So, the bottom of the foot is relatively more yin than the top of the head, which is relatively more yang because it gets more sun. Those underpinnings are the basis for the medicine and is why I was saying it's philosophical. If you're curious to see that I'm definitely not alone in this belief, you should read the Misplaced Pages article on ] where both the article and all the sources describe it as a philosophy. It's actually a good article for Misplaced Pages or even internet standards. At any rate, I don't know when I will be able to continue this conversation but I do hope you will one day see the light, and that light is relatively more yang than darkness. Just kidding, I do wish you the best regardless and hope to be back soon. ] (]) 18:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::For the record, I was expressing approval of the way Kww's wording handled sci consensus on efficacy. The "founded on pseudoscience and superstition" business can easily be overdone. Just say in the lede that it's based on Chinese philosophy -- that's what . Brittanica and very large majority of MEDRS's use the term pseudoscience sparingly. Does that make them woo-apologists? No, it just means they aren't as polemically-oriented as e.g. RationalWiki. In the body of our article, fine, cite RS's saying it's based on superstition etc., but attribute it, and (following the weight of Brittanica et. al.) don't weight it excessively. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: It's not based on reality, that's for sure. Chiojnese philosophy? Not convinced: modern-day acupuncture is essentially an invention of Mao, after all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Mao came up with Yin and Yang and Qi and the ''zang fu'' and nine needles and meridians 'n shit? Pretty impressive. And even more amazing, the way he then traveled back in time to put all that stuff in centuries-old texts. Saying Mao invented acupuncture is like saying ] himself did. Look to good RS for the history of Chinese medicine. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
: Round and round we go. The purportedly scientific study of nonexistent concepts such as qi and meridians, is what makes acupuncture pseudoscientific. This is settled long since, and the fact that every few months a believer starts the debate again, never changes the facts or the outcome. There are no sources that demonstrate acupuncture to be effective other than as placebo or distraction therapy, the sources which purport to do so cannot, by their very nature, refute the null hypothesis. All they can do is provide a data point that appears greater than placebo, which Ioannidis tells us is most likely a false positive since (a) there is no plausible mechanism for most of the claimed effects and (b) tests on different conditions and pathologies that should yield similar results, in fact yield different results (a bit like homeopathy having different remedies for pain in the left versus the right hand). The claim that there are conditions "recognized by the WHO" is misdirection. The WHO statements on acupuncture are the result of political lobbying by believers. All that matters is, can scientists ''reliably'' demonstrate ''objective'' results that are not yielded by an appropriate placebo. The answer to that is: no, they cannot. All we actually know with confidence at this time is that it does not appear to matter where you place the needles, how deep you insert them (or if you even insert them at all), how long they remain in place, how hot or cold they are, whether you rotate them or not - in short, pretty much everything about the needles themselves appears to be arbitrary and irrelevant to the outcome. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::The scientific consensus disagrees with you. See '']'' chapter on complementary medicine and . -] 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

== Page number required ==

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science does not indicate the page number and the Google Books link does not provide anything about acupuncture. I have the 2008 edition of the work, and therein is nothing about acupuncture. ] (]) 01:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

:I copy/pasted the link in Google Chrome and indeed it is ], but no page number is given. ] (]) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
::I just verified the page # on Amazon's "look inside" feature. It's page # 470. ] (]) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

== Edits going into closed discussion ==
{{hat|Collapse non-productive. Please see ]}}
Ermmm... are edits being automatically redirected into the hatted discussion below? Surely this is editing a closed discussion?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:There was no <nowiki>{{hab}}</nowiki>, so anything added below would be added to the hatted discussion. I have now added it.--] (]) 14:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::The problem was caused by a newbie edit error by the Doc. It has been fixed now. -] (]) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Could you please clarify, who is "the Doc"?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 16:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

== Roxy - please explain your edit ==
Roxy, why did you make this edit deleting comments here?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I doubt very much I will get an answer from you on that, so please apologise for being ].
<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
: I think you might be better off sticking to ducks, and leaving the quackery articles to someone else. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::@] Hmmmmm...How is that intervention in any way supposed to improve the article? It is inflammatory and appears to be warning me off making edits. I suggest you strike it.<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::@] I have just looked at your user page and I was astounded to see that you are an admin! Surely comments like yours above are completely unbecoming of an admin?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 10:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::This is the talk page of an article at Misplaced Pages—why are you posting these pseudo-questions, and why here? If you have a complaint, take it to an appropriate page, although there is no appropriate place at Misplaced Pages for the issues raised above. ] (]) 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

== Post closure of Roxy - please explain your edit ==

I felt the closure of the thread above by Alexbrn was somewhat premature - but perhaps it looked like other users were making edits that might have got them into trouble. It is actually not clear why the thread was closed. I am assuming it is the argument that discussions about user behaviour belong on the user's Talk page rather than an Article Talk page. However, this issue is really not that clear. Please see discussion here. For anyone who may be interested in following the closed thread, I have raised my discussion with ] under "comments unbecoming of an admin".<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 11:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

== Editing of a closed discussion ==

An editor recently edited a discussion that had been hatted. The template clearly states that hatted discussions should not be modified. Do I raise this issue here on the Article talk page, or on the Talk page of the user?<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== TCM based on science ==

I have found a source that says that "There is a strong scientific basis for traditional chinese medicine" in contrast to the article's current assertion (sourced to Quackwatch) that TCM isn't based on science. The source is , page 2, section 1.2. Does it seem reliable, and if so, more reliable than Quackwatch? It was, after all, published by the ].] ] 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:Wow, that is absolutely a very reliable source since it is a textbook published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. FYI, I'm not going to be available to discuss this at length due to real world circumstances right now, but for now I'll just pop in and say that, yes, anything published by the RSC that is specific to the topic of TCM is much more reliable than QuackWatch which is a POV pushing advocacy site. QuackWatch might be reliable for certain claims, but in this article any claim should always be attributed at the very least so that the reader knows where the information is coming from. Is it reliable for this claim, especially in light of this textbook from RSC? Well, I guess that will be for us to decide. Keep in mind, we also say in the lede that acupuncture founded on "pseudoscience" (and we use a pro-acupuncture source out of context to say that, big stretch with out sources!) As I see it, we have several options: '''option 1''' is we use the source next to Quackwatch and others in the lede for parity. '''Option 2''', we delete claims coming from Quackwatch and other one-sided sources because they might not be able to hold their weight next to a source like this. '''Option 3''' we use the source and don't delete claims by Quackwatch and others, but we attribute those to let the reader know where the statements are coming from, in all cases. '''Option 4''' we don't use a high quality source like this and edit war anyone who tries adding it in, yet keep bending sources to make the article appear that all things Chinese medicine are pseudoscience and keep doing this until someone files an RfC. ANywho, those are the options as I see them and I'm not sure which one I'm for yet, three of them seem reasonable, one terrible. ] (]) 01:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::Nobody mentioned '''Option 5''' - we could, you know, examine the source, to um, see if it is any good. <small> I have a small but exciting wager on the outcome.</small> -] (]) 03:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::But wait, '''Option 5''' looks a whole lot like '''Option 4''' especially since you did't even bother to say why a textbook published by RSC would be unreliable. I have a little time this morning to discuss this so if anyone would care to add something, let's hear it before we add the source in. ] (]) 15:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::It's certainly not a preferred source for ''medical'' topics. I also note that it includes an internal disclaimer that its contents are not endorsed by the RSC.&mdash;](]) 04:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, KWW, but it looks like the RSC uses that as a standard disclaimer on all their newer publications. and . So perhaps since this source is rock solid after all, the conversation should begin to move towards how and where we add it in and what lower quality sources should be deleted with this taking its place? ] (]) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::If they disclaim it, they disclaim it, so they are not relevant to determining the reliability. Any discussion of reliability can only pertain to the actual author and whether this particular material has survived peer review.&mdash;](]) 05:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::They disclaim every book. What is nothing published by RSC reliable now?. MEDRS states that the publisher matters (in cases of a low quality publication) but says nothing about standard legal disclaimers. But if you find something in MEDRS or any policy or guideline that states otherwise, feel free to add that to the discussion before we add this source into the article. ] (]) 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::No, but the source has to be evaluated on the merits of the author, not the publisher. If they disclaim it, they disclaim it. Given that it is so clearly a ] view and not supported by the publisher, it doesn't merit inclusion.&mdash;](]) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{OD}} KWW, I gave you several examples of RSC using that disclaimer in all their current texts. I could give more, but I have to assume you will ignore those as well. That issue isn't going away. Iff you want to have a discussion as to whether or not anything currently published by RSC is unreliable, we can have that discussion. As I see it, it is your burden to show that standard legal disclaimers are unreliable in Wikilaw. ] (]) 19:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Just popping in to this discussion. Actually, both of them matter, but even meritorious authors might have published a lot of nonsense that have never passed the scrutinizing eyes of a notable publication. Therefore, we are highly interested in the publisher, but of course, the both have to match. ] (]) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of a disclaimer, but it's pretty straightforward: the RSC's reliability is irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't mean the source is unreliable, but it doesn't mean it's reliable, because they have disclaimed responsibility for the material. If you believe such a ludicrously fringe view to be from a reliable source, you will have to defend its inclusion based on the authors expertise, not the publisher.&mdash;](]) 19:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it to "Some scientists believe that the theories basis of TCM are poorly understood in the West". Is this a good enough compromise, ]? We are not stating that TCM has a scientific basis whatsoever. ] your input here would be helpful too. -] 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I think the basis of TCM is well understood in the West: it's based on folklore and superstition. It isn't science, isn't based on science, and shouldn't be described as being on par with science. Describing it as "poorly understood" implies that it has some unappreciated merit. It doesn't. Your edits leave the reader with the false impression that there is some legitimate scientific controversy about TCM.&mdash;](]) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Well, I live in the West. And I certainly don't understand the theories of TCM. -] 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::All you need to understand about them is that they are entertaining folk superstitions at best. The specific details aren't important.&mdash;](]) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I'm afraid we have to disagree, because true skepticism entails understanding the contrary arguments, even if they are demonstrably wrong. -] 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::A1, it is my belief that a compromise isn't necessary, but I want to thank you for trying to be a peacemaker. The source is accurate and attributed and reliable according to every guideline I know of, other than the ones being made up on the fly here. At some point this page needs to stop having two sets of rules. I would never suggest a reliable source that criticizes acupuncture is unreliable based on a standard legal disclaimer, even though I have found some in our article. ] (]) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::And, if you read carefully, I haven't suggested that a source is unreliable because it contains a disclaimer either. I've said that you need to make the case for reliability based only upon the parties that haven't issued disclaimers about the contents. You haven't made any effort to do so. As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by. That you persistently wind up on the wrong side of it is a different issue.&mdash;](]) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The content you wish to include is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the quality sources we have on the topic. Many of those are already cited, including, for example, . Systematic reviews show, at most, efficacy for reducing certain types of pain, and no results beyond placebo for other conditions. Impartial reviews of TCM indicate it is not science-based or evidence-based, and is almost wholly rejected by the scientific community as a result. Here is a source which sets out explicitly to show that TCM ''should be'' seen to have a scientific basis, despite that trend. So, is it reliable? Well, it is a source with a clear agenda: advocating for a minority (or, more likely, fringe) position that I don't see advanced elsewhere. I think the burden on demonstrating its reliability is therefore quite high for it to overturn our MEDRS compliant sources, and ''even if'' that were done, it would need to be given due weight, not exclusive weight, when describing the subject. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 21:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is ] a reliable source? ==

Is ] a reliable source? I have raised this question at ].<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:Hello Dr. Chrissy! Thank you for your contributions! This has been discussed at length before and the outcome of the discussion was that Quackwatch can be used as a source in certain cases. It is certainly not MEDRS, and in case where a source is more reliable than Quackwatch contradicts it, we should use that source and delete Quackwatch. I think it's pretty ridiculous to use Quackwatch to back up how Chinese medicine works, when we have textbooks that do a better job at it and are far more reliable to make those claims. I also think that Quackwatch is pretty much on par with something like Natural News for most claims. Some editors want to see Quackwatch sourced everywhere in articles like this, thinking it is reliable for non-MEDRS claims, but oddly scoff at something like Natural News or Mercola.com being used for non MEDRS claims. I just say, let's use all of them or none of them, but at the very least, let's please be consistent. I'm very busy currently but I'm willing to make some pop-ins to discuss this subject again, and I am glad you raised it. Dr. Chrissy, please feel free to ping me or keep me updated on my talk page. ] (]) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks for that. I had not realised this has been discussed before. Consistency is exactly what I want here (and on many other pages where apparently medic-related editors use their ] scythes to raze an article to the ground). It seems that one rule is used in one context, and another in another context. For a neutral editor, it seems impossible to edit in a way that is not immediately slapped down by someone quoting any number of guidelines/policies/discussions etc. I think that for any medical related article, the very least a reader should expect as that the sources should have been peer-reviewed. This is not necessarily the case with Quackwatch articles. Will let you know what goes on.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

{{OD}}There is a new discussion. See ]. ] (]) 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:What, again? How many times has it been now? -] (]) 08:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note the Quackwatch quote is attributed, has been in the article for some time, and the source has '''not''' been rejected as unreliable or inappropriate (far from it). --] <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:See ] -] 18:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I know (it's linked above), and I do not think that discussion says what you want it to say. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

=== Serious silliness ===
Quackwatch is not a reliable source for health related content. Period. Is this health related content. Yes. Is there research in this area and multiple RS per Misplaced Pages more reliable than Qw. Yes. The good news is that most reading this article and coming across Quackwatch will have the good sense to question both that source and may possibly wonder further about the quality of an article which parades about a long quote based on this kind of source. Adding such a source merely brings the article and its content, sources, and editors into question. Maybe that's a good thing. Given the edit warring over a non MEDRS compliant source, I'd just leave it in the article where it has the opposite effect of underlining the reliability of the content and of the article. Maybe eventually, some will have the good sense to abide by WP and remove this content in favour of something compliant. Until then we have something seriously silly in this article.(18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:I support Olive by agreeing that the quote should remain. I disagree on everything else. -] (]) 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

:The source may have been for a long time in the article, but it's a good thing that it's been paid attention to right now. Just the mere fact that "it has been in the article for some time" does not make the source any more or less reliable, though. The question is whether QuackWatch is an appropriate source for this very instance. But no, QuackWatch is not reliable ''per se'', something that has been voiced out by many editors. Should there be any claims on medical efficiency backed up this source, it is strongly advised to remove the material immediately.
:I think the first step that we are required to do, is to remove the block quotes given for such a marginal source. Second, it should be considered whether acupuncture is a subject that hasn't attracted enough scientific research. If there's a rich variety of scientific research on the subject, then we don't want to include any claims so poor that haven't been even able to make their way through some notable peer-reviewed journal. ] (]) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

::So. This isn't health related content? Bottom line Roxy.(] (]) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC))

:::Sticking pins into people to cure them is health related? Answer : No. Actually it '''is''' serious silliness. -] (]) 18:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict
:::::Repeat bottom line. This is a health related article and health related content. We are mistaken in thinking any personal opinion on whether any health related methods work or not, and that means allopathic as well as anything else, or have a place in determining what goes into articles. I have no clue if acupuncture works or not but that opinion or lack of it has nothing to do with what is added to this article. Make it simple. Get opinions out of the way and deal with WP compliancy.(] (]) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC))

{{u|Littleolive oil}} would you mind combining this with the section above ''Is Quackwatch a reliable source?''? It's difficult when a single topic is split across multiple threads. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 18:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You may do whatever you want with this. I doubt I'll comment further. We're dealing with something so incredibly basic here which I outlined. If editors will not abide by WP in this area there's little more here to be said or done. Feel free.(] (]) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC))

===RS vs. other questions===
Let's first resolve that QuackWatch is a perfectly reliable source for quoting something QuackWatch itself publishes on its own website. And that is all the content being challenged is doing, it's ''quoting QuackWatch with attribution'' ("Quackwatch states that 'TCM theory and practice are not based upon...'"), it's not using QuackWatch as a source to make an unattributed assertion in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice. So this isn't a ] issue, and ] is met.

The questions that could follow are:
# Is the use of QuackWatch in accordance with ]?
# Can the article be improved by replacing the QW quote with an assertion in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice, sourced to something better than QuackWatch?
<code>]]</code> 18:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:1. No
:2. Yes, it can be sourced to prominent medical textbooks such as , which says "A scientific basis may exist for acupuncture" () and "When compared with placebo, acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy for relieving pain" ()
:-] 18:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::] let's be careful here, the QW quote is talking about TCM theories (''qi'' and meridians); Miller's just mentions that ''qi'' exists as part of traditional acupuncture theory, but doesn't make a statement about the validity of TCM theory, which is what QW is covering. <code>]]</code> 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Well then use , which says "Although based on the theory that needling regulates the flow of vital energy, neuroscience research suggests that acupuncture induces clinical response through modulation of the nervous system" (). The first part of this sentence refutes the validity of traditional theory, hence making QW all but obsolete. -] 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Sorry ] this is exactly the same problem as Miller's: there's a mention of the traditional theory, and then the text goes on to give a modern explanation. <code>]]</code> 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::<
"The first part of that sentence refutes the validity of traditional theory." Can you not read? -] 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Why don't we pick this up again later... have a good weekend. <code>]]</code> 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Let's first resolve that QuackWatch is a perfectly reliable source for quoting something QuackWatch itself publishes on its own website. And that is all the content being challenged is doing, it's quoting QuackWatch ..." The issue is not whether any source is reliable for itself. QW is making assertions attributed or not and we are quoting them. The question is whether that source then can be used where it will influence health related topics. Quackwatch is a step removed from the research on acupuncture. Quack watch admits to its own biases, writes to its own viewpoints, selectively uses research to support those opinions. How is that we are not looking at the research itself and ourselves, and citing it for the information it contains rather than relying on the biased position of an intermediate source, Qw, to do it for us. Can Qw be verified per its own research, and on top of that can it be deemed reliable for another supposedly neutral view and article. This is an issue as to whether a source is reliable in an instance where it can influence health, where it is is being used to support a very specific view point that is health related. Further, the content being suggested for this article is so general that I doubt if we will find another source so explicitly general in nature, and frankly we don't have to do that. No one says we have to match the content being used in the article especially given the nature of its source. Due weight only comes into play after verifiability and reliability. Nothing said here tells me this source is reliable to make claims that edge on health issues, and the verifiability of what QW is attesting is based on its own research. are we ready to verify QW's own verifiability. If we want to narrow down MEDRS from the way it has been used in multiple article that's a different issue but right now. I see no argument that this is a reliable source so Due weight doesn't even come into play at this point.(] (]) 20:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
:Be honest Olive, if I did all that, you'd have me castigated through pillar and post for ], and you'd be right ! -] (]) 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
:If the topic has already been covered by significant amount of scientific research, then we shouldn't include any sources of poor reliability that make claims that have not made their way to the scientific literature of today. And if such claims are already covered by scientific literature, then we don't need to use QuackWatch. QuackWatch is a reasonable source when the topic hasn't managed to attract sufficient level of academic interest, and this hardly is the case with acupuncture. ] (]) 21:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

::I might have you castigated for OR :O) but I'm not describing OR in that comment. I am describing a source that is dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer. Its the source that is layered in dubiousness (is that a word) not to be confused with synthesis in the article itself.(] (]) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
:::]. Please point out the source you're using for "dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer". Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::::It seems to me that ''How is that we are not looking at the research itself and ourselves'' is a definitive incitement to WP:OR -] (]) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't need sources to voice a well-based opinion on a talk page. This isn't article content. And Roxy looking at research or sources is not OR, its a search for verifiable, reliable sourcing. (] (]) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
:Well, we don't discount sources based on an editor's gratuitous opinion. "The NY Times is a dubious source in the extreme, layer upon layer" would go over real well. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

::Sure. We aren't discussing the New York Times or any source but one, and of course all sources are in context of the content they source. Perhaps there are cases where the NYT would be considered an unreliable source. Too bad my cmt on a talk page after all I've tried to explain is considered gratuitous, a dismissive and rather uncivil comment. (] (]) 21:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
::::It's gratuitous because you haven't provided any justification for your strong opinion of "dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer", which contradicts what sources are saying in ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::::There are multiple editors who have voiced concern about this source over the years, and there is a discussion ongoing at this moment. I also mentioned earlier some general concerns I had with Quackwatch. Since you are involved in at least one of those discussions you know what they are.(] (]) 21:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
:::::I'm not sure I can say more. This is my position as I see it, and as it would support, in my opinion and per my reading of WP, neutrality, And I've stated it as well as I can. As things turn unpleasant I have an urge to leave it to those who are more invested in the content than I am.(] (]) 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
::::::I really feel an RfC is needed here.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

== Reliability of a source ==
<small>
:::Edit in question:
:::Section: ''Pain''
:::Proposed content: "Several Cochrane reviews have demonstrated that acupuncture is effective for a wide variety of painful conditions."
:::Source cited: {{cite book|chapter=Chapter 18: Acupuncture|author=Alvarez, L.|title=Handbook of Veterinary Pain Management (3rd edition)|editors=James S. Gaynor, William W. Muir III|year=2015|publisher=Elsevier}}
:::Direct link to page in source cited (Google books): <code>]]</code> 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)</small>

] recently removed a comment I added, tagging the inline ref as "unreliable". Zad68, please would you elaborate why you think this is unreliable.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:As my edit summary stated I don't think we should be using veterinary textbooks to support content related to human health. Appears to be a ] issue. Per ] it's really up to you to make the argument why we should make an exception here. <code>]]</code> 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::] relates to verifiability and is a red herring. The source I have given is a secondary source. I do not see why because the comment is written in a veterinary source it makes any differerence whatsoever. The review comment is about studies conducted on humans, not non-human animals. Are you suggesting that an author writing in a veterinary text book is automatically deemed to be writing lower quality science than someone writing in a human related source?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Chrissy, ] is indeed relevant because that policy says the editor adding content must show that the content is supported by a ''reliable source'', and whether something from a veterinary textbook is ideal to use as a source to support content about human health is the focal point of our disagreement, isn't it? Per ], the best sources come from experts in the relevant field, and veterinary medicine isn't human medicine. Will you be providing a reason why the article should be making an exception here by using a veterinary textbook for a statement about human health? <code>]]</code> 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Do we know that the author of the article is '''not''' an expert in human medicine?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Do we care? The only thing we need to decide here is if the coverage of animal acu, a cruel practice imho when real vetinary is available, is warranted in this article. I'm not sure if we should observe that the ethics of treating animals with a treatment that wont help is actually cruelty or negligence? -] (]) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::C'mon ] let's try to keep our own thoughts about the article topic off the Talk page... For this case, yes we do care, the edit proposed looks to add content related to human health based on a veterinary source, that's the point under discussion here. (And it might be reasonable to add a sentence regarding the ethics of vet. acu. if the sources discuss it, a brief mention here and more content at ] per ].) <code>]]</code> 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Chrissy re "Do we know that the author of the article is '''not''' an expert in human medicine?"--again per ] that's your argument to make. If she ''is'' a published expert in pain care for human medicine it should be easy to find something she's published in that field, we cite that instead, and then this issue is resolved. <code>]]</code> 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::This is no longer an issue. I have edited the article and the reference we are discussing no longer pertains to human medicine. Our discussion does, however, raise the rather horrible thought that if editors challenge any of the human based citations, somebody would have to "prove" the authors are expert in that field.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Great! Thanks Chrissy.<p>I don't want to get into an expansive, general discussion about policy on a particular article Talk page but generally if the source clearly meets the relevant guideline there shouldn't be a reason to challenge. If there does appear to be a significant mismatch between the source and Misplaced Pages's sourcing guidelines, it's reasonable to raise that as a concern and it's up to the one interested in using that source to demonstrate that it does meet the guideline. <code>]]</code> 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I do understand. If someone has published a paper in a reputable journal in a subject-area, that pretty much makes them an expert (in that subject area). It would be disruptive to go around challenging that without good reason.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:We already discuss the various Cochrane reviews, and include the detailed results (generally that the effect is so small that its existence can be legitimately questioned and, even if it exists, is smaller than the placebo effect). What would we gain by adding a misleading one-sentence summary to the material we already have?&mdash;](]) 14:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::@Kww As I said above, the reference no longer pertains to human medicine. I don't follow the point of your posting.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I had not seen that it had been determined that the Cochrane reviews discussed in the quote were of veterinary studies, not the ones covering humans that we discuss.&mdash;](]) 05:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Just to be clear, the Cochrane reviews were of human studies of acupuncture. However, the summary of the studies by Alvarez was from a veterinary handbook (making it a tertiary source). Some editors feel that because the summary is published in a veterinary source it is automatically of lower quality. The Alvarez source was then used by another editor here to indicate non-human related content.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

== It is pleasurable? Really? ==

Has anybody besides the doc read that acu is pleasurable? Surely that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia? -] (]) 10:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::WHOA! Sit Boy! If that is aimed at me, you are well off the mark. I have been puzzling over that same statement for several days.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Good, I'll remove it then. -] (]) 10:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::The offending material was incorporated by Jtydog here.]
::::::... and your point is? -] (]) 11:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::My point is that it was not me that introduced the material which is what you seemed to be suggesting.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

== Coatrack? ==

An editor recently indicated in an edit summary that there was a ] issue here. Rather than just leaving it rather lazily and not very convincingly in an edit summary, raise it here and let's discuss it properly.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|DrChrissy}} are you talking about edit? When you're starting a Talk page discussion it'd really be nice if you'd help out your fellow editors by specifying the particular edit you're concerned about (and by dropping unnecessary adverbs like 'lazily'). I'd actually disagree with the characterization of that section as a "coatrack" problem but I'd rather not do a whole lot of typing here if that's not what you're talking about. <code>]]</code> 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::@Zad68 Yes, that is the edit - I will be more specific in the future. Sorry about the use of "lazily". It just seems rather unhelpful for an editor to drive-by, leave the template with a negative edit summary and not even bother to take this to the Talk page. I'll curb my frustration in the future.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::What do you think doc? -] (]) 09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Are you talking to me? If so, please use my user name or I might be wasting my time replying.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 09:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Are there any other docs on this page at the moment? So, what do you think? Genuine question. -] (]) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Please use my user name so that other readers can follow who you are asking a question of.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Sure ], thanks... No, the inclusion of a short summary section on ''Veterinary acupuncture'' isn't a coatrack problem. A general review of the reliable sourcing on acupuncture in shows that vet. acu. is well-represented. This acupuncture article is really getting to be quite sizeable and comprehensive, so it isn't undue here either. Per ] there should be a section here summarizing what's at the vet. acu. article, or what ''should'' be in that article (it's tiny now and given the sourcing available it really could be expanded quite a bit).<p>The one thing that needs be done though is to move that section to the end per ]. Actually generally this article needs to be restructured per MEDMOS. <code>]]</code> 13:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::It is my intention to work on the Vet Acu article soon and we can then provide a summary of that here. Happy to see the Vet Acu section moved toward (to) the end - I appreciate that is the style of medical pages.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::@] I moved the Vet section to the end of the article as both you and I agreed, but another editor has moved it back. I believe I am being goaded into edit warring by this, so I will not revert but thought I should let you know.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy - I've restored it back to where it belongs. Hopefully, the disruption will stop. -] 18:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:You have not explained how your edits were an improvement, especially with . This edit added that is already in the article,. ] (]) 18:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a according to ]. We do have a section for related practices. See ]. ] (]) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:Quick comment: I didn't mean to endorse your edits with my self-revert. I just meant that, on second thought, your deletion of sourced content didn't appear like clear-cut vandalism to me because you did provide edit summaries and participated in discussions, that's why I decided to undo my rollback. I'll let editors with deeper knowledge of the subject decide if your edits were constructive. --] ] 01:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Deletion of Quackwatch sourced statement ==

The lead paragraph contains the following statement "TCM theory and practice are not based upon ],<nowiki><ref name=Barrett2007/></nowiki>" I propose to delete this statement for the following reasons:
:1)The source is outdated - how can this source represent present consensus when it is 7-8 years old.
:2)The source is not/may not be peer-reviewed.
:3)The source is from a web site with a blog-like approach
:4)The source is a partisan site - not NPOV
:5)The source is an opinion piece of just a single person and therefore the statement is ]
:<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:Still reliable for our use, as explained to you multiple times by multiple users. Any more of this will be disruptive. -] (]) 11:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

* '''Support''' - In addition to what DrChrissy said, we have much better sources including prominent medical textbooks such as , which says "A scientific basis may exist for acupuncture" () and "When compared with placebo, acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy for relieving pain" () or , which says "Although based on the theory that needling regulates the flow of vital energy, neuroscience research suggests that acupuncture induces clinical response through modulation of the nervous system" (). This is the mainstream medical consensus, as stated in the : "It is based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves" and in Chapter 14e of the latest edition of '']'': "In addition, new research is shedding light on the effects of meditation and acupuncture on central mechanisms of pain processing and perception and regulation of emotion and attention. Although many unanswered questions remain about these effects, findings are pointing to scientifically plausible mechanisms by which these modalities might yield benefit." (pg. 14e-3) -] 11:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::Still reliable for our use, as explained to you multiple times by multiple users. Any more of this will be disruptive. -] (]) 11:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::How can opening a discussion on a Talk page be disruptive! If you don't want to join in, simply walk away - the article content has not been changed!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Nothing wrong with a new discussion Doc, and I encourage you to open discussions on any topic you wish. But please stop opening new discussions on the same subject over and over and over again, '''especially''' when you already know the answer. ''That's disruptive'' -] (]) 11:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Firstly, as I have requested on several occassions before, please use my correct user name. Second, it has been suggested several times that the reliability of QW as a source needs to judged on a case-by-case basis. This is what I am doing. Neither you nor I know the "answer" as to whether the source is reliable in this particular case, therefore it can not be disruptive. Perhaps you would like to comment on any one of the 5 points I raised above, rather than trying to disrupt this thread.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackWatch is not reliable ''per se'', and there's a firm consensus that it should be used only on a case-by-case basis. I think we could proceed by endorsing the steps of 1) paraphrasing the text in such a manner that there are no longer block quotes, and 2) considering whether acupuncture is a subject that hasn't attracted enough scientific research. If there's a rich variety of scientific research on the subject, then we don't want to include any claims so poor that haven't been even able to make their way through some notable peer-reviewed journal. ] (]) 12:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose removal.''' Came here from posting on ] by DrChrissy. Quackwatch is reliable for its own opinion, and is generally considered reliable on alt med topics of which Acupuncture is one.Use of Quackwatch is appropriate here, but should not be overemphasized if better sources are available. I should caution against the cherry-picking of specific sources that may be "positive" or "negative" towards acupuncture, but to give the full spectrum of opinion by reliable sources per ], of which Quackwatch is one. ] (]) 13:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::If and I quote: ''Quackwatch is reliable for its own opinion'' then using the same logic, DrChrissy opinion, that it is not, -nullifies QW's opinion. Oh come on folks- if my grand children came out with this muddled thinking I'd be on the phone to my lawyer to reclaim back their education fees!--] (]) 16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::Yobol, just to clarify, are you supporting the use of QW for the particular sentence I indicated in my original posting?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes. As far as I know, the underlying principles of TCM (Qi, meridians, etc) is not based on scientific knowledge (based instead on traditional pre-scientific hypotheses/superstition) and therefore appropriate for QW to be used in this context. ] (]) 14:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Is there a more reliable source to confirm this, or is this a marginal position outside the scientific mainstream? ] (]) 13:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::: It's an easily falsifiable statement. History confirms that the statement is correct, and since there is no evidence to the contrary, it's a good one and properly sourced. -- ] (]) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:QW is sufficiently reliable for this statement.&mdash;](]) 14:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Good, that is a real problem solver. Maybe we can include the sources to the article? After all, we don't include claims of marginal position outside the scientific mainstream. ] (]) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Do we not have a more recent, secondary or tertiary source for this? Surely the medical scientists have published something more reliable in the past decade or so.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Scientists generally don't publish about pre-scientific hypotheses/superstitions which have no basis in human physiology and is generally considered nonsensical in modern terms. This is why we have ]. ] (]) 15:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::So why is it that when I go to Cochrane Collaboration and type in "Acupuncture" I get 134 hits for systematic reviews?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::The content in question is the proposed mechanism of how acupuncture has been traditionally considered to work by acupuncturists/TCM practitioners (Chi, meridians, etc). There is, to my knowledge, no high quality medical source that says any such entities actually exists in the human body. The studies you are seeing are studies as to whether or not acupuncture has an effect, which is a separate question as to whether or not the traditionally proposed mechanisms are correct. ] (]) 15:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::You may be correct that there is no high quality medical source to say this, so instead, let's fall back on the opinions of just a single person and forget about how we say that only the highest quality evidence should be used in medical articles. I trust my incredulity comes through.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Um, what? We should be using the highest quality sourcing for this; in this case, Quackwatch fits the bill. Insisting that we have peer-reviewed studies for things that medicine views as nonsense is of course not reasonable and is precisely why we have ], because high quality peer-reviewed sources usually do not talk about what is generally considered nonsense. If you have high quality sourcing saying that Meridians or Chi or whatever actually exists, present them. Otherwise, Quackwatch is perfectly reliable for saying such nonsense does not exist. ] (]) 16:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}Well if you don't mind me for saying so that is ]. Can't argue against a pseudo-skeptic because they can't be proved wrong (and when they are, they just move the goal posts). So its ] and no one can disprove it – so they are always right – even when wrong. Lets move on and not waste our time arguing about if QW might sometimes, have something of merit. Over all, we (the bulk of editors) acknowledge that QW is not to be viewed as a reliable source.--] (]) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:Please stop the nonsense of claiming "the bulk of editors" agree with you when you have no evidence of this. Thanks. ] (]) 18:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::The talk pages on WP gives evidence to this. Jimmy Wales said and I quote: '''''Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information''''''. So stop inundating us with pseudo arguments. Scientist are naturally skeptic but they don't grasp at stuff just because it gives their prejudices a warm feeling inside. Thanks.--] (]) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this article is about acupuncture, not about traditional Chinese medicine, but both of the subjects have attracted significant amount of scientific research. So I have to disagree with Yobol here: yes, scientists do publish a great deal of research concerning acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. And what those studies don't say, well it obviously cannot be called part of "scientific mainstream". QuackWatch may be considered as a reliable source in such cases where the subject is so marginal that it hasn't been able to attract scientific attention (e.g. reiki healing). Just imagine, how many researchers are ready to waste their time on such nonsense? On such cases, QuackWatch fits the bill. But that's not the case at acupuncture, I am afraid. We should bear in mind the ArbCom conclusion, labeling QuackWatch as a partisan site. Anyway, the first step is to paraphrase the source so we don't have to use block quotes anymore. The second step is to think about if there are better sources available, or if we are dealing with claims not presented by the scientific consensus. ] (]) 13:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

::Please note that I have proposed a specific sentence for deletion. It would help if users !voted and left a clear indication of this in '''bold''' at the beginning of one of their posts. This will avoid arguments about "bulk of editors" etc.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the OP.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the source is reliable for the claim. ] (]) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ] QW is valid source for discussion of FRINGE notions like modern claims that qi exists and flows along meridians ] (]) 19:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:*], we have a prominent medical textbook () which says "Although based on the theory that needling regulates the flow of vital energy, neuroscience research suggests that acupuncture induces clinical response through modulation of the nervous system" (), thereby refuting the notion of vital energy. Why promote QW when there are better sources? -] 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::oxford press does not have ] and ] governing its content; wikipedia does, and here we call pseudoscience, pseudoscience. we don't just skip over the first part of that sentence you quoted. we pause and say the equivalent of "which is complete bullshit" albeit in a nicer way. we don't "promote" QW, we '''use''' it. ] (]) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't see anything useful that isn't already covered by the Oxford textbook. -] 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::I don't see anything relevant ''to this statement'' covered by the Oxford textbook. — ] ] 19:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::'''IT REFUTES THE VALIDITY OF VITAL ENERGY.''' Did you not read? -] 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That's not what the quote says, and, even if that is elsewhere in the book, it wouldn't support the statement in the article, as it doesn't even imply that there aren't other (potential) bases for acupuncture, accepted by acupuncturists, which are not incompatible with scientific research. 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that is a quadruple negative. Those without an advanced knowledge of ] might misinterpret it. — ] ] 04:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You obviously speak a different type of English, because the source does imply that it is compatible with neuroscientific research. Whether it is accepted by acupuncturists or not is of peripheral importance. Acceptance by the medical community is what matters. -] 09:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per ] and ]. — ] ] 19:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Quackwatch has repeatedly been shown to be reliable at RSN, and ] indicates we can use non-MEDRS sources on articles such as these. Further, even if that weren't true, the statement is sourceable elsewhere. This has been discussed to death already. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 05:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Not quite, ]. There is a firm consensus that QuackWatch is not relaible ''per se'', and it may be only used on a case-by-case basis. So better not say: ''Quackwatch has repeatedly been shown to be reliable''. Actually, we have an ArbCom ruling labeling QuackWatch as a partisan source that should be used with caution. Well, that's not a surprise since not even QuackWatch itself claims to be a peer-reviewed source. QuackWatch sure has its place on some few articles, but acupuncture has been studied relatively lot, and therefore we don't have a compulsive need to include QuackWatch. ] (]) 13:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
**Not quite, ]. You are overreaching yourself. Three quotes from the amendment: "It is not the job of this committee to determine whether sources are reliable.", "There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan, and should not be a preferred or exclusive source, but not that it is not a reliable source as is generally understood." "Deeming a source to be reliable or unreliable is almost always going to be a content decision and as such beyond our remit." Most sources can be deemed reliable for certain things and unreliable in others. When I say the NY Times is a RS in reference to a biography it is foolish to say, "better not say: ''NY Times has repeatedly been shown to be reliable''" because it's not a ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
** NeilN, my comment wasn't addressed to you nor did I say anything about the NYT. I agree with the quotations you gave, however. I've also been emphasizing strongly that the reliability is a matter of context. I guess there was a misunderstanding there. It's also been voiced out by many editors that QuackWatch is reliable in such topics that haven't attracted sufficient scientific interest. And this is exactly the problem we are tackling with many fringe articles. ] (]) 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Some editors here may be unwittingly be putting words in the the mouth of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) by suggesting they uphold QW to be a reliable medical source. Should we not ask them for an official statement? As it could effect their reputation- what with WP being so widely read. WP editors should not speak on the behalf of another organization as it is not professional behaviour. If I worked for The Journal of the American Medical Association I would be on to the lawyers quickly, to make it very clear that ''mention of QW does not mean that we accept that QW as a reliable source and any mention is solely down to the writer of such an article -and we 'expect' s/he to have performed due diligence in this respect. We cannot be held responsible for any contributors lapses. We have nothing to comment upon the reliability or otherwise of this site known as QW. Period ''. Just asking.--] (]) 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Your hypothetical life is of no interest here. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

::*And you comment is just trying to deflect! Lets be civil OK. It is to improve the quality of WP that is important here, please remember that.--] (]) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::*Articles aren't improved by putting your words in the mouth of a source. I mean, ''you'' even say, "WP editors should not speak on the behalf of another organization" and then you blatantly go ahead and do it. Is there anything here that can't be directly surmised by JAMA statements? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

::::*You know very well that I was not blatantly putting words into The Journal of the American Medical Association's mouth. Then you go on to ask "''Is there anything here that can't be directly surmised by JAMA statements?''" Yes there is: all of the above. Is there anything on the the Journal of the American Medical Association site to say that they uphold QW? Think you keep getting your ] mixed up. Take deep breath and stand back, so as to take a fresh look. --] (]) 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::@Aspro ''Is there anything on the the Journal of the American Medical Association site to say that they uphold QW?'' You mean besides their publication, ''in their journal'', that specifically says Quackwatch is a resource that provides "reliable health information"? ] (]) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@ ] The Journal of the American Medical Association does not accept anything ether way. The Journal of the American Medical Association publishes topical articles. Were do you think in their choice of published articles, suggests that they adopt everything their contributors write about? As intimated to -NeilN above, you should keep premises separate. To suggest that the Journal of the American Medical Association support and accept everything they publish is a misunderstanding of the work of journals. So it is absolutely wrong for some editors here to claim that the Journal of the American Medical Association considers QW as a reliable source of medical information based on the articles that they publish. Can I say that any clearer. We (some of us) provide guidance which some editors prefer to ignore (<small>Think to yourself: what is the root of the word ignorant. Step back and look at the </small>bigger<small> picture.</small>) But maybe, I am just trying to catch the wind.--] (]) 13:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@Yobol (or anybody else) If you have evidence that JAMA supports Quackwatch, please would you provide this evidence - I have looked and I can't find it.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::@Aspro, @DrChrissy, have you all not read the ] article, which ? Sigh. ] (]) 13:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::That is interesting. Wonder if the executives are aware that their lower down minions in their organization upholds QW. As I said before, we need a qualified statement from the Journal of the American Medical Association to save them from embarrassment. And believe you me, when your read through that QW site it, it is hardly a reliable medial source. The Journal of the American Medical Association's PR may refuse to reply and take the risk that it will not put the journal's reputation into question, based on that link provided, in the short term. Yet what of the future, when WP, being the first port of call for many a medical researcher, who find the Journal of the American Medical Association supports QW as reliable. Is s/he going to add included JAMA in his thesis. Think not. The argument is swaying to the Journal of the American Medical Association to officially state their position on QW as to remove all doubt. Get it from the horses mouth, rather than just guesstimate. For those that are familiar with this sort of things - it don't mean nothing unless it is a policy statement from the executive. Yobol should understand this. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::::::::::So you read the statement made by JAMA, ''published in'' JAMA, explicitly calling Quackwatch a reliable source for medical information and you call that a "guesstimate"? ]. ] (]) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Repeating the sentiment from above, we're not interested in what you think organizations should do to "save them from embarrassment." Focus on what they're actually stating, not on what ''you'' would like them to state. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Again I ask and point out: Do the executive know about this? Is this what the executive supports. If you have left high skool and worked for a large organisation you should be aware that much of what ends up on a company web-site is not kosher. i.e. just because it is written in black and white it is not gospel – it is just stuff put up on their web-site – which you take to be gospel - can I explain that any more simply? Come on folks, use your brain cells here, If you can edit WP you must have more than two. What is the third one doing? --] (]) 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: They have apparently not checked ''JAMA'', so this is just IDHT behavior. On a , under the heading "How to find reliable online health information and resources," they list Quackwatch, among other sources. ''JAMA'' clearly recommends QW as "reliable". This is good enough for us to continue using it on a case by case basis. -- ] (]) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{OD}}Both BullRangifer and Yobol directed us to as evidence that JAMA supports Quackwatch. I am unable to open this article fully, but I can open the previous and subsequent articles. Seems rather odd. Perhaps the article has been removed/redacted? I am able to see the date of publication was 1998. Perhaps in the subsequent 17 years(!) JAMA have seen fit to update their reputable sources?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
We can use QuackWatch on a case-by-case basis when the topic is so marginal that it hasn't attracted enough scientific attention. If plenty of sources exist, however, we will use those instead of QuackWatch. ] (]) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I can open the article just fine, it is still available on the website. Do you have any reason, other than your own apparent dislike for Quackwatch itself, to think JAMA no longer thinks Quackwatch is reliable? If and when you find a similar publication by JAMA saying Quackwatch is no longer reliable, please bring it forward. All I see here are editors who do not like Quackwatch trying their hardest to not acknowledge what high quality sources have said about it. ] (]) 16:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::What I am trying to do at the moment is verify statements made by other users. At the moment, I am unable to do this, but I am happy to watch for comments that it can be verified. FYI, I do not dislike Quackwatch, I just intensely dislike its use by some editors when they are too lazy to go and find other peer-reviewed, NPOV secondary sources.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Boys, boys... For claims on medical efficiency we need peer-reviewed MEDRS compliant sources, no matter whom JAMA cites. If the topic is well covered by scientific research, then we don't need QuackWatch. There are subject though, that have been left in the shadows of mainstream science, and therefore QuackWatch is a decent source until better ones pop up. ] (]) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::First, I already verified it and downloaded it. It has not been retracted. Second, ''sources'' are not required to conform to the Misplaced Pages policy ], so the term "NPOV source" is meaningless; the proper application of ] is whether or not we (as editors) are ''using the sources'' in a manner consistent with NPOV. We use partisan/biased sources all the time and they are often necessary to have a fully NPOV compliant article that establishes all significant points of view. Now that it is clear that you and Aspro are showing clear ] behavior, I won't waste any more of my time here. Cheers. ] (]) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::That page on that site : the Journal of the American Medical Association (that only quacks like I and Yobol can accesses apparently) , (ie not publicly assessable and thus not open to public scrutiny) has small print. That gets the the Journal of the American Medical Association off the hook regarding QW don't you think. Unless the Journal of the American Medical Association makes a official statement upon QW, then there is no substance as to why we should use it. That page referred to (not an article) but just a page – it is just that! How do we put this to you (and et al) that hidden information is not Verifiability. Otherwise people could hid information a splatter WP with nonsense. Cheers--] (]) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose removal'''. Perfectly accurate statement, backed up by history. -- ] (]) 19:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Attribute to ]''' per ] if it's going to be kept in the lead. <code>]]</code> 16:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support the removal''' and the removal of most Quackwatch sources. There are better sources out there to make the claims it makes, and if there aren't, then what does that tell us? Quackwatch is also diametrically opposed to a textbook source I added and doesn't hold weight to it even for parity, so there's that. I do think we should still have Quackwatch on the article to back up what skeptics think about acupuncture, but maybe only one or two cites at most, per weight, and the it should be attributed as Zad says. But I would attribute to Quackwatch or Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett and not Stephen Barrett alone. ] (]) 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:'''And yet another reason not to use Quackwatch'''I have been editing the ] article to remove a statement attributed to Quackwatch. I simply could not find the statement in the source provided. I challenged this. The content was re-introduced and suddenly the Quackwatch source provided the content! It appears the source I was originally following was an archive. After my challenge, this was suddenly cleaned up here. How misleading this can be and what a complete waste of my time. It is so dangerous to be using Quackwatch as a source when it is so dynamic! It is a Blog and should be treated as such!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:*Do you have any reason to believe that this was anything different than the normal case of an archive and the current text falling out of sync? That's a pretty common phenomenon across all internet sources.&mdash;](]) 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}You're upset that the website changed in the last 5 years? Websites tend to do that. Your opinion of quackwatch is, however, not one shared by the editors at RSN, nor by the other reputable sources which reference it. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Chrissy before you started working with that quote from Quackwatch it was quoting the website accurately and the website's most recent version of the content matched what we had in our article. I don't understand what you're saying here, but it probably doesn't matter: the article and the source are now in sync. <code>]]</code> 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I am wondering whether we are talking about the same quote. I am referring to the quote in the "Scientific reception" section in the version here which states

:::"Quackwatch states that: TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care.

:::If you click on the , then click on the hyperlink of the title of the article, it takes you here. This does not contain the quote, it does not even contain the section "The bottom line is". Try searching for the word "nebulous".
:::<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup>
::::See "TCM theory and practice are not based upon the body of knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. TCM practitioners disagree among themselves about how to diagnose patients and which treatments should go with which diagnoses. Even if they could agree, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care. " ] (]) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:Wow! The POV editing regarding Quackwatch is just incredible. I have just edited ] to indicate that the website does not always contain peer-reviewed articles (which it admits on its own FAQs) only to have this reverted twice. Surely this is a fundamental characteristic of Quackwatch which readers need to know. What is wrong with stating what a web-site says about itself?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' By definition, ] ("based on a tradition of more than 2,000 years") is not based on scientific knowledge, unless the word "science" is redefined to include what anyone thinks. After the event, it may turn out that ''some'' traditional remedies involve components with useful medicinal properties, but TCM is based on chi and meridians and the source is fine (]) for pointing out that TCM is something quite different from medicine based on science. ] (]) 01:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Remove source...keep statement''' As all can see quackwatch is not seen by all here as the best source (lets assume the same can be said for our readers)....so lets find sources that have a better overall rep....thus readers and edtors will have more confidence in the article overall. I suggest we keep the sentence and just source it with something newer that mentions both TCM and Acupuncture.... like -<small> {{cite book|author1=James M. Humber|author2=Robert F. Almeder|title=Alternative Medicine and Ethics|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ehWzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10|year=2013|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-1-4757-2774-6|page=10}} </small>-- ] (]) 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

== Iceman tattoo ==

], there is no solid evidence for the existence of acupuncture points. Until there is, speculations such as the one you're promoting are simply wild hypotheses which are not taken seriously by the scientific community. -] 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, it has been taken seriously by researchers. ] (]) 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::Which researchers? -] 18:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Many researchers, including Edzard Ernst. ] (]) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Another source would help solidify the theory's notability. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::It would be duplication if I added to the page. ] (]) 18:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

* @QuackGuru - It is still complete speculation, based on an outdated source from 1999. Can you please stop promoting this tattoo hypothesis as an equivalent to "contemporary acupuncture points"? -] 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:*There are more sources such as a from Edzard Ernst. ] (]) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::*All he did was refer to the 1999 source some time after it was published. I follow Ernst closely and I believe he has '''never''' mentioned this in recent years. Correct me if I'm wrong. -] 19:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:::*The sources did not say it was speculation. For issues on recent years see ]. ] (]) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::*So it's accepted by the scientific community? In that case we should elaborate more on these "acupuncture points", shouldn't we? -] 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

== Cochrane reviews on acupuncture ==

The words "pseudoscience", "quackery" and the like seem to be thrown at acupuncture without a second thought. My second thought was to check whether these terms really do apply. So, I turned to ] to find out which would be the best way to research this. ] states "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality...", so I went to the Cochrane Collaboration site and typed "acupuncture" into their reviews search engine. I got 248 hits. I went through the first 20 of these and found the following -

"There is low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia."

"Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture may have some antipsychotic effects as measured on global and mental state with few adverse effects."

"In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials, the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches."

"In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care."

"Acupuncture may reduce period pain, however there is a need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials."

"There is moderate evidence that acupuncture relieves pain better than some sham treatments, measured at the end of the treatment."

I only looked at the first 20 hits of the search, but if this is a representative sample, it means that approximately 25% of Cochrane reviews find a positive effect of acupuncture. Pseudoscience? Quackery? hmmmm....<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
:Talk pages are ] to bring up topics to discuss in general, but are here to improve the article. What specific suggestions do you have to change the text of this article, citing which source? ] (]) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::@Yobol Perhaps you missed it but in the opening paragraph it states "TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge, and acupuncture is described as a type of pseudoscience. Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery"....that to me seems to be undue weight.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::: The rules for lead indicate that that content should be mentioned. That's about as short a mention as is possible, and it's properly sourced, so those words are obviously ''not'' "thrown at acupuncture without a second thought." -- ] (]) 21:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy - What do you think of the following sources:

#'']'': "In addition, new research is shedding light on the effects of meditation and acupuncture on central mechanisms of pain processing and perception and regulation of emotion and attention. Although many unanswered questions remain about these effects, findings are pointing to scientifically plausible mechanisms by which these modalities might yield benefit." (pg. 14e-3)
#: "Basic research on acupuncture's mechanisms in Western societies started in 1976 after the endorphin hypothesis of acupuncture's mechanism of action was introduced. Further advancement of acupuncture research was prompted by the introduction of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomographic scanning, which revealed the relation between acupuncture stimulation and activation of certain brain structures" ()
#: "A scientific basis may exist for acupuncture. Acupuncture stimulates high-threshold, small-diameter nerves that activate the spinal cord, brainstem (i.e., periaqueductal gray area), and hypothalamic (i.e., arcuate) neurons, which trigger endogenous opioid mechanisms. The effect of acupuncture analgesia can be reversed by administration of naloxone." ()
I'm particularly interested in your opinion about source #2, since it relates to veterinary medicine. -] 20:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC
:I think all three are excellent sources. I came across the second a few days ago and it is something that we really need to incorporate. It's probably not worth discussing in detail here because a member of the ] police will step in and say because it is veterinary it should not be discussed here. Funny how different factions of the medical profession can have such open or closed minds.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy, I don't think ] forbids the use of veterinary medical textbooks in topics on veterinary medicine. If there are no objections, I'll incorporate the text into the article. -] 21:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::No it does not forbid it because ] does not apply to veterinary science or to animals. I have already incorporated the reference into ] - I'll expand a little bit tomorrow. Thank you very much for the reference. Much appreciated.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::: I beg to differ. MEDRS applies to direct medical claims, even veterinary. If it doesn't say so in the policy, it should. -- ] (]) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::There is an ongoing discussion on ] regarding the '''possible''' inclusion of vet medicine into MEDRS - surprised you have missed it. There are not really any strong arguments for it. I seem to remember somewhere that even Jtydog suggested it should not apply to animal articles.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

-This section is a jumble, and my attempt to make it legible was reverted. I will not be participating further. ] (]) 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::At the significance 0.05, 1 in 20 papers will produce a false positive. See ]. ] (]) 21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Nah - that is pseudoreplication. Each study is independent of all the others. Besides which, they look at the effects of acupuncture on different dysfunctions - totally wrong to lump them together like that. In any case, you are talking about 1 in 20 papers as being a Type I error - how do you explain the findings of the other 5 studies?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::Just in response to this comment, you can't make a conclusion on that because you need to know the numbers of both positive and negative results, not just the number of positives. There are also plenty of ways for bias to occur - independence is a pretty big assumption! ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 02:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::], these issues were obviously taken into account by the Cochrane reviewers, haven't they? -] 09:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC):::
::::::::Your ping didn't work, by the way. In any case, I was responding in the abstract to an abstract statement, without referring to specifics, so that would be a different subject. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Let's not get diverted by this. The 25% which I stated above is probably OR on my part. It was meant as a throw-away comment and not to taken as ststistical evidence trying to convince a reader about any "fact" or trend. My point of the OP was to indentify that there are multiple Cochrane reports out there which have a positive finding with regard to acupuncture. In my mind, the medical dogmatists are wanting it both ways. They are quoting extremely loaded words such as "quackery" and "Pseudoscience" (without quotes by the way!), and then playing down the findings of sources which they normally defend as being amongst the most reliable possible.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Scientific publications have a bias for publishing significant results only; so for every published significant result for it, there could be 19 results which never get published, due to such bias. ] (]) 10:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I agree. The Cochrane reviews seem to be different than other branches of science in that they do take into account "no significant difference". I would be the first to say that because I found 6 of 20 reviews had a positive conclusion for acupuncture, this means 14 did not.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Not our job to speculate on such matters. There are statistical methods to evaluate the publication bias, so let's leave that for the scientists. ] (]) 13:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Our job is also to be careful not to represent pseudoscience as having merit. That a minority of studies on a treatment with such a notably strong placebo effect show weak results of positive impact, using such weak language as "low to moderate-level evidence" and "limited evidence shows that acupuncture may", is unsurprising and unpersuasive.&mdash;](]) 18:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Leave that to the scientists. For you, I'd recommend to ]. Ps. Don't you worry about disclaimers, doesn't affect our position in anyway. ] (]) 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Disclaimers don't affect things? I'm sorry that you don't understand their meaning or purpose, ].&mdash;](]) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Acupuncture has "proven efficacy" and scientific backing ==

I just a series of edits which indicate quite strongly that TCM has scientific backing and is "effective" without qualification. I think this needs ''significantly'' more discussion before being inserted into the article, as it turns our coverage of Acupuncture's efficacy on its head. What sources are we referencing when adding this content? Why are we now aiming to exclude our existing sources which say the precise opposite? &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:We are using '']''. Which sources are we excluding, ]? -] 19:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::It's not that you are attempting to exclude existing sources, it's that you were attempting to provide false parity.&mdash;](]) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Statements of authoritative medical textbooks need to be given due weight. What would both of you suggest as a compromise? -] 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ec}}First of all, you've taken these three sources: , , and replaced them with just one: . You've not just provided equal weight to this new source, but you've actually given it significantly more weight ("scientists vs quackwatch"). Your edits to later parts of the page are of more concern, but for essentially the same reason. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Well, we can put them back in? I would also appreciate some suggestions from you about how we could give both sources equal weight, ]. -] 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::In such cases we go with the scientists and omit QuackWatch. ] (]) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Equal weight? Why should "{{tq|Traditional Chinese Medicine: Scientific Basis for Its Use}}" be given equal weight to those three sources? Why is it of that high a quality? &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Because it is written by experts in a relevant scientific field (]) and it is from a respected publisher (])? Don't you think this is grounds for a legitimate scientific discussion, ]? -] 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::To the extent that it makes claims about ''pharmacology'', I haven't got any objection to its use. There are certainly herbs used in TCM that have legitimate medical value. To the extent that it makes the claim that the underlying concepts of TCM, such as qi, yin, and yang, make scientific sense, I don't see that the expertise in pharmacology is applicable, and the claim itself is clearly a fringe claim. As the publisher has disclaimed responsibility for the contents, the publisher's credentials don't factor into the discussion.&mdash;](]) 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The purpose of pointing to the publisher's credentials isn't to imply that they are responsible for contents, but to demonstrate that they are independent of, and unrelated to, the acupuncture community. In any case, we have a prominent medical textbook () that says "''Although based on the theory that needling regulates the flow of vital energy, neuroscience research suggests that acupuncture induces clinical response through modulation of the nervous system''" (). This demonstrates the medical community's preference for a modern explanation of acupuncture in lieu of a purely traditional explanation ("vital energy"), ]. Also, what good reason do we have to replace a good medical textbook with QuackWatch, ]? -] 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::KWW, it is claiming TCM has a strong scientific basis, not that TCM herbalism alone has a strong scientific basis. It is simply suggesting that herbs have a pharmacological method of action under TCM, which it's claiming has a strong basis in science. ] (]) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Exactly, and that's what makes it a fringe claim. That TCM has identified some valuable herbs is non-controversial. I can't imagine any reputable scientist arguing that an herb couldn't possibly have value because TCM uses it. That TCM has a scientific foundation ''is'' controversial (controversial to the point of being ludicrous, in fact) and a background in pharmacology doesn't provide strong support for claiming that qi, yin, and yang are viable approaches to studying chemistry.&mdash;](]) 01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}A1, the quote you've provided does not address the first section you changed. It also does not indicate acceptance of TCM or acupuncture within the scientific community. Why use quackwatch? Because it explicitly addresses the claim we are sourcing without ] or synthesis, and its findings are consistent with the plethora of other sources which describe the scientific community's opinion. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 22:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:I am not arguing that TCM is accepted within the scientific community. I am arguing, however, that medical acupuncture is accepted by a large faction of the medical profession (at least the modern explanations for acupuncture are). QuackWatch should be given less weight because it fails to address this second issue. -] 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks, Mann jess. If the findings of QuackWatch "''are consistent with the plethora of other sources which describe the scientific community's opinion''", then we will remove QuackWatch on the peculiar instance and replace it with some of those sources describing the scientific consensus. ] (]) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::You're not? Well, you removed content that said TCM was not based on scientific knowledge, and wrote in its place that scientists believe TCM is just misunderstood. Again, your source does not address that topic, but the ones we are using do, and they back up the existing wording. Also, I don't see any part of your edit which discusses the acceptance of modern explanations of acupuncture by medical professionals. All I see are suggestions that acupuncture is efficacious and backed by science, and our MEDRS compliant sources contradict that claim. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 01:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Like I said, I have nothing against restoring that content. What I wrote was "poorly understood", not "misunderstood" - Both terms have different meanings. The part on acceptance by the medical profession was . I stand by this addition, firmly, and request an explanation of why this content should be removed. -] 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::"Poorly understood" and "misunderstood" have different meanings, but the difference is not significant to what I wrote. As for the diff, I did not remove that content, so I'm not the one to ask why it was taken out. I'd venture a guess that there is an effort to trim the article, since it's become unwieldy to the point of being nearly incomprehensible. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Trimming the article = Reverting the edits of other editors? Since you're not willing to defend the removal, I request that someone else do so. Otherwise I'm going to restore it back to . It is not perfect but at least it's something all of us could (hopefully) live with. -] 06:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} edit is ''completely'' inappropriate. It wholly removes the description of Acupuncture's scientific reception from the lead, and ''on top of that'', goes on to summarize it as an opinion from 2007. The edit was made when discussion thus far has shown such changes to be contentious. Please discuss edits like that before instituting them (and reverting to get them in the article!) &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== POV on Lede ==

I added a POV tag to the lede since its neutrality is under dispute by several editors. I'm contending additional reliable sources are needed for parity. Furthermore, one source is being misrepresented since it's used out of context for a strong claim. Let's hear any ideas on how we can resolve this dispute. ] (]) 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:Is anyone disputing it that doesn't have a COI in relationship to TCM? Or is it just people that rely financially on people misunderstanding its status as folklore and superstition that object?&mdash;](]) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:: I don't make a living in relationship to TCM, and I don't appreciate the accusation nor the implication of COI. Kww, I've always tried being cordial with you and yet I feel like you are cotinually being very uncivil towards me. Why? ] (]) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::: Because you insistently and persistently portray TCM as having validity. Either you know better, which means your edits fall under one category of problem, or you do not, which means your editing falls under another category of problem.&mdash;](]) 17:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: For the record, I don't think TCM is very valid. But it's not what I believe, we are going to rely on what sources say. We're not going to delete reliable sources just because they don't correspond to our point-of-view. Regardless, your justification doesn't excuse your constant incivility, and I'm going to ask that you stop right now and start treating myself and others with more respect. I would not accuse you of working for an industry that is threatened by acupuncture in order to justify edit warring, disruption and other bad behavior. You are an administrator and seem to be intelligent so I shouldn't have to be telling you any of this, but please stop. ] (]) 18:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::I too have absolutely no COI or relationship to TCM. I dislike that you may be lumping me into that. I had not realised until the posting above that you were an administrator. TuT TuT - I would have expected a much more measured posting.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::My response was quite measured and not uncivil. I admit that there is a third form of problem that plagues the article: the occasional well-meaning editor that believes that we gullibly parrot sources without evaluating them for fringe science and pseudoscience. Regardless of the motivation, editors that consistently and intentionally make this article misrepresent acupuncture are a problem.&mdash;](]) 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:We had this discussion about the tag before. We don't need a tag at the top of the page again. Do you remember the previous discussion on this? The result was no consensus to restore the tag. ] (]) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

::How nice of you to finally post here over a day later to justify your removal of the template. Of course, the dispute then was never resolved so you're disrupting again and regardless, this is a new dispute with many new sources being contended. Can you please explain why you ignored the sentence on the template that says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"? Why do you constantly remove POV templates? Also, why did you ignore the rules about removal which say,
::'''Remove this template whenever:'''
::'''There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved'''
::'''It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given'''

::Since there was no consensus that it was resolved, and since I made it very clear what the neutrality issue was, what again made you think you could quickly remove the tag? ] (]) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Editors disagree with making the lede longer. ] (]) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Cancer-related pain ==

], you a statement from the ] which says "in patients with cancer related pain". How is this not part of "cancer-related conditions"? -] 11:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:The same statement in the same article is being paraphrased differently in two different sections. It should only be there once, or it should be explicitly noted that it is the same statement in the same article. The first use refers to "nausea and vomiting from either chemotherapy or radiation therapy", and the second use refers to "cancer-related pain" (and something not relevant '''and''' not in the article). Although it's not a '''fringe''' article, both references are outside of the medical specialty that the organization and journal normally represent. In other words, both clearly ''fail'' ], unless the ''authors'' are expert in the field of the article, not just the field of the journal. I'm beginning to think that ''both'' statements should go. — ] ] 19:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|A1candidate}} — ] ] 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:If ''that'' item is listed, it should be under "pain", rather than under "cancer-related conditions". It might be still better to paraphrase the statements together under "Cancer-related conditions", rather than separately under "pain" and "nausea". I still have doubts about it being appropriate at all, though. — ] ] 20:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Both are weak sources. These are political opinions rather than scientific evidence. We are using many reviews. We don't need to reach down to lower-quality sources to argue with better sources. ] (]) 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

{{OD}}The clinical practice guidelines is poor evidence and only suggestions. The solid evidence is Cochrane reviews. ] (]) 08:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, but they're not perfect. That is why ] must not be ignored. -] 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::We have ] too. This page has over 300 references and is very long. For a mature topic with many reviews we should use better sources. ] (]) 09:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I would suggest deleting the blog of ] and remove his ]al statements -] 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I did remove the source David Gorski from a long section. See ]. If you want to remove more specific information I suggest starting a new section. ] (]) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::The sources are opinions not solid evidence. The sources . ] (]) 20:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Last time I checked, Gorski's name is still there. Then add it to the body instead of removing. -] 20:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::It is where exactly. We have more precise wording using a high-quality review in the body. ] (]) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Under section on "ethics" -] 21:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You have not given a reason to remove it from ]. ] (]) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::How about failing ]? -] 21:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::The source was discussed before. See ]. ] (]) 21:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Listen, I agree with Arthur that the ] talking about acupuncture and cancer isn't the same as the American Cancer Society, but it's wrong to outright delete things like this without discussion. There can be a perfectly reasonable argument for its inclusion that is worth examining. For instance, chest physicians like pulmonolgists often see patients undergoing cancer treatment and might give referrals for acupuncture. Based on their expertise, it may be relevant. If we want to have a strict enforcement of the specialization clause in MEDRS, we could absolutely start deleting claims from all non-acupuncture specific journals since it's not within their field of expertise. ] (]) 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

== Revert of pseudoscience ==

Regarding : Huh? This is the first time (to my knowledge) the pseudoscience descriptor was removed from that section, so the accusation of edit warring is bizarre. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 13:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I was talking about your pattern of editing, not a single revert.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::My "pattern of editing"? I reverted you only once prior to that, on an entirely different edit, and I commented on the talk page regarding both reverts. , however, ''is'' edit warring; it is a revert of a revert without discussion with the intent of forcing a proposed change into the article despite opposition. You should read ] before citing it. That all said, you undid my change above without providing any rationale. Why did you do that? &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:And version was not an improvement. {{u|DrChrissy}} please discuss and get consensus for significant changes ''before'' you make them. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Please see ].<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Scientific basis section ==

I have been trying to bring a little stability and order to this article. I have tried to take details (not the subject) about adverse effects from the lede to the main body of the article. Result - disruptive edit warring! I have tried to take the scientifc basis of acupuncture to its own section so that the lead can remain stable for at least 24 hrs. Result - more disruptive edit warring! I even chose to place this scientific basis above the section on clinical practice. I think everybody would agree that the scientific basis of acupuncture is contentious, so why do those doing the edit warring not want such a section. We can all have our say and leave the lede alone!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:You wanted the lead to be stable for 24 hours, so you made significant changes to it? That's a strange rationale. The lead must summarize the body, so there are two problems with your edit: 1) Moving the scientific reception of acupuncture out of the lead means it no longer summarizes the body, and indicates that acupuncture's scientific reception is not a significant part of the topic. 2) Since this detail is already covered in the body, moving the lead into the body means it is now covered twice in two different places (but still not in the lead). &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::As I stated in the edit summary I was trying to make the first para neutral so we could all leave it alone. Yes, the lead must summarize the body of the article, at the moment, there is little, if any, discussion of the scientific basis in the body of the article. This should be discussed in the body, not the lead, and the lead should only summarize it. I believe it's importance justifies its own heading.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::1) We don't have sections in leads. 2) If your intent was to move that entire section out of the lead, it would remove all indication that the mainstream medical community regards acupuncture as a fringe treatment. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::My intent was/is to move it out of the lead, discuss the section, then when consensus is clear, make a summary in the lead. At the moment, we appear to be having the discussion in the lead which is probably why several editors have already commented it is too long and complicated. My sole intention is to improve the article.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:There really are two issues here, and let's not conflate them. The benefits of acupuncture are contentious to the extent that there is legitimate research that shows that it may have some small actual effect through mechanisms that have not been properly isolated. Because of that, we cannot flatly state that acupuncture itself is pseudoscience or quackery. The underlying theories of TCM, however, with yin, yang, qi, meridians, and the like ''are'' obvious pseudoscience to the point that they should be unequivocally and decisively described as such in Misplaced Pages's voice and the smattering of contradictory studies dismissed as either erroneous or intentional ]. As for moving it "out of the lead": absolutely not. The lead serves as the summary and takeway for readers that skim, and the important takeaway on acupuncture is that it is a practice with dubious benefits that are not certain to exist, and that the theoretical underpinnings on which it was founded are superstition and folklore. Someone that reads the lead should not come away with the impression that it is a widely accepted medical treatment or that there is some kind of controversy over its origin.&mdash;](]) 15:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages is ]. Less personal opinions, more sources. Thank you Kww. ] (]) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Less interruptions of discussion flow, please. I have provided a reasonable summary of scientific opinion and your implication that I have not is completely unwelcome.&mdash;](]) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{u|Kww}} really highlights the issue here, it's the conflation of the TCM ideas (''qi'', meridians) and the evidence for effectiveness (RCT results). We have to be careful to cover these as separate topics. If there is some evidence for effectiveness beyond placebo, we cannot allow the article to imply that TCM has an accepted basis as the cause of it. <code>]]</code> 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Expansion of lead ==

Where are the extensive talk page discussions for ? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:See ] -] 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN - Are you going to provide an explanation for your removal? -] 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, please use a less misleading edit summary next time. A discussion that's less than one day old, begins with "I think this needs significantly more discussion before being inserted into the article", and was not even about moving content into the lead is not "extensive talk page discussions". You should know that. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::You still have not provided a policy-based explanation for removing MEDRS sources. -] 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Because your laundry list was misleading and undue. Look at your very first source - (weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). The ''only'' recommendation classified as "weak". --] <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::So what do you suggest to make it less misleading, without deleting the views of medical organizations? -] 18:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::What about a section called "National reception" or "Reception by national medical organisations" (or something like that), with a summary in the lead? We alraedy have one section on Scientific reception and another section that could easily be called "Popular reception".<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Why would we worry about "popular reception" of an activity that purports to be medicine?&mdash;](]) 18:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
* The actual discussion history (started yesterday) cannot be reasonably used to "restore" something that never had consensus for inclusion in the lead in the first place, so per ] we restore the ''status quo ante'' and discuss the proposed change.<p>The existing wording in the lead is "Clinical practice varies depending on the country." sourced to Ernst. I can support a small expansion of that one sentence, sourced to a high quality secondary source (note that statements from the individual medical organizations would be primary sources for this purpose). <code>]]</code> 18:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Zad, if the medical organizations state their view is based on scientific evidence, doesn't this make them secondary sources?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::This is a subtlety in that the same source can be ''primary'' or ''secondary'' depending on what it's used for. For example, practice guideline from the American College of Physicians contains some discussion of acupuncture that might be used as a ''secondary'' source for "Acupuncture may be helpful for those with chronic back pain that does not respond to other treatment." (However I rush to point out that the guideline is from 2007 and there are plenty of more up-to-date sources.) But that practice guideline itself would be a ''primary'' source for "The American College of Physicians has suggested the use of acupuncture for some groups of patients" (to use the wording from the edit that started this discussion). Make sense? <code>]]</code> 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, I know what you mean. (You may be interested to look here at an essay I wrote on the subject.) I was actually thinking about the UK site which states "NICE makes these recommendations on the basis of scientific evidence."<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Off-topic}}
*], your edit summaries are beginning to approach active deceit. you described the reintroduction of contentious material that had been reverted multiple times as "format", and in "extensive talk page discussions" you implied that there was some indication that your edits were acceptable and had gained some level of consensus. If you insist on participating in this article, please do so honestly.&mdash;](]) 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::I have no intention of deceiving anyone, ]. -] 18:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Then why are you providing edit summaries that serve to disguise the content and intent of your edits?&mdash;](]) 18:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:*@ Kww. We Do Not accuse other editors of being deceitful – period. They may suffer from ambidextrousness, perfidiousness, double-dealing, etc., (''on the one hand you may say this but '''my''' other hand says...'' ). That is not in my book deceitful. Rather a lack of knowledge how science works. WP is a Encyclopedia that anyone can edit and we should expect these poorly reasoned comments.--] (]) 18:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
:This is a hodgepodge of content ] verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ] (]) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::Also, {{tq|Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture}} is invalid reasoning - ] - not consistent with ], to give just one example. --] (]) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


== This article is racist ==
If we have reliable sources that offer parity, we have to expand the lede for neutrality purposes. If we are worried about the lede being too long, then we have to delete parts of it. But what we cannot do is have it full of one-sided sourcing only. Hence the tag I added. ] (]) 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:This information was about but we already have information about effectiveness to summarise the body. See "Evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture is "variable and inconsistent, even for single conditions". An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews found evidence suggesting that acupuncture may alleviate certain kinds of pain." ] (]) 21:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::That information serves as parity against Quackwatch calling its basis pseudoscience. Oh, and Quackwatch doesn't hold much weight against a plethora of sources like that so it needs to be replaced by something with equal weight to those national scientific bodies, or be deleted altogether. ] (]) 21:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Why do you insist on providing "parity"? What parts of our policies and guidelines about pseudoscience do you misinterpret as requiring us to provide equal time to the notion that TCM isn't pseudoscience?&mdash;](]) 21:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Just popping in. If we have more reliable sources than QuackWatch, we can replace it by the more reliable ones. ] (]) 21:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Effectiveness and pseudoscience are two separate issues. ] (]) 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Kww, I don't mean ] when I say parity, I mean ]. All the edits ] and ] and I made in the lede's expansion were towards providing a counter argument to Quackwatch's claims. I didn't delete Quackwatch, even though it really fails the test on ] if you stand Quackwatch up next to notable textbooks, multiple government health organizations, and notable scientific books that disagree with Quackwatch. Really, if we are going to use the claim, we need to find a source that has equal weight to the many acupuncture-positive ones that were deleted. ] (]) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:But the scientific consensus is that '''''TCM''''' is claptrap. I agree that the lead can't describe acupuncture itself as pseudoscience directly and without attribution, but that doesn't apply to TCM. Sources that describe TCM as having a foundation are ], and cannot be included as being on par and are not necessary (or even desirable) for balance. We don't balance science with pseudoscience, nor present fringe claims as being on par with accepted science.&mdash;](]) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Scientific consensus? Where are you getting your information about scientific consensus saying TCM is a claptrap? Don't tell me the Misplaced Pages article! Kww, don't you know that editors there only pretend there is a consensus amongst scientists by deleting all scientific sources that suggest otherwise? They do, I promise you. These editors actually delete scientific sources and statements that come from the NIH, the NHS, the Routeledge Encyclopedia of Science, texts published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, anesthesia textbooks, and then they claim there is scientific consensus all because Quackwatch says so. They can't ever seem to find anyone else who says exactly what Quackwatch says, but they merely repeat words like "scientific consensus says" which confuses editors just passing by, and making them think the folks trying to add statements by the NHS and NIH are fringe kooks who are just trying to push another strange theory into the encyclopedia. And they also don't want Quackwatch attributed when it says something about TCM, even though an RfC on TCM suggested otherwise. Seriously, if you want good information on TCM or Acupuncture, I'll show you some sources by scientific bodies. Don't read Misplaced Pages for your information anymore. ] (]) 00:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::No, I'm afraid it's people pushing superstition and fraud that are pretending.&mdash;](]) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

== Full protection... ==

...for three days. Let's try and continue this here, rather than on the article please. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Not being verifiable? ==

{{u|DrChrissy}}, what are you ? Have you actually clicked the link and ''read'' the web page? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Stop being so patronising. The link has been changed very recently. When I made my comments, I was being directed to an older version of the Quackwatch article that did '''not''' include the statement. The current source now does. The lack of stability in this web-site/blog is another reason we should not be using Quackwatch.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I went back to a of the article. Same quote, same link, so your explanation does not make sense to me. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::The version of the article here directs to this source. I was unable to verify the statement from that source.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup>

:::Chrissy, the bit of the Quackwatch article we quote here has been on the source web page since April 2011. I'm not seeing support for the idea that the content suffers from "lack of stability". <code>]]</code> 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually, I was talking about the stability of the source, Quackwatch. It is clear that articles are updated - I have no idea how frequently or infrequently, but I wonder if editors are careful enough to keep WP updated with Quackwatch.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes I understood you correctly. Quackwatch does indeed update their articles, which many would consider to be a ''pro'' and not a ''con'', in that they keep their articles up-to-date. You can use archive.org to see how many updates are made over time. But I get your point, and we probably shouldn't be using a big direct quote like we're using currently, I'd prefer if we summarized it (with attribution). <code>]]</code> 19:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for that and the helpful advice on archive.org. I would agree totally with a summary with attribution, rather than a quote which seems to be a little ].<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

== Edit protected request ==

{{edit protected|answered=y}}
:Please add the {{tl|content}} tag to the article. There is absolutely no disagreement that there is and has been a content dispute, and that either some content not in the article belongs there, or that some content in the article does not belong there. I see no chance that the dispute will be resolved in the near future, but ''some'' of the disputes are being discussed, so I believe the tag is appropriate, even while the article is protected. — ] ] 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::I don't see how a tag will improve the article. It solves nothing. ] (]) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah, I can support the addition of such a tag in this case. — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{admin note}} awaiting further comments &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' along with Arthur if this is the {{content}} tag he's talking about, and I've added one or two similar ones myself. I really believe they'll help attract new editors. But how do we keep the war zone away? Well, what I really think will do the trick there is to dramatically lower the threshold for topic bans. Make a couple of disruptive edits, you're automatically topic banned. Go over the 3RR twice, you're topic banned. Act uncivil towards editors, topic banned. Administrators should also not feel impervious to the possibility of being banned either. People need to stop feeling like they are entitled to grossly violate rules here. That'll prevent this battleground editing for good. ] (]) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::great idea Les, but what will you do after you get indeffed from fringe topics, broadly construed. -] (]) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Good question. I guess I'll start editing bumblebee and Disney articles with you! ] (]) 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - We don't need a tag again. According to previous discussion there was no consensus to have the tag. What is the purpose for the tag when there are many editors currently discussing this article? How will the tag improve the article? ] (]) 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - I see no harm with including the tag, especially since the tag is closely linked to many of the questions discussed here at the Talk Page. Hopefully it will attract more editors to the article. ] (]) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:*How will the tag attract more editors to the article? What would be the purpose of attracting more editors? I think we need not more. ] (]) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::What the article needs is people who can talk things out...not article owners. -- ] (]) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
::::To talk about what things exactly? Should we talk about the change? Should we talk about things like what ? Or is this a waste of time? ] (]) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::So far those talks are a good step...but no need for all the edit wars (thus why the page is locked). If people are not aware of the editing habit problems here then they need to step-back and look at what's going on again. All should follow our basic expectations on how to deal with content and sourcing arguments. I understand that this article has had a long history of problems....but this does not mean the basics should not be followed. Perhaps the community should impose a 1 revert for this topic....this may help. -- ] (]) 20:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Why would it be a good step to talk about a change? Why would it be a good step to talk about a what ? Maybe it would help if ArbCom would accept the case rather that talk things out. Talk things out about for what? The edits don't improve anything. ] (]) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::There are many editors here with different POV's ...thus we have a talk page to talk things out ...this falls under common sense. You may believe all is perfect and nothing should change.. but this is not how it works here.....others may voice opinions or edit the page at will. If they or even you are reverted after a bold edit then a talk should take place...not an editwar. All should try to propose solutions ...not kick each-other in the nuts. If this is beyond peoples capability then they should think about editng other topics that are not as controversial. -- ] (]) 22:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Okay. Who supports this ? Anyone? ] (]) 22:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: Hell no. That attributes the mainstream view, widely held, to a single individual, which gives an entirely false impression. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::: We had this before A1candidate's edits of 19:36, 3 May 2015: {{quote|Some believe that TCM has a strong scientific basis, <ref>{{cite book |last=Adams |first=David James |date= 2013|title=Traditional Chinese Medicine: Scientific Basis for its Use|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vh9PkMT2b0wC |location= |publisher=]|page=2 |isbn=1849736618 |access-date= }}</ref> but according to ], it is not based upon ],<ref name=Barrett2007/> and others describe acupuncture as a type of ].<ref name=Baran2014/><ref name=khine/>The claim that acupuncture is medically effective has in the past been declared a pseudoscientific claim, but there is now plausible scientific evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness.<ref>{{cite book |last=Curd |first=Martin |date=2013 |title=The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GfopAAAAQBAJ&q=pseudoscience#v=snippet&q=acupuncture&f=false|location= |publisher=Routledge |page=470|isbn= 1135011087|access-date= }}</ref> However, ] and ] describe it as a "borderlands science" lying between normal science and pseudoscience.<ref name=Massimo2013/>}}
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::::::: Any thoughts on this? ] (]) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{reflist|close=1}}
::::::::::::This was rejected. ] (]) 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: You seem to be in danger of the fallacy of false equivalency. Some people's POV is that disease is caused by imbalance of yin and yang and can be cured by balancing the flow of qi through meridians using acupuncture. That is a POV, just as the age of Earth being 6,000 years is a POV, but both are based on superstition and dogma, and both are wrong.
:::::::::: This is not a matter of balancing POVs of equal validity. It is a matter for making specific, actionable edit requests, and seeing if there is consensus for them. Science is not a POV, it's a method for separating truth from falsehood.
:::::::::: It is also a matter for controlling long-term ] by acupuncture advocates. We do this on articles like {{la|homeopathy}} all the time. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::All great points....so what to do...we show many sources for what many may seem as contentions ...that is we have both MED sources and textbook source....why textbook source??? Because they go into details about topics and this will let others see the reasons behind the conventional thinking. So do you think a one revert option on this article would help? -- ] (]) 23:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
{{OD}}Editors can review . After over 235 edits little has changed. ] (]) 22:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{added}} the maintenance tag &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

== "Although minimally invasive" ==

The lede currently contains the text:
: Although minimally invasive, the puncturing of the skin with acupuncture needles poses problems when designing trials that adequately control for placebo effects.
The difficulty of designing trials is adequately sourced, but as far as I can tell "although minimally invasive" is editorial and appears to violate ]. It is invasive enough to result in numeorus case histories of cardiac tamponade, infection and other adverse events, after all. I can't find a robust source for the implicit claim that acupuncture is a member of the class of minimally invasive procedures (see {{section link|Invasiveness of surgical procedures|Minimally invasive procedure}} for a description of the normal use of the term). Minimally invasive is a term normally reserved for techniques that reduce the invasiveness of an established procedure; pain management is normally not invasive at all, whereas acupuncture is, so I think this text is misleading and incorrect. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:The body says "Due to acupuncture's '''invasive nature''', one of the major challenges in efficacy research is in the design of an appropriate placebo control group." I wonder who made the changes to the lede or the body. ] (]) 23:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

== Review article ==

A meta-analysis has just been published that might warrant inclusion here. "Acupuncture therapy can significantly improve the hearing of patients with nerve deafness, and the efficacy of acupuncture in combination with medication is superior to medication alone." I am leaving it here for regular editors to decide if it is worth including. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*This is a low-impact journal, so I personally think it should probably be left out. ] ] 20:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*The authors are Jiang Y, Shi X, and Tang Y. They might have a COI. ] (]) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*The journal is . <code>]]</code> 20:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*Looks great to me! ] states "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)" Authors sometimes choose for their own reasons to publish in low impact journals - that does not mean the article itself is poor quality. Not being Medline indexed does not necessarily mean it is poor quality. Perhaps we could have some evidence of the COI accusation?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*Leave it out, not MEDLINE indexed, in a low impact journal. ] (]) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*Please provide the impact factor of the journal as evidence it should not be used.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
**Before sticking your neck out on this one, why not read the paper's own discussion section, and note carefully the drawbacks the authors bring up... Also read ]. <code>]]</code> 21:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
*I am not sticking my neck out, I am simply asking another editor to provide evidence to back up their arguments that 1) there is a potential COI, and 2) the impact factor of the journal.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
**The impact factor is on : 1.422. As a comparison to some of the top general medical journals NEJM has a impact factor >50, JAMA ~30, Annals of Internal Medicine ~16. Compared to 2013 impact factors, this would place it #72 in the general medicine category, slightly ahead of the ] and the ]. ] (]) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
**<p>"Looks great to me!" seems like sticking your neck out... <code>]]</code> 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Interesting discussion! I honestly thought it would be ok to include, but thought I should let you guys decide. A question though, as I clearly do not have a good grip on policies regarding sources in medical articles...why would you exclude this peer-reviewed meta-analysis when in the sections above it seems many of you accept inclusion of the non-peer-reviewed sources from blog sites like Quackwatch? Isn't this review a better source than a non-peer-reviewed blog, despite that it might not be medline indexed? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::It '''is''' a better source, but stand back and wait for the replies you are about to get!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Here come the replies.... Because some people (and everybody can join in the chorus here . It goes like this): ]'' Nah-nah-nah – can't hear you? Because it offends my- un-examin-ed- beliefs! nah-nah-nah – can't hear you – nah-nah-nah. Its not on Quack Watch, not on Quack Watch, so nah-nah—nah nah an a nah''.--] (]) 22:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::@IP 108: It is important to note that how reliable a source is depends on the context of what text it is being used as a source to support. For instance, ] is not just your run of the mill blog, but is a highly praised website (praised by medical sources and general media alike); it is also being used to source content in this article that is generally difficult to find in peer reviewed sources, such as discussion of the conceptual basis of acutpuncture. It is not being used to describe the efficacy of acutpuncture in individual diagnoses. This is an important mistake that many editors make, in that they forget that different types of sources can be reliable for different types of text they are used to support. Your suggested source is not a high quality source compared to the others used in this article to describe the efficacy of acupuncture for individual diagnoses, and should therefore not be used for this purpose. ] (]) 22:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@IP 108. You have raised a question that has been raised many, many times, simply because it is such an obvious one to ask. I myself raised the same question on the Talk page of this article just a few days ago. I suggest you have look to see the type of answers you might get here. It is some of the most mis-contrived logic I have ever read.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::@DrChrissy, @Aspro, please stop ]. It is ]. ] (]) 22:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Then stop ]! It is as simple as that.--] (]) 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::@] How can I possibly be poisoning the well. The IP asked a question and I am answering them. Sorry if my answers disagree with yours but that is life! I am requesting that you strike the accusation about me being disruptive.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
* A low-impact journal with a surprising result? In general, for ''all'' medical topics, if there's an isolated report in a low-impact journal with a result that isn't reported by in more widely accepted journals, we shouldn't include it. If acupuncture ''actually'' cures deafness, it will be eventually reported more widely and we can report it then.&mdash;](]) 23:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
::1.42 is actually fairly good. In my experience looking at impact factors, it would put the journal in the top half in a medical category. ] (]) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::It is . That's not good. ] (]) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::@TimidGuy: 1.422 may be "ok" in certain very specialized topics, but not in this context. Their impact factor puts them in the bottom 30% of their respective category (87th out of 124). It is not MEDLINE indexed, it has a low impact factor and all signs point to it not being a high quality journal, and therefore should not be used. ] (]) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

==Scientific consensus (and COI too)==
If there is really sci consensus that acupuncture is bunk and that acupuncturists have COI's, why do these counterexamples exist?
* 251 currently-open clinical trials
* Used at multiple academic centers, e.g Harvard, Stanford ... plenty more
* Significant proportion of doctors favor it
* Novella acknowledges/predicts lack of agreement (see final 3 para's)
* Cochrane doesn't consider practicing acupuncturists conflicted when they write about efficacy (I recognize some names; no COI declared). Nor have I found much/any evidence that other editors of tert sources perceive COI.
I notice that a lot of editors who make unsupportable claims re consensus and COI (a) ], (b) ], (c) ], and (d) ]. Anyway these claims are unsupportable and we should respect NPOV. Note I'm talking about prevailing sci opinion, not ]: Misplaced Pages ]. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 11:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
: An interesting question, and one which goes tot he heart of the protracted argument.
: I have studied this exact question and as I understand it the answer is thus:
: The trials and such exist because acupuncture has a quasi-religious following, and the followers are quite unable to entertain the possibility that they are wrong. For a less contentious example, look at homeopathy. The doctrines of homeopathy were refuted over a century ago, there is no reason to suppose ti should work and no way it can work, and yet believers are still conducting trials, ignoring negative outcomes, advocating its "integration" into reality-based medicine and in sundry other ways proselytising their creed. Science, of course, doesn't care either way: all science cares about is, are these claims true or not? The answer appears to be: no. Read the pro-acupuncture studies. Most of them start by stating that acupuncture is an ancient form of healing art. It's not ancient, as currently practiced it dates back pretty much to Mao, and to call it a healing art, or effective treatment or whatever, is to beg the question. Very few studies start out by asking whether acupuncture actually works, and those that do tend to find that it doesn't. Most will instead ask ''how'' it works, assuming in the opening premises that it could not possibly be placebo, or seek to compare effectiveness with an admittedly therapeutically null intervention.
: The Cochrane issue is more contentious. I have a lot of time for Cochrane but I am aware of at least one review which is dominated by the reviewers' own work, with two of their data sets double counted amounting to well over half of all the data considered, including values which have never been duplicated and which are based on an estimated set of figures which, if you were to substitute measured values from work published contemporaneously by the same authors - also the reviewers - move from the high 80s percent to below statistical significance. There have been reviews of hoemopathic remedies with positive conclusions in Cochrane, even though this is clearly wrong. The problem is that Cochrane has not adapted to the problems identified by Ioannidis, which mean that a null treatment would be expected to generate a net positive evidence base through various biases.
: The cottage industry in seeking proof for prior belief, as evidenced in your question, is what leads critics to characterise this endeavour as pseudoscience. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


::I welcome this question and thank Middle_8 for raising this in such a calm and '''objective''' fashion. It appears that Middle_8 used only US sources for their posting, which is perfectly OK, but I think this could mean the extent of such counterexamples may be considerably underestimated. Anyway, let that not be a diversion. By coincidence, I have been looking very closely at Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture. This has caused me to think as a scientist (biologist) (and currently neutral on whether human acupuncture works) why do so many of these systematic reviews conclude there '''is''' a positive benefit? If acupuncture really has been debunked, are all these Cochrane reviewers wrong/misguided/incompetent?
::I disagree with Guy on 2 points. First, yes, there may be examples of COI or duplication of data in Cochrane, but surely you cannot be arguing this means every systematic review with a positive outcome for acupuncture can be dismissed because of these isolated incidents? Second, Guy states "Very few studies start out by asking whether acupuncture actually works". Many of the Cochrane systematic reviews do '''exactly''' this...there is no chat about meridians, qi, energy, etc, they simply ask, "does it work". Many of the trials or reviews directly compare acupuncture with various controls including sham acupuncture, placebos, pharmaceuticals, the waiting room and other therapies. Yesterday, I started working through the Cochrane systematic reviews trying to tabulate relevant details for those reviews finding a positive outcome for acupuncture. This is extremely time-consuming so I am reluctant to continue unless I know it will be accepted, however, I believe it is directly relevant to this thread of "why do counterexamples exist?" so I will post my early draft here.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!Ailment
!Number/type of studies reviewed
!Number of patients
!Strength of evidence
!Compared to
!Date
!URL

|-bgcolor="#ddffdd"
|Neck pain
|10 trials
|661
|Moderate
|Various
|2010
|

|-bgcolor="#ddffdd"
|Pain and stiffness from fibromyalgia
|9 trials
|396
|Low to moderate
|No acupuncture or standard therapy
|2013
|

|-bgcolor="#ddffdd"
|Schizophrenia
|30 trials
|
|Limited
|Various
|2014
|
|-bgcolor="#ddffdd"
|Prophylaxis of tension-type headaches.
|11 trials
|
|"valuable...tool"
|Various
|2009
|

|-bgcolor="#ddffdd"
|Period pain
|10 trials
|944
|"may reduce period pain"
|placebo, no treatment, conventional treatment
|2012
|

|}
::<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Now that M8 and the doc have been so comprehensively dismissed by Guy, can we now expect them to stop their disruption. Please. -] (]) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::<p>I'm sorry Chrissy but because you commented on PMID 25932209 with , and haven't retracted it, I can't give your evaluation of sources any weight. <code>]]</code> 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::@Zad Fair enough.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::@Zad - actually, perhaps you can show me where in the above I am making an evaluation. The words used are those given in the sources, usually the "authors'' conclusions".
:::::Well what did you mean when you wrote "Looks great to me!" if you didn't intend that to be an evaluation of the source?? <code>]]</code> 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Zad beat me to it, but I was going to say that "Looks great to me" kinda gives your feelings away. -] (]) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@Zad I thought your comment was about me evaluating sources in this thread. Yes? Where have I evaluated sources in this thread?. If you have simply commented on an edit of mine in another thread, isn't that rather off-topic. Or perhaps that is what is trying to be done? Deliberate disruptiveness because you have no answer to the question Mid8 and I are asking. Let's try to comment on the edits rather than the editors, shall we?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::So you've put up a table listing sources but have no plans to evaluate them for their quality or fitness for use here? ]'s response did comment on those aspects of sources, so that is definitely part of this conversation. <code>]]</code> 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::What a resounding pile of inconclusive results.
:::*
:::* (I note that this one is using an unexplained treatment against a disease that no one can agree on precisely what it is or what it affects)
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::You've provided strong evidence for JzGuy's position, not for acupuncture.&mdash;](]) 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::Two points, DrChrissy.
::First, you need to study the language of trial results used in promoting supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM). These almost invariably include only clinical trials of mainly poor methodology conducted by believers. Few, if any, provide evidence of any credible mechanism. Vanishingly few, if any at all, actually refute the null hypothesis.
:: Second, Middle8 has a material conflict of interest. Evidence he presents is unlikely to include anything that challenges his beliefs.
:: The issue with acupuncture is that it is at least minimally plausible that needling might have some effect. There is no evidence that qi or meridians exist, the claimed mechanisms advanced by TCM practitioners and other believers are generally religious and not empirically valid. It is very important to remember that a great deal of the published material is guilty of ], in that it assumes a positive outcome from the trial is (a) not a false positive and (b) validates the underlying belief system, rather than the simple act of needling. The former is addressed by Ioannidis in terms of prior probability, which for most of the conditions covered is actually very low, the latter is more of a concern to us in that we have to be very clear on what the evidence actually says.
:: You should also think long and hard about this: when an intervention claimed by its proponents to be universal, accumulates an evidence base that varies from null to weak positive, pretty much randomly across a spectrum of conditions, then this suggests extremely strongly that the effects are non-specific (i.e. placebo) and that the major difference between the studies is not the effect of the treatment, but the quality of blinding and other mechanisms to eliminate bias.
:: You can also see this in analyses of acupuncture and comparable trials from China, where there are almost no negative results, ever. In SCAM studies generally, the more committed the investigator is to the intervention, the more likely the outcome is to be positive. This has been extensively investigated with respect to homeopathy, where there is a direct relationship between study quality and outcome, with the most robust studies being least likely to produce a positive outcome (Linde, 1999). I am pretty sure I have seen similar analysis for acupuncture, but don't recall the cite offhand.
:: What is clear is that there is no robustly demonstrable difference between real and sham acupuncture:
::# It doesn't seem to matter where you put the needles.
::# It doesn't seem to matter whether you insert the needles or not.
::# It doesn't even seem to matter if you put the needles into the patient or .
:: The area of pseudomedicine, cognitive bias, placebo effects, blinding and nonspecific effects is very complex. The studies acupuncture proponents conduct are generally not terribly sophisticated, and are intended to support, rather than test, the premise. This undoubtedly exerts an effect on the outcomes. Skepticism is mandatory when reviewing these trials. And don't forget: acupuncture, and TCM generally, are quasi-religious in character, dominated by ritual and mysticism. There is deep emotional investment on the part of practitioners, many of whom have invested substantial time and resource in study of things which the reality-based community rejects outright, such as acupoints.
:: You can't take the statements of acupuncture proponents at face value, and you certainly can't assume that a minimally plausible mechanism of transient pain relief is likely to be the actual cause of longer term relief in symptoms whihc always turn out to be measured subjectively. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:The way you have phrased this is more than a bit misleading. There isn't a scientific consensus that acupuncture ''itself'' is complete bunk. There's a consensus that if there's any effect at all, it's small in absolute terms and small relative to the placebo effect. I tend to side with Guy that the doubt exists because of persistent source bias, but I can't dismiss the existence of the doubt. As for the underlying TCM basis of qi, meridians, yin, and yang? Yes, ''those'' are uniformly dismissed as nonsense by reliable sources.
:Again, an analogy, because it tends to make things more obvious. If there were a group of people that believed penicillin worked by scaring angry demons away, evidence that penicillin was effective would ''not'' be evidence that angry demons exist. Acupuncture is in a similar position: there is some small amount of evidence that indicates that it may have some limited effectiveness against some limited number of things. None of that is evidence in favor of TCM.&mdash;](]) 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::Good grief people! What a waste of your energy! As I stated, the table is an '''"early draft"'''! I had one thought of it existing as an appendix linked to a statement such as "Some Cochrane systematic reviews have found a positive benefit of acupuncture under some circumstances", so I/We would not be analysing the sources - Cochrane has already done that for us. Alternatively, it could on a stand-alone "list of...." page, but there could be a link to it on here.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, good point, it would be best if a specific content change proposal were made so that we can focus the conversation on that. The OP's comment didn't actually propose a specific change and I think we're struggling with that. <code>]]</code> 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I would even object to your summary, given your table. The summary of your table so far would be more like "Cochrane systematic reviews have been unable to reach meaningful positive conclusions due to flawed underlying studies, small trial sizes, methodological defects, and low-quality information".&mdash;](]) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::@Guy @Kww Please note that the only sources I have been referring to specifically are Cochrane systematic reviews. I'm sure you know that ] states "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window." Are you arguing that '''all''' Cochrane reviews reporting positive effects of acupuncture can be dismissed as innacurate, flawed, sub-standard or whatever?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::No, but as I , all the ones you have provided so far have failed to come to strong conclusions for various reasons.&mdash;](]) 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Well perhaps we need to contact Cochrane about this - stating that Misplaced Pages editors (with unknown expertise) are finding fundamental flaws in their expert, peer-reviewed, systematic reviews and these are no longer to be trusted.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I quoted the flaws that the study authors themselves noted, and provided links to the source of each quote. Please don't misrepresent my statements that way.&mdash;](]) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
If only we had a source specifically analysing the accuracy of Cochrane reviews of acupuncture. What's that you say? We ''have''?
{{quote|Just because something is labelled as a systematic review does not mean it is any good. We have to be just as vigilant now as ever. Even a review with a Cochrane label does not make its true. Four out of 12 Cochrane reviews on acupuncture were wrong.|}}
Note the discussion of author COIs.

The crucial bit you missed is that ] says that Cochrane reviews are ''generally'' of high quality, and you have interpreted that to mean that any finding of a Cochrane review is of high quality and its conclusions robust - even though the reviews themselves say the opposite.

The Cochrane Collaboration are well aware of widespread criticism of their reviews, and a vulnerability to agenda-driven reviewers. Several reviews have been replaced by newer reviews reversing or nullifying the previous findings. The review on tamiflu is deeply controversial.

The thing about science is that criticism is absolutely normal, it is what distinguishes science from quasi-religious practices like acupuncture. See if you can find any forum where acupuncturists use objective criteria to determine whether variants such as moxibustion or EAV are valid or not - it doesn't happen, doctrinal differences are exactly that: doctrinal, they cannot be objectively settled. Science, by contrast, seeks objective truth, and the attempt to look sciencey while studiously avoiding rejecting your base premise is what makes SCAM research pseudoscientific instead of scientific. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
: @Guy You stated above that 4/12 Cochrane reviews were incorrect. This means that ony 8/12 were correct. Does this make Cochrane an unreliable source?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::@] Would you please interpret the findings of this article and its suitability for inclusion in the article. My thanks in advance.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Why are you asking about a 2008 study when there are 7 more recent studies cited in this article on this very topic? (See ]). ] (]) 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Oh right. So can I put those 7 studies in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Um, what? Put what 7 studies in what article? ] (]) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::We are on the ] talk page. I was talking about putting the 7 articles into the ] page. You seem to be suggesting they are better articles than the single article I suggested. It might help if you identified the 7 articles you are talking about so we can all do our interpretations of their reliability.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Being on the ] talk page, I was talking about the 7 articles about fertility ''that are already used in the article'' (refs 121-127) (hence the "cited in this article on this very topic" phrase in my original reply). Just a suggestion, but maybe you should spend more time getting to know this article, since you have already been spending so much time on the talk page? ] (]) 23:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Please stick to comments on the edits, not on the editors.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::It's hard having an informed discussion about an article when that editor does not appear to have read the relevant section of the article for which they are suggesting edits. If you choose not to read the article, that is up to you. ] (]) 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::] I directly quoted the authors' conclusions from the articles you had proposed. Please stop implying that I am interpreting the studies.&mdash;](]) 23:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Your edit here looks very much like an interpretation to me.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Given "", "", "", "", and "" I will stand by it as an accurate summarization, not interpretation. Certainly a far more accurate summary than your proposed "Some Cochrane systematic reviews have found a positive benefit of acupuncture under some circumstances".&mdash;](]) 23:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@Kww I think we have got into the subtleties of semantics and nuances. I suspect this is a complete waste of effort on both our parts given that I have already indicated this is only an early draft of the table.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::No, the distinction is not subtle. You pulled out a pile of weak reviews, proposed a misleading summary, and then attempted to claim that everyone that was pointing out that they were weak reviews was doing so out of bias. It struck me as willful misinterpretation and tendentious arguing. Nothing at all subtle about it.&mdash;](]) 00:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Wow! Could you tell me what summary you are talking about?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Do me a favour: read upwards, where I directly replied to your inaccurate summary and then quoted it later. Actually reading other people's replies and considering them is a key discussion skill. Failing to do so makes one look like an intentionally disruptive editor.&mdash;](]) 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have not left a summary anywhere in this thread because I have not presented any material to summarise. I posted the table and suggested a very general, neutral sentence that it '''might''' link to. I have clearly stated the table is an early draft, so any statement linked to it would obviously also be up for discussion when the table is finished. You seem to have focussed on the table and associated comments very early in their evolution. Take a step back, relax, and wait until the table is complete. Your constructive criticism will then be very welcome.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Aahh ... so that misleading summary wasn't a summary? It was just a "very general, neutral sentence that it '''might''' link to"? Thank you from making your disengenuous behaviour more obvious.&mdash;](]) 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@] I posted the '''"early draft"''' table and suggested the '''"statement"''' here on this Talk page. A function of Talk pages is to post suggested material for ] discussion - not to attack other editors. Your classification of my postings as being disengenuous is incorrect and a personal attack. Please do not do this again.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::::::::::::::As always, the best way to not be criticized is to not behave in a way worthy of criticism, not to misbehave and then wave ] at your critics.&mdash;](]) 13:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|DrChrissy}} If it is a waste of time, it is not because we have "got into the subtleties of semantics and nuances", it is because you do not seem to want to understand that facts. Kww and I have both explained, in detail, why your interpretation of the Cochrane studies is incorrect, and shown you that the studies themselves are quite open about their methodological limitations. I have also shown you evidence that four out of the twelve studies are wrong anyway. These are not subtleties or nuances, these are fundamental weaknesses in the evidence, noted in authoritative sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DrChrissy and Middle8. Those were very insightful statements. -] 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:Of course you agree with them, they support the POV you have consistently advanced for years. It remains the fact that they have not addressed the fundamental issue: Cochrane reviews show weak evidence from poor studies and in several cases the Cochrane reviews misrepresent the sources. The weight of evidence is entirely consistent with the idea that acupuncture is an elaborate placebo with documented risks, and entirely fails to refute the null hypothesis. Believers will not accept his this so engage in largely pseudoscientific attempts to prove their beliefs, piling up ever larger numbers of trials all of which share exactly the same flaws. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::That is why we have to consider the ]s of medical organizations in addition to the Cochrane reviews, JzG. -] 08:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::: The problem is that clinical practice guidelines lag even further behind the science. In fact, the entire field of so-called "integrative" medicine is founded on the belief that you can write clinical practice guidelines for the use of any old bullshit, without worrying at all whether it is even remotely plausible. There are clinical practice guidelines for the use of homeopathy, which is the canonical bogus pseudomedical intervention.
::: The current lede actually summarises the subject rather well: acupuncture is popular, but increasingly isolated in terms of genuine scientific investigation, due to the absence of a proven plasuible mechanism and the rather well documented fact that it does not seem to matter where you put the needles, what you do with them, even whether you actually insert them at all.
::: I have no doubt that acupuncture proponents sincerely wish and/or believe otherwise, but this has not translated into hard empirical evidence. Most of acupuncture practice is simply nonsense, based on whimsical notions of unverifiable "life force", and it is regrettable that the inevitable (per Ioannidis) existence of a weak positive evidence base is relentlessly exploited by people determined to somehow prove that the whimsy is fact. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I think '']'' and much of the scientific community disagrees with you. -] 10:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::As do the statements of several National Medical Organisations.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|A1candidate}} I think you'll find that it is ''medical'', not scientific, opinion that dissents from the findings of science. Whatever the former medical students might think, the science is pretty clear: the purported mechanisms of acupuncture are bogus, the risks are real, the benefits are elusive, and most of the research is carried out by those with a strong vested interest in acupuncture's validity. Feel free to cite a good quality source that refutes (rather than repudiating) the null hypothesis. Note that only robust fundamental science or very large and very well designed clinical trials can do this, by definition. As Cochrane notes, most of the trials are neither large nor well designed.
::::: I refer you once again to Ioannidis and the problem of prior plausibility. Acupuncture is an implausible treatment whose outcomes are weak or equivocal and appear to apply randomly across superficially similar pathologies, Ioannidis tells us that any positive results are most likely to be false, and this is in line with the finding that you can stick the needle in a dummy rubber hand and get the same effect. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::The mechanism includes ], as I've told you before. -] 12:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::: I am well aware that you wrote that ] to crowbar in speculation that this might be the mechanism. Needless to say, there is no remotely credible evidence linking this to most of the claimed effects, no evidence to account for the fact that studies show acupuncture "works" for some conditions and not for other, similar conditions, no evidence of any persistent effect form such signalling, and good evidence that it does not matter if you stick the needles in or not, including evidence that acupuncture "works" equally well if you stick the needles in a dummy rubber hand instead of the patient's hand. How does purinergic signalling affect "treatment" of stroke, leukopaenia, depression and other things acupuncture is claimed to cure:
::::::: The problem is much like that of homeopathy cultists. Dana Ullman waves a paper showing that silicates exist in solutions prepared in glass. Well, duh. That is a fact, but an irrelevant one: like doesn't cure like, and there's zero evidence of bioavailability or persistence. Ditto "purinergic signalling". Sticking a needle in someone, has a transient local effect. Who knew, apart from anybody who's ever studied the pain reflex?
::::::: Here's an interesting thing, though. If it did work by purinergic signalling that would refute the all the nonsense about qi and meridians. How much success are you having in persuading acupuncturists to drop all that nonsense, based on the newly discovered "real" mechanism? And where are the treatments making use of the same mechanism but avoiding or minimising skin penetration with all its attendant risks of infection and structural damage? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The answer to your last question might be found in PMID 22524543. Although Orac/Gorski insists that it has nothing to do with acupuncture, he acknowledges that the experimental design is sound. You can also try asking ] for his opinion about this. -] 01:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: I have already talked to both Edzard and David. The short version is: you're engaging in ]. There is no such thing as qi, meridians do not exist, it does not matter where you put the needles or even if you insert them, therefore acupuncture, the practice, is bogus. Whether some effects can be obtained by needle insertion is a separate quesiton, and one for the reality-based medical community. Acupunture, the religious pseudomedical intervention, is a bust. There is some accidental overlap with reality, but it is just that: accidental. Discussion of such effects would belong on an article about the effects of insertion of needles, not one on acupuncture-the-pseudomedicine. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Could you show me the longer version of Prof. Ernst's reply, please? I am interested to know what he says. -] 12:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::According to Ernst it's a bust but he is but one source. Yet even he won't say it's efficacy is entirely due to placebo effect in published literature because he knows he has to make it through peer review. Why should Misplaced Pages treat this any differently? And why do we have so many Ernst sources on the page anyway? I was counting and most are out of date, per MEDDATE. Shouldn't these be removed and replaced with fresh findings? And per DrChrissy's original point regarding Cochrane reviews, a recent scan of pubmed literature published in 2015 on acupuncture shows positive findings in all but one publication. Why is this Misplaced Pages article so diametrically opposed to recent scientific findings? ] (]) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Perhaps because he was Europe's first professor of complementary and alternative medicine and specialised in objective analysis of research into implausible treatments. I can't provide the text of the reply as it was not email. However, the reason he says that the effects are consistent with placebo, rather than asserting as fact that they ''are'' placebo, is because he is a scientist. SCAM proponents have no qualms about stating speculation as fact (e.g. A1candidate's assertion that acupuncture "works" by purinergic signalling, something the reliable independent sources ). Science is inherently conservative, which is why SCAM treatments persist long after they are debunked. If the world paid any real attention to science, homeopathy would be illegal, as it is entirely fraudulent. Acupuncture is minimally plausible so will take even longer to die out, even with the compelling evidence that both location and actual insertion of needles are irrelevant to therapeutic effect, and the fact that effect size is determined by prior belief, all of which are precisely what would be expected form a dramatic placebo. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The link you provided is an outdated source. -] 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

== "Western Medical Acupuncture" ==

Western medical acupuncture <> acupuncture. Per the first source given, "it is an '''adaptation''' of Chinese acupuncture..." --] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article by {{u|DrChrissy}} are looking to expand a bit on the term "Western medical acupuncture". The edits were made to the lead and were (in my judgment) rightly reverted by {{u|Roxy the dog}} and {{u|NeilN}} because as they were made they were a problem per ] (first edit) and then incorrectly equated TCM acupuncture with Western acupuncture. I think the concept of Western medical acupuncture (which is mentioned only in passing right now) should be expanded, largely to hit on the issues the {{u|Kww}} has been raising -- that acupuncture is done, but there's a distinction between whether it's TCM-based or Western based. This needs to be developed using good-quality sourcing in the body before it's added to the lead, however. <code>]]</code> 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Agreed, it appears to be undue for the ] now, and as written equates the two, which seems to be a misrepresentation of the source. ] (]) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:Zad, where is the best place in the article to expand on this where I can avoid being automatically reverted?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::I don't see that you were "automatically" reverted, reasons were provided for every revert.<p>Why not expand the section where "Western medical acupuncture" is already mentioned? <code>]]</code> 16:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::You should also avoid describing the claims made as facts. The source you are using is a publication by a charity dedicated to the cause of promoting acupuncture as a legitimate medical technique, but the claims they make fall afoul of ].&mdash;](]) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Which source are you talking about? I trimmed the original posting so it was simply related to use of the term, to avoid what you are saying. However, even this was reverted rather than being discussed. Does this term not exist?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Again please take care to represent the concerns of others accurately. That wasn't the reason the second edit was reverted, it was reverted because it incorrectly implied that TCM and Western were equivalent, and it was a problem per ]. <code>]]</code> 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}And by the way, the "new" content said that it "acts by stimulating the nervous system" and listed several "known modes of action". If you are going to contribute content to the article, please make ''some'' effort to present it neutrally. To my knowledge, there is not any consensus that western acupuncture stimulates the nervous system nor are there identified modes of action supporting its efficacy. I , and we're now left with a description of western acupuncture without any discussion of its reception. I don't know if this is the proper weight, but if we're going to discuss it, the blurb should ultimately be expanded. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:I did attempt to be neutral. I placed it in quotes. If I had not done that, I would have been in copyvio. If I changed the words and paraphrased, I imagine there would have been accusations of "misrepresentation". Thankyou for cleaning it up. Maybe you would care to help in the expansion that is clearly needed.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::Avoiding a copyvio and using neutral wording are two different things. Yes, you did one of them. Please try to also do the other one in the future. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
::I removed the fringe journals per WP:MEDRS and WP:OVERCITE. ] (]) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

== Deletion of information from this talk page ==
I recently posted a thread here that involved a question regarding the removal of material from this Talk page. Another editor has seen fit to remove my thread without discussing this first. Please re-instate my posting.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:I already explained in an edit summary ''and'' on your talk page. Discussion of editor conduct does not belong on an article talk page, per the talk page guidelines. Go to that user's talk page, or try ] if you feel it is particularly egregious. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 00:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::I will take the behaviour of the editor to ANI or another forum, I have no problem with that, but you should re-instate my posting so that others are aware of the undiscussed removal of material from this Talk page.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:::No. Discussion of editor conduct does not belong here. That's the ''whole point''. And just to be clear, no material was removed from the talk page except a section heading you apparently found objectionable. I'm having a seriously hard time characterizing your behavior as anything but disruptive. Please keep discussion focused on article improvement. Thanks. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 00:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The hatting and the original removal were both overly aggressive. These aren't BLP violations or ] violations, they were were complaints about behaviour on a talk page on the talk page where the behaviour occurred. Those are normally granted some leniency. As for the complaint ''itself'', "clumsy" probably wasn't the best word. "Misleading", "inappropriate", "unacceptable", "unwarranted", or similar would have been accurate without running the risk of insulting the person that put it there.&mdash;](]) 02:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:Eye of the beholder. I think your first three adjectives are worse than "clumsy". I'd further explain why clumsy was appropriate but of course, that would risk further offense. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::@Kww, I disagree, but fair enough. We have 33 sections on this talk in just over a month, which isn't helped by the increasing amount of behavioral discussion lately. The original complaint was about an edit by NeilN that he had already removed. I stand by that being an inappropriate discussion for this page (it can't ''possibly'' concern the article), and I left a reasonably unconfrontational message on the OPs talk to explain further. But, reasonable editors can disagree at times, so I appreciate your input, and it turns out my edit didn't end up serving its purpose of staying on-topic anyway. Oh well. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is this a reliable source? ==

Is this a reliable source for inclusion in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
: It doesn't seem particularly good, why would we add yet another of this type? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -] (]) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Why does it not seem particularly good? What does "this type" mean. Please clarify.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: It is a poster session, it is not peer reviewed, therefore it fails ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::How do you know it was not peer-reviewed?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is this a reliable source (ii)? ==
Is this a reliable source for inclusion in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -] (]) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Does that mean it might be a reliable source?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: It means: what does the exact text you wanted to use, say?
:::: The answer is: no, ti is not reliable, because Chinese-authored publications on acupuncture are ''never'' negative, so are considered suspect. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Wow! Is this racist?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It's certainly systemic bias to exclude all research from an entire country. We don't exclude research just because the authors happen to be from a particular country. So yes, we should absolutely add this in and if Chinese research is ever removed because it's Chinese, a tag like this {{Systemic bias|1=European slant|bias=Western scientific sources|date=May 2015}} needs to be placed on the article. ] (]) 22:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the sad history of TCM research coming from China. Not only have they been repeatedly caught violating (actual fraud) rules for peer review, their research is generally extremely shoddy, to the point that, for some ] reason(!), it is always favorable to TCM and never negative. Then, when their positive views don't hold up to examination, we reject them for that reason. This history means that we see red flags, it doesn't mean we will always reject research coming from China. It just needs to be approached very cautiously. -- ] (]) 15:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: And, just to reemphasize, "scientific sources" is precisely the bias that we are supposed to take. Treating any other perspective as factual is disruptive to the goals of an encyclopedia.&mdash;](]) 16:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I am an East European, by birth and upbringing, and I will gladly admit that the scientific research and scholarship from my country lags very much behind Western science and scholarship, to the extent that anyone from my country willing to have a say in contemporary science or scholarship has to immigrate to the West, or at least publish in Western scientific and scholarly journals. Besides, this is what ] is about: bias in favor of Western scientific sources and maybe of sources who play by the same rules as Western scientific sources. I know that in China promoting TCM it is a matter of constitutional law, so the bias is expressed right there, in the Chinese Constitution (Art. 21). Besides, TCM, effective or not, is a source of money and cultural influence for China, so those who challenge the legitimacy of TCM could be seen as infringing upon the state interests, China is not a liberal democracy, so the "enemies of state" could be fined or imprisoned if they get too critical of those interests. ] (]) 16:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{replyto|DrChrissy}} You have accused me of racism. Some editors would call that a personal attack and report it. Me, I think it's just cluelessness on your part. I really don't think you know very much about this subject, given the naive questions you are asking.
{{quote:In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.<br />'''CONCLUSIONS:'''<br />Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries.|}}
No need to apologise, anyone can make a mistake, but next time perhaps ''ask'' rather than flying off the handle? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is this a reliable source (iii)? ==
Is this a reliable source for inclusion in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:No not MEDLINE listed - confused search<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -] (]) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I suspect a confused searcher, rather than a confused search ;) -] (]) 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::How does this comment possibly relate to the content? This is a personal attack. Please stop.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Remember DocChrissy, MEDRS says that lack of Medline indexing ''might'' make it unreliable and that we would want to look into it a bit further is all. And, just so you know, editors here have used that journal in the acupuncture article to criticize it with statements like '''Between 2000 and 2011, there were 294 adverse events reported in the English-language literature from 25 countries and regions''' and '''the most common adverse effect observed was infection (e.g. mycobacterium), and the majority of infections were bacterial in nature, caused by skin contact at the needling site. Infection has also resulted from skin contact with unsterilized equipment or dirty towels, in an unhygienic clinical setting. Other adverse complications included five reported cases of spinal cord injuries (e.g. migrating broken needles or needling too deeply), four brain injuries, four peripheral nerve injuries, five heart injuries, seven other organ and tissue injuries, bilateral hand edema, epithelioid granuloma, pseudolymphoma, argyria, pustules, pancytopenia, and scarring due to hot needle technique. Adverse reactions from acupuncture, which are unusual and uncommon in typical acupuncture practice, were syncope, galactorrhoea, bilateral nystagmus, pyoderma gangrenosum, hepatotoxicity, eruptive lichen planus, and spontaneous needle migration.''' So it's totally okay to use this journal to talk about adverse events like this, but whenever we pull a positive finding from this journal it's suddenly unreliable. I prefer to be consistent, so I suggest we use eCAM citations since they're already in the article. Oh, and by the way, the eCAM source that quotes all of that information is used in the article 22 times! It seems like some editors here really don't believe it's that unreliable.] (]) 00:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Yes, LesVegas, it's more reliable for negative statements than it is for positive ones. If someone makes an interest that is counter to his own best interests, there's less reason to believe that the statement is being made out of bias.&mdash;](]) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::: AS Kww says, examples of evidenced criticism of any form of SCAM by its own proponents are rare and highly significant. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is this a reliable source (iv)? ==
Is this a reliable source for inclusion in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:No - Not MEDLINE listed.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::See above. I'm pretty libertarian with information and I would rather not delete everything from eCAM that's already in the article, so I suggest we use this. The more information the better. ] (]) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::I agree - as per your comment above about "'''might''' be unreliable".<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree: EBCAM is an unlisted journal with an oxymoronic title that serves primarily to advocate "complementary" and "alternative" medicine. We should only use it when there are no better sources available, and when we do, we need to attribute it.&mdash;](]) 13:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you. That means in your opinion, it can be used.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup>
:::For an extremely limited number of statements in highly confined contexts, yes. Remember that sources and statements always have to be examined together: the question of "is this a reliable source for ''x''?" may have a completely different answer than "is this a reliable source for ''y''?"&mdash;](]) 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: It is a reliable source under certain carefully considered circumstances for ''what SCAM proponents believe'', but ''never'' for the factual accuracy of what they believe. Thus it might be a source, if no better were available, for a statement about how acupuncture proponents believe the deqi sensation differs between moxibustion and plain acupuncture, but it would be of no value in describing the objective difference betweent hese two treatments, because there is no objective evidence that either of them is reliably different from the other (or indeed from sham acupuncture). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

== Is this a reliable source (v)? ==
Is this a reliable source for inclusion in the article?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -] (]) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:I'm confused by why you are asking: I objected when this was included the first time, and it's still in the article. My objection is not due to "reliability", per se, it's to including novel results from single studies. Too many editors have spent too much time trying to find positive evidence for acupuncture, and the result is a laundry-list of one-off confirming studies that get placed into the article immediately, before there is time for the medical and scientific communities to react. If there's a real effect here, there will be further confirming studies and reviews and we can include it then.&mdash;](]) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::So are you suggesting that it is not reliable because it is too recent?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm suggesting that "reliability" is not a binary issue, nor is it the only issue to be considered when deciding whether to include material. It's a relatively low-impact factor journal reporting a novel result. If the result was more in line with what we see in more reputable journals and you were using it to source some particular detail, I'd be more inclined to include it. If you were using it to support some statement about one of the authors, I'd be more inclined to include it. If you could show that there was some discussion of the study in more impactful journals, I'd be more inclined to include it. Instead, it's just one more obscure study in an obscure journal that remains unsupported in the mainstream. That could change in the future, but we can wait until then.&mdash;](]) 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::What size of impact factor are you looking for and what is the basis of this?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::I don't understand why you think that I should have some absolute number in mind. There's no magic threshold like 4.6326133543345234523 that makes an instantaneous leap from "unacceptably low" to "unacceptably high". Do you deny that this journal has a relatively low impact factor?&mdash;](]) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::While I agree there is probably not a specific value, at what ''''range''' of values would you start to state a journal as having a medium-impact factor rather than a low -factor. Surely there is some objectivity in your analysis and acceptance/rejection of ptential sources?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::Why is this journal less reputable than others. What is the basis for this analysis of the source?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::Low-impact factor. Impact factor has a strong correlation with reputation.&mdash;](]) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::OK, well I guess that we need to sort out the impact factor question then. I had assumed that because this journal is listed in Medline, it is reputable, and therefore on this category of reliability, is acceptable.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{cite journal|last1=Feng|first=S|last2=Han|first2=M|last3=Fan|first3=Y|last4=Liao|first4=Z|title=Acupuncture for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis|journal=American Journal of Rhinologic Society|volume=29|issue=1|pages=57–62|doi=10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4116|pmid=25590322}}
::::::::The source is in the article. ] (]) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not certain why KWW suggests his problem is with "novel results from single studies"? This is not a single study, it is a review of single studies - a secondary source. Also, this source is already used in the article under "Allergies". Moreover, there are multiple secondary source now suggesting acupuncture is effective for seasonal rhinitis, they all seem to be mainstream sources and they all seem to agree that there is value:
# The one DrChrissy links originally: "Our meta-analysis suggests that that acupuncture could be a safe and valid treatment option for AR patients."
# "There are high-quality randomized controlled trials that demonstrate efficacy and effectiveness for acupuncture in the treatment of both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis."
# "Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with allergic rhinitis who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. Option based on randomized controlled trials with limitations, observational studies with consistent effects, and a preponderance of benefit over harm."
I note that the "allergies" section of the article still includes a few older reviews (earlier than 2010) that are out of date per MEDRS and also are not consistent with more recent systematic reviews. The older reviews should be removed in favour of the newer reviews. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

] This is a reliable source but is already in the article. Kww objected to it because of its findings, but its obviously reliable, and up to date, so it went in. If users decide they want to remove it, I suggest they be reported to the noticeboards for disruptive editing. ] (]) 20:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, it is especially interesting because there are now objections being raised to a paper that is already in the article. I have long suspected that the analysis and comments/dismisals of references in this article are being done on an ''ad hoc'' basis with highly subjective statements and a very binary approach to the reliability of sources. I think this thread has just proved that point. And I am still waiting to hear about the range of impact factors that editors are using to classify ] compliant articles as "low".<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::You make it sound as if the objections are new, or somehow not raised before. As I pointed out, I objected when this was placed in the article and it is currently ''in'' the article, so I was a bit confused as to why you were asking about it. As for "ad hoc" evaluation of sources, extraordinary claims always require stronger sources, and impact factors are one of the ways that people evaluate the reliability of medical journals. That allergies can be effectively treated by jabbing people with needles is certainly an extraordinary claim, and there's no support for it in higher impact journals.
:::If you are stating that we should not evaluate sources on a case-by-case basis based on the nature of the claim, I'm afraid that would require a substantial change in policy: sources are always evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
:::Now, if you are saying that editors are looking more skeptically at sources that claim acupuncture is effective than they look at sources that claim it is not, of ''course'' we are. The effectiveness of acupuncture is not well established, with general consensus being that if it has an effect, it is a small one. Any study that claims that it has a strong effect is making an extraordinary claim, and thus demands an extraordinarily reliable source.&mdash;](]) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Are you deliberately not answering the question? I have asked a direct question about what range of impact factors of journals would you classify as being "low-impact factor". I will help...presumably the lowest value will be 0.1 (I don't think there is a 0.0) You have analysed sources and made statements that a journal's impact factor is low. What is the basis on which you make these statements? What is the upper limit of your range?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::This page has a number of high-quality reviews and the page is very long. We don't need to use every source on the planet. Sources that have a lower impact factor can be rejected, especially if the text is redundant. ] (]) 22:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::I am talking about introducing new content into the article and having this rejected with a binary analysis that the journal has a low-impact factor. How are deleting editors analysing the sources and coming to the conclusion that the journal has a low impact factor?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::The source is not new. It is in the article. ] (]) 22:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::I ''did'' answer your question in that there is no fixed number, that it would slide according to the novelty of the claim (among other factors). I note that there are journals relating to immunology with impact factors above 40, which would make this journal's impact factor (between 1.5 and 2.75, depending on the year) "low". As I said, since it's making an extraordinary claim, the real question is what would it take to make the source be classified as extraordinary reliable. Making it to "medium" isn't going to help a bit.&mdash;](]) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, so you say that a journal has a low-impact factor and I say it has a medium-impact factor, how do we decide which is correct?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Impact factor is always relative to its field. For instance, there was discussion not to long ago about ] and editors were lambasting it's impact factor, which was in the 2's. But it you look at CAM journals overall, it ranks in the top one or two every year. A&P journals, for instance, typically are 1.something or less. The very fact that a journal even has an impact factor from Thompson Reuters suggests it's reliable, since they don't assign impact factors to disreputable journals and revoke IF's if the journal is caught doing something sleazy. But above all, MEDRS does not ever suggest not using a source because it's impact factor is low. There is wide agreement on the MEDRS talk pages that impact factor should have no bearing on whether we use a source or not. If a source does have an impact factor, that means it's passed the test for likely reliability, and if it has a high impact factor it should be placed above same-aged sources with lower impact factors, at least according to all the MEDRS talk page discussions I've seen. ] (]) 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with this totally. I publish in the veterinary and animal behaviour field - no surprise there. I once had a paper rejected by 2 different journals so I tweaked it and sent it off to Vet Record. They published it. It remains the highest impact factor journal I have ever published in (apart from Nature). The reason - because they circulate Vet Record to all the RCVS members (vets in the UK) and to libraries around the world....It came down to distribution.
:::::::::::With the comments of LesVegas above, can we now accept that because a journal has a low impact factor, this is no reason whatsoever to reject content from this source?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Low impact factor is a factor in evaluating sources. The reason that CAM journals have such low impact factors is that they tend to be poor sources.&mdash;](]) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} You are in disagreement with MEDRS and consensus of editors on MEDRS talk and while you're entitled to your opinion that impact factors is a factor to evaluate sources, I hope you don't remove reliable sources because of impact factor, because that would be disruptive. ] (]) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
:So far as I can tell, I'm in full alignment with all guidelines. Can you show me a guideline that discourages using impact factors in evaluating sources? Especially when trying to demonstrate that a source making an extraordinary claim is a source of extraordinarily high quality? Or even demonstrate this "wide agreement" you discuss so glibly? I certainly hope you can support that more thoroughly than the pronouncement of "broad consensus" you made that one time: that was so ludicrously false that I still don't think even you believed it.&mdash;](]) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

== Content removal ==

It now seems that there is an approximate 30 minute time limit to providing information or edits will be deleted - see here. I disagree with this removal of content, expecially with such aggressive editing.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:I requested the and . You still have not provided the page number. The text was too complicated for the general reader, anyhow. ] (]) 17:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::Ermmmm...where am I supposed to provide the page number now that you have deleted the content?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::{{cite book|title=An Introduction to Western Medical Acupuncture|editor= Adrian White, Mike Cummings and Jacqueline Filshie|publisher=Elsevier|year=2008|ISBN=978-0-443-07177-5}}
:::Please provide the page number on the talk page and a proposal for a rewrite on the talk page. ] (]) 17:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I will do in time - but too busy doing other things at the moment. By the way, the diff of the paraphrase you have labelled as "too complicated" can be found here. I am not responsible for this.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::I had the time and . ] (]) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


It must be changed. ] (]) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
== Possible source ==


:Opposing ] such as ] and ] does not make me a racist. Why? {{talk quote| If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?|WLU}} Quoted by ] (]) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*
Given that this is an overview of systematic reviews, it seems like a very reliable source. It covered 32 Cochrane reviews, and concluded that 25 had negative conclusions, 5 positive, and two inconclusive. The abstract states: "The conditions that are most solidly backed up by evidence are chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and idiopathic headache." ] ] 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you Everymorning for your tireless contributions of good material! This source might be high quality for some things but it is 7 years old and MEDDATE tells us to refresh sources 5 years old. So what I think we would have to do is go through it condition by condition and compare it to the current Cochrane information to see what has changed and what hasn't and we could use this source to back up the information that's current. ] (]) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:: In point of fact, five were positive ''or tentatively positive''. In other words, the conclusion from Cochrane reviews is overhwelmingly negative, much as we say in the lede.
:: It's amusing that people don't realise the message behind this analysis. Acupuncture is claimed by proponents to treat all kinds of things. It turns out that most of the research is junk and on balance negative, and the areas where outcomes are positive are basically random, indicating that, as per Ioannidis, they are simply islands of false positives. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Guy, if you compare this data with Cochrane's newest data DocChrissy has pulled up, it has changed significantly. ] (]) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Guy, your analysis of the report is extremely misleading. 5 of the reports were positive. These are 5 independent, stand-alone reports that have been assessed by the same authors who analysed and accepted there was no effect for 25 others. It is the height of scientific naivety to simply then disregard the 5 with the positive effects. It is not a game of numbers and to suggest 'more were negative therefore there is no effect', is just scientifically baffling.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::And that's correct too. And that's why we have to quote statements directly. If the source says the glass is half full, we cannot say it's half-empty, lest we commit OR. ] (]) 23:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::When introducing material from Cochrane reviews, I have used the conclusions, often quoting these direct. My edits have often been removed with edit summaries such as "methodological flaws", "low number of patients" when these comments are about trials not leading to the conclusions. If a conclusion in a Cochrane review states "There was an effect of X.", we should accept this....we are editors, not researchers).<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Quote mining is a way of misrepresenting sources. If the Cochrane review says its own evidence is weak or unreliable, stating that Cochrane found definitive proof of efficacy of acupuncture is misleading. ] (]) 01:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::::: I am amused that you accuse me of being misleading, and then say "five of the studies were positive". What is actually says is: '''Thirty-two reviews were found, covering a wide range of conditions. Twenty-five of them failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of acupuncture. Five reviews arrived at positive or tentatively positive conclusions and two were inconclusive.''' I think that is exactly in line with what I said, but five being "positive or tentaively positive" is certainly not the same thing as five being positive. Still, you did nicely illustrate my point that SCAM proponents misrepresenting weak or equivocal evidence as being unambiguously positive. Well done for that. at least. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I just read a copy of the PDF file. Please read the conclusions not the abstract. ] (]) 02:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


== RfC on COI for alt-med practitioners == == Edit request on 3 December 2024 ==
{{cot|title=perennial complaints of 'bias' have been addressed countless times already}}
It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Have a look at ], and note that essentially nothing published by the ] - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. ] (]) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
See ] ] (]) 16:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture ''view'' it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief.
::But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. ] (]) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see ]. ] (]) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization.
::::It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately.
::::And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. ] (]) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover ], too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. ] (]) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information?
::::::Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? ] (]) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. ] (]) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it '''does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it'''. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons.
:::::::::Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --] (]) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. ] (]) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::]. It's precisely ''for'' reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. ] (]) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:To present that some say it's 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' without presenting that there are multiple meta-anaylsis studies showing its efficacy is deeply misleading. It fails to show the scientific backing that acupuncture has. A meta-analysis study does not just look at one randomized study or one case report. It is an in depth look at multiple scientific studies. Multiplele meta-analysis studies confirm the benefit of acupuncture.
:For example note the study "Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis" Authors: Vickers, A. J., et al. (2018)Published In: The Journal of Pain, 2018. This study clearly demonstrated the efficacy of acupuncture in multiple studies for muscloskeletal, headache and osteoarthritis pain. Full text is available here https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(17)30780-0/fulltext
:To have an accurate article on this subject without giving a profession that medical professionals spend years in education and which multiple scientific studies back these types of articles need to be addressed.
:Dismissing such a long-standing practice as quackery is simply not showing the full picture and incredible benefit this medical profession offers the public. ] (]) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}

Latest revision as of 17:56, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. See also community discussion on COI for alt-med practitioners.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconChina Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to make some suggestions to the acupuncture page. I do understand it is a contentious topic but believe some added edits and updated references would add better context as the WHO among others is expanding the use of traditonal medicine practices and has added a specific chapter in ICD11 for Traditional Medicine Acupuncture titled TM1

collapse long requested changeset

Change X - the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.]

to Y – .

There is a range of acupuncture technological variants that originated in different philosophies, and techniques vary depending on the country in which it is performed. However, it can be divided into two main foundational philosophical applications and approaches; the first being the modern standardized form called eight principles TCM and the second being an older system that is based on the ancient Daoist wuxing, better known as the five elements or phases in the West. Acupuncture is most often used to attempt pain relief, though acupuncturists say that it can also be used for a wide range of other conditions. Acupuncture is generally used only in combination with other forms of treatment. The global acupuncture market was worth US$24.55 billion in 2017. The market was led by Europe with a 32.7% share, followed by Asia-Pacific with a 29.4% share and the Americas with a 25.3% share. It was estimated in 2021 that the industry would reach a market size of US$55 billion by 2023.

Change X – ]

to Y – . Acupuncture is generally safe when done by appropriately trained practitioners using clean needle technique and single-use needles. When properly delivered, it has a low rate of mostly minor adverse effects. When accidents and infections do occur, they are associated with neglect on the part of the practitioner, particularly in the application of sterile techniques. A review conducted in 2013 stated that reports of infection transmission increased significantly in the preceding decade. The most frequently reported adverse events were pneumothorax and infections. Since serious adverse events continue to be reported, it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently to reduce the risk.

Change X – and many modern practitioners no longer support the existence of life force energy (qi) or meridians, which was a major part of early belief systems.]

to Y - However, modern research substantiates the effectiveness of Acupuncture. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that acupuncture elicits changes in the brain that correlate with neurological effects. As confirmed by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, “Acupuncture affects the limbic and para-limbic networks in the brain and has a deep hemodynamic response, which is influenced by the psychophysical response. Acupuncture also stimulates the nervous system and improves conduction and communication between nerves. This improved functioning of the nervous system stimulates neurotransmitter actions and the release of the body’s natural endorphins and other opioids. For example, serotonin may be released following acupuncture, therefore helping patients feel more relaxed and sustain a sense of well-being that lasts for hours thereafter, if not longer. Research has also shown acupuncture’s ability in relieving myofascial pain by releasing muscular trigger points with ensuing concomitant anti-inflammatory effects.” Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100 BC in China, around the time The Inner Classic of Huang Di (Huangdi Neijing) was published, though some experts suggest it could have been practiced earlier. Over time, conflicting claims and belief systems emerged about the effect of lunar, celestial and earthly cycles, yin and yang energies, and a body's "rhythm" on the effectiveness of treatment. Acupuncture fluctuated in popularity in China due to changes in the country's political leadership and the preferential use of rationalism or scientific medicine. Acupuncture spread first to Korea in the 6th century AD, then to Japan through medical missionaries, and then to Europe, beginning with France. In the 20th century, as it spread to the United States and Western countries, spiritual elements of acupuncture that conflicted with scientific knowledge were sometimes abandoned in favor of simply tapping needles into acupuncture points.

Add Y – .

Add Y –

Change X: [Clinical practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. ] to

to Y: Clinical Practice Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine. It is used most commonly for pain relief, though it is also used to treat a wide range of conditions. Acupuncture is generally only used in combination with other forms of treatment. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists states it may be considered in the treatment of nonspecific, noninflammatory low back pain only in conjunction with conventional therapy. Practitioners who practice Acupuncture are trained and take didactical coursework and clinical practice in their education; and, pass the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) board exams, or a state-specific licensing exam in California. The Acupuncture training program includes techniques such as cupping, gua sha tui na, moxibustion, herbal medicine, lifestyle and nutrition based on Traditional Medicine principles. There is current research supporting that acupuncture has efficacy with pain management being the most well-known application. Conceptually, it is believed to stimulate the body's meridians, or energy-carrying channels, in an attempt to correct imbalances and to restore health. These benefits are thought to be derived from the proximity of acupoints with nerves through intracellular calcium ions. This lesson outlines a brief history of acupuncture and how it may be used to treat various types of physical and emotional pain and specific conditions, including overactive bladder and psoriasis. Acupuncture has been demonstrated to enhance endogenous opiates, such as dynorphin, endorphin, encephalin, and release corticosteroids, relieving pain and enhancing the healing process. Of particular note is that Acupuncture is now incorporated by highly-acclaimed Western Medicine providers as part of a treatment plan for numerous conditions. The world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center endorses the newly updated Society of Integrative Oncology’s recommendations for acupuncture for breast cancer patients with joint pain. . Medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute, City of Hope, and Cleveland Clinic also integrate Acupuncture into their patients care programs. Sam Collins 33 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a hodgepodge of content copied verbatim from copyrighted sources. It can't be used. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, Historical records as old as 3,500 years demonstrate the effectiveness of Acupuncture is invalid reasoning - argumentum ad antiquitatem - not consistent with WP:MEDRS, to give just one example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is racist

It must be changed. 2600:100F:A110:4802:ED55:9578:694F:5135 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?

If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?
— User:WLU

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2024

perennial complaints of 'bias' have been addressed countless times already

It is not “neutral” to immediately dismiss acupuncture as “pseudoscience in the first paragraph and subheading. That is an expression of opinion that fails to take into account years of scientific research on the topic accepted by the US NIH and other major health organizations. I recommend that the current “pseudoscience” sentence be supplanted by a sentence stating “The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) states “there’s evidence that acupuncture may have effects on the nervous system, effects on other body tissues, and nonspecific (placebo) effects. (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety) The current “psuedoscience” sentence can be attributed to critics of the field, e.g., “Critics have dismissed the scientific research on the effects of acupuncture and characterized it as psuedoscience” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindlerva (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MEDRS, and note that essentially nothing published by the NCCIH - a political department set up to boost alternative medicine, which is /not/ under the supervision of the NIH - is a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
So cherry-picking articles that prove your point of view is a more objective approach than referring to the US NIH as a reliable source? It would be fair to say that critics of acupuncture view it as psuedoscience after noting that there is significant scientific research showing a range of benefits, accepted by NIH and the increasing number of insurance companies that provide acupuncture coverage for proven purposes, like pain relief.
But it is highly biased to dismiss the entire field in the first sentences rather than providing a more appropriately balanced and nuanced perspective. I thought Misplaced Pages pages were supposed to be, not for people with axes to grind, but instead for the fair presentation of information for readers to make their own judgments. Kindlerva (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, what you just cited is not 'the US NIH', nor is Acupuncure 'accepted by NIH'. Also, if you're looking for balance, you should know that Misplaced Pages doesn't do that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
NCCIH is literally on the NIH website, which is literally part of the HHS website. Not a shocker that the Misplaced Pages page on NCCIH shows the same consistent bias against all alternative medicine approaches demonstrated by this site, regardless of actual research or evidence. But I don’t see how you can deny the reality of a sub-organization being part of its parent organization.
It is not “false balance” to refer to actual health research that has been reviewed and validated by major research organizations like NIH, WHO and others. It is a matter of telling the story fairly and accurately.
And it’s odd that you all seem to believe that health insurance companies are stupid enough to be increasingly providing coverage for practices that you blithely equate with astrology or Tarot card reading without bothering to review the evidence or let others add it. Sad to see Misplaced Pages promoting biased entries and censorship in this manner. Kindlerva (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The NCCIH is 'literally' a separate institute which does not answer to the NIH director. That's because it was set up as a personal project by a US Senator who wanted an outfit that would validate the scientifically invalid bee pollen treatments he believed in. You are getting basic facts incorrect here, which is not going to be a basis for changes to this article. Some health insurance companies will cover homeopathy, too. That does not mean that homeopathy isn't nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Please specify which facts I got wrong. NCCIH is indisputably one of the over two dozen centers and institutes of NIH. (https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list-institutes-centers). Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are not part of NIH either and therefore have no validity as sources of information?
Also, to say that NCCIH is illegitimate because Sen. Tom Harkin was its original champion does not make any sense. All agencies of the U.S. Government ultimately derive from Congressional legislation and many are the result of particular politicians championing them. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project. Does that make it somehow “political” and therefore illegitimate? Kindlerva (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I've already explained what you're getting wrong, but here it is one more time: The NCCIH is illegitimate because they publish nonsense. What they accept is not 'accepted by NIH' because the rest of the NIH (especially the NIH director) gets no say in the nonsense they publish. By conflating a fringe body with mainstream medical bodies, you are undermining your argument. If you have to cite the NCCIH for legitimacy, that is a sign to everyone else that what you're doing is promoting pseudoscience. We're now just repeating ourselves, so I imagine I will not comment again unless someone new comes up. Do not interpret my silence as agreement. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, you refused to respond to any of my specific questions or points, so I guess we’re done. Interesting, though, to learn that the National Cancer Institute and all of NIH’s other Centers and Institutes aren’t part of NIH and therefore their work can and should be ignored by Misplaced Pages. Kindlerva (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't get it. NCCIH is not unreliable because NIH has no power over it. It is unreliable for other reasons, and it does not get to suck reputation from the NIH because NIH has no power over it. You tried to copy-and-paste the reliability from NIH to NCCIH, and that was refuted. Other centers and institutes are reliable or unreliable for their own reasons.
Possibly, the NIH itself will lose reliability from 2025 on because it will be ruled by a quackery proponent who forces it to publish dangerous nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is a bold non-neutral statement. Misplaced Pages is too biased in this regard and I won't donate a cent to them until they fix this. WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:KEEPYOURMONEY. It's precisely for reasons of neutrality that Misplaced Pages is obliged to observe that acupuncture is a pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
To present that some say it's 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' without presenting that there are multiple meta-anaylsis studies showing its efficacy is deeply misleading. It fails to show the scientific backing that acupuncture has. A meta-analysis study does not just look at one randomized study or one case report. It is an in depth look at multiple scientific studies. Multiplele meta-analysis studies confirm the benefit of acupuncture.
For example note the study "Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis" Authors: Vickers, A. J., et al. (2018)Published In: The Journal of Pain, 2018. This study clearly demonstrated the efficacy of acupuncture in multiple studies for muscloskeletal, headache and osteoarthritis pain. Full text is available here https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(17)30780-0/fulltext
To have an accurate article on this subject without giving a profession that medical professionals spend years in education and which multiple scientific studies back these types of articles need to be addressed.
Dismissing such a long-standing practice as quackery is simply not showing the full picture and incredible benefit this medical profession offers the public. Rochester1980 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Acupuncture: Difference between revisions Add topic