Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Cutler protocol

Fringe medical "protocol" for supposed mercury poisoning treatment. AfD candidate? Yobol (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article makes no real claims to notability, and seems more like a 'how to' than an encyclopedic entry. It clearly fails to follow WP:MEDRS. Even if it isn't fringe, it certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia as it stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is going to survive AFD, as there are a lot of references (not necessarily using the exact phrase however) in alt-med literature. However the current presentation as a normal medical treatment is unacceptable. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added some tags to this article. I think it ought to be merged into chelation therapy since this is nothing more than a minor protocol within a somewhat better known therapy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mangoe:I don't see such references, could you please cite? All the article has are Cutler's own book and some deletion-worthy commercial anti-amalgam blogsites.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not references in the article, but references in alt-med books. I have not been able to find skeptical discussion of his ideas, and it does seem to me that merger into the main chelation therapy article is a reasonable resolution. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

After further discussion I'm not so sure this needs specific mention in the main therapy article. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ayurveda in America

Created 2 days ago as one large edit. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some material there which might be used in an article on how ayurveda has gotten "new-age-icized" but the title is a problem, at minimum. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but I also mentioned to say created as one large edit, citation style correct, wikilinks, layout, all good as a new editor's first edit. Ring any bells? Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe makes a very good point about how there might be something in there which could serve a different purpose, but not as Ayurveda in America. The markup wasn't perfect at the first attempt. The article creator is probably not new, but there are lots of editors who pop up to create a single detailed article; I don't remember any others in this general topic area although there are a couple of similarities to Phantom919 (talk · contribs) (maybe just a coincidence) bobrayner (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It reads like a translation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Petitioning Jimmy Wales

May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What the author of the "petition" does not realize is that Jimbo does not set policy. The community as a whole does that. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I find the doublethink in these sorts of petitions more than a little odd. "I pledge not to donate to your fundraising efforts until these changes have been made." In other words, "You can't have our money until you change Wikipedia to reflect our preferred version of The Truth"...which, incidentally, is very hard to distinguish in principle from the bribe-taking so many fringe believers accuse us of with respect to Big Pharma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Appeals for a change in policy accompanied by financial inducements are likely to be treated with the contempt they deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

These butthurt natureopaths, accupuncturists and merchants of woo-woo should just fork all of wikipedia and make their own site where they can preach their holistic gospel entirely unmolested by nasty sceptical type people. Failing that the TRUTHers should have a go at submitting their article to Conservapedia instead. I feel that might sufficient to educate most people as to the consequences of rampant POV editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's always Wiki4CAM. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4CAM isn't going anywhere fast. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to do a short feature for The Pod Delusion about this. I'd appreciate any comments you might have [1]. Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki4Cam went a bit further than asking skeptics not to edit articles - it got locked down completely, simply because there was no other way to ensure that edits fit the owner's perspective. That kind of lockdown is a good way to kill a wiki. There are various other alt-med sites which struggle with similar problems; it may not be helpful to focus on that one, and I'd be amazed if there weren't more forks of en.wikipedia devoted to alt-med. One well-known alt-med organisation in Europe tried operating a forum for a while, and after I got into the habit of replying to each forum post with a comment concerning evidence, they suddenly and silently took the forum offline. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I never attempted to edit an article in Wiki4Cam, however it did occur to me that I could simply invent an utterly fictional modality and their policy would actually prevent any evidence-based challenges to my point of view. The implication is that without policies such as Wikipedia has it's impossible to build a community. The one exception may be Conservapedia which is fuelled by rage against the dang libruls who write all their software for free! --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that happened, and for some time there was an article on "Tree therapy". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Things heating up at water memory

There's an AN/I issue now about how Brian Josephson (yes, User:Brian Josephson) is acting out his COI in this article. It's probably sorted but just in case. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Animal models of autism and today's DYK hooks

A statement in Animal models of autism refers to a primary study that purported to show a thimerosal-autism connection (my edits after noticing the issue: [2], [3]). This (non-MEDRS-compliant) statement is the basis for one of today's DYK hooks. I'm not sure if there is a proper procedure for this, but I have reported it to DYK [4]. Sunrise (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this at WT:MED, where the recent appearance of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy has also been raised. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)‎

Update: the hook is no longer on the main page. It rotated off before anything could be done - see [5]. Also, it looks like the editor responsible for the DYK main contributor to the DYK article has been adding primary studies to Thimerosal controversy. Sunrise (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Second update: the article itself was viewed nearly 2,000 times yesterday alone, presumably almost all of which came from the main page hook. [6] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunbatz Men

Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't shown and there are few to no independent sources in this BLP. If you look at the article's creator, it seems that this is part of a big student project, in good faith I think, but needing more supervision. User:Hoopes is the professor leading the scheme, and you've already interacted with him about this, Doug, on his user page. So perhaps you should go back to him. WP:AUTHOR criteria don't seem to be met. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree! Normally I'd PROD an article of this quality, but I'm inclined to AGF in this case. We might benefit more by providing some constructive feedback to the original author. I'm not sure what the foundation of Mr Men's notability is, he seems like a very ordinary kind of fringe theory proponent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting back to John. Daykeeper is a minor article related to Men. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And maybe in response to my posting about him, we have a new editor adding him and other fringe stuff to various articles, Manuel chuenquitze (talk · contribs) also editing as 165.234.104.5 (talk · contribs). John Hoopes agrees there isn't much critical material on him (I find 2 brief mentions just reporting what he is doing). Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hun B'atz and many alike link different religion and cultures of the world together, that is key for the misunderstanding of a "ex-conquered" people (natives). Well everything is in space, but a special place of origins as a group or unit would be the legendary Tollan and "old Aztlan" ("Lemuria and Atlanttis"). its all looney but myth makes learning fun for the children to know and learn the hiding messages and history in them (codice). like Jack and Jill or Paul Bunyan for example or not?. "We" believe that all "Amerindian" are nobility, its just lost and scattered. When the "great pandemic" came to the "new world" 10 million out of 100 million would survive. Cultural heroes would take many or had many wives and spread there genetics into the new lineage of "Indian pheasant" and Meztizo's (Métis). Those who have the knowledge pass down from a direct elder or decent is a privilege, also access to Mayan script and text is also a privilege, not alot of people go looking for it though. Therefore this makes some new age Mayan Elders unique. In Elder B'atz defense he is from Merida Yucatan, where the Maya Itza where divided into two dynasties (Xiu and Cocoom/Ko'woj) at the time of Hunac Ceel's Rebellion in the 1470's a.d. where some Itza migrated to Lake Peten (Tayasal). I hope this is applicable to any optimistic ideas about "Mayan hypothesis" and Mayan history or your own. Well being, Inlakech. Manuel chuenquitz (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AIDS denialism in John Maddox bio

There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about these?

• Where the AIDS Virus Hides Away: "Duesberg, having led many people with AIDS on a seductive path, should now admit the likelihood that he is mistaken."
• Has Duesberg a right of reply? (in the context of refusing Duesberg publication space in Nature): "The truth is that a person's "right of reply" may conflict with a journal's obligations to its readers to provide them with authentic information...When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published - not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error."

More at this Pubmed search. You can trace the evolution of his views as you go further down the list. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 1983 article was quote-mined, which I have fixed (I will leave the rest to others). Sunrise (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to find some material which isn't behind Nature's firewall? I could find a library around here which has the back issues but it would also be useful to have a source that was completely independent of Maddox, notwithstanding the problem that his editorials are really a primary source anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be sufficient to describe his own views? That said, Google Books turns up this result by Nicoli Nattrass, which describes the context of some of the editorials. As above, this is mainly about Maddox's views towards Duesberg, but I think it's clear that they don't agree (e.g. "Maddox became infuriated [when Duesberg refused to accept evidence that HIV-infected blood transfusions were correlated with AIDS deaths]") TBH I think the change of viewpoint is too obvious to be stated directly - there wasn't any scientific consensus on the question when he wrote the editorial (HIV hadn't even been isolated yet), and like most everyone else his viewpoint responded to the evidence as it became available. Sunrise (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the Nature articles is their relative inaccessibility. That said, I appreciate your submission. I also note a certain consistency across his obituaries in various publications which I intend to use as a template for clean up. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if more of Nature's content were freely available, but it's eminently citable. The main problem is not what Maddox said but when he said it: any opinion ventured on AIDS much before the mid-80s was speculation, and the scientific community treats it as such unless subsequently confirmed. It doesn't surprise me that the Duesbergites cite this, they are scientifically ignorable even if they are a public health menace. I would say that it should be covered only in the context of the misrepresentation by AIDS denialists; on its own the comment is obiter dictum and of no real significance. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• "he was also fearless in taking on what he held to be irresponsible reporting, as when he roundly defeated The Sunday Times in its espousal of a misguided and socially dangerous theory of the causation of AIDS." Walter Gratzer "John Maddox (1925–2009)" 458, 983-984 (2009) doi:10.1038/458983a
• "He truly believed that those casting doubt on links between HIV and AIDS were scientifically pernicious, and campaigned accordingly" Philip Campbell "Maddox by his successor" 17 April 2009 | 458, 985-986 (2009) | doi:10.1038/458985a

Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but... is that a link to copyvio? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a temporary link to a legally obtained article shared for educational purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at a bunch of obituaries they are quite consistent about the two controversies Maddox was notably involved in. Those that mention AIDS at all don't talk about this very early in the game editorial, so I'm thinking it needs to be suppressed as misleading people about how he swung around to a strong opposition to the denialists. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos

Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos [7] but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the article The Perth Group. Not sure Papadopulos-Eleopulos is notable, and the present bio looks like it's being used as a WP:COATRACK. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering on the same lines, but on balance because of the importance of the group in relation to South African government policy, perhaps this can stay separate. If it's to stay, it's a BLP, and would be worked up as a biography. It certainly doesn't advocate for the subject's views, well done for that, especially well done for keeping out the totally irrelevant views of Camille Paglia. It would need more on the subject's education, career and writings. For biographies, it's not so much "what does s/he think?' but "what has s/he done?". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK - it doesn't reflect a POV different from the Perth Group article, and it was in fact created prior to that article. That Paglia's views are irrelevant has been several times asserted, but never demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with LuckyLouie this is POVFORK about an individual who is notable only as a member of The Perth Group DUEWEIGHT is given in the article on that group. I see no substantiation of notability for Papadopulos-Eleopulos that warrants a BLP. Is there any coverage of this person that reflects importance outside of activities undertaken as a member of the denialist group? Regardless of the time of creation of the article the notability of the subject needs to be established. The importance of the group does not support the notability of the subject. A review of the content of the article shows nothing outside of the subjects activities and views as a member of The Perth Group. There is no evidence that outside of this group (and largely even within it) that this person's views and actions are notable. An uncredentialed fringe activist with a couple of publications who was rejected as a witness in a court case is not a notable subject for a WP article. This article should be tagged for deletion unless some RS' provide notablity. MrBill3 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read WP:POVFORK? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." That wasn't what happened here. The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK. As for notability, Papadopulos-Eleopulos has influenced government policy in South Africa and played a role in high-profile legal cases, so it seems more than reasonable to consider her notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FORK or RACK, it's emphasizing material better suited to the main article. Someone's BLP isn't the place to to rehash the Perth Group's views on AIDS, a judge's trial ruling regarding the Perth Group, and the lack of credentials of its members. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody AfD this article please. The notability discussion seems more appropriate for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an AfD is merited. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No need for AfD IMO, smerge and redirect citing WP:BLP1E (with "event" interpreted slightly creatively) was the right answer - this person is not notable other than as an advocate of the Perth Group's ridiculous AIDS-denialist bullshit; if we have an article on her we'd necessarily spend omst of it simply repeating content from the Perth group article. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Leuren Moret

I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Biocentric universe and Robert Lanza

• Biocentric universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robert Lanza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols [8]. I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.

jps (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth

Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move.

Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.

jps (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

More evidence that this is a canvassing board where neutral language is not at all required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Presenting yourself as a supporter of neutrality here is very dishonest. You want us to say Christianity is true because it has a lot of followers. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't spin doctor my argument to suit your purpose, AKA strawman. I do NOT want us to say "Christianity is true" nor have I ever implied such, not even once. Get a grip, man. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Treat ALL religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

..And while you are at it, treat all adherents of a religion equally. Including the majority of Christians, who don't believe Genesis to be literally true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's purely your polemical assertion about what the majority of Christians supposedly believe according to you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Data for Americans. [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you always want to focus exclusively in Americans? What percentage of El Salvadoreans? Ethiopians? Regardless, we can assume it is sufficient to qualify for SPOV purposes as a "widespread belief system" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that I wanted to focus exclusively on Americans - and I've made it clear elsewhere that I consider the Wikipedia tendency to treat the U.S. as the 'default' is one of the worst symptoms of systematic bias on Wikipedia. I provided the data in question, however, to demonstrate that I wasn't making a 'polemical assertion' - it was based on evidence. And of course, the U.S. has by far the largest number of people professing to be Christians of any nation in the world. The next largest (according to our Christianity by country article, are Brazil and Mexico - both (like El Salvador for that matter) overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church certainly no longer holds to any doctrine regarding the literal truth of Genesis. Not that it matters, ultimately. The number of people holding a belief system has no relevance to encyclopedic description of the belief system - and accordingly, we should use the same terminology regardless of whether two thousand people or two hundred million people hold it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth? When people believe in it, obviously. We're up against something of a hard place (and it's reflected in the discussion) that tagging this sort of religious explanation a "myth" carries along a pejorative connotation (which I imagine was always intended). I'm not getting involved, but I don't think there's going to be a satisfactory solution; either the skeptical or the believer POV is going to win, but we won't end up with neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists who disagree with science

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy.

This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.

jps (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits at Traditional Chinese medicine

Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how we're going to be able to referee an expertise battle on this. OTOH listing these as "references" is obviously wrong given that they aren't used as such. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the references inside the reference section are the same as the references in the body of the article. But some of the references in the body are not formatted correctly. Now I am going to have to format the citations in the body of the article to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials

According to this comment, it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans.

Editors do not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials AFD. Editors noted there are problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. Therefore there is WP:LOCALCON to cleanup the article. An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But the same editor restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but the same editor continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are also not WP:MEDRS compliant. Recommending revert to this version. Make sure you bring food and treats because it is a 4 hour journey to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly reverted the page to the 20:18, 12 December 2013 version (last stable version before before the recent machine-gun editing). This rolls back both of your recent edits. The two of you need to reach a consensus on the talk page or at WP:DR instead of this constant churning back-and-forth editing of the article. If anyone has a problem with this, I can put in a request for page protection to force everyone to stop editing the article until an agreement is reached. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You added a primary source to the lead and original research to the lead. You also added low level details about the trial itself to the lead using an outdated reference. See WP:PRIMARY. The details about the trial itself is a violation of WP:COATHOOK. For medical claims about acupuncture, readers can go to the acupuncture article. What is the specific objection for this version based on policy? QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I added nothing. What I did was remove all the changes that you and Mallexikon made since 20:18, 12 December 2013. Yes, we all understand that you don't like that version. That's why you made 24 edits in the next 7 days. We also all understand that Mallexikon made 18 edits in the same period, that a large percentage of your edits were undoing Mallexikon's edits, and that a large percentage of Mallexikon's edits were undoing your edits. Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version. I don't care who is right. All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But you did add something to the lead against policy and you obviously "don't care who is right". This version is closer to WP:NPOV IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of

Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version.

and

All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now.

are you having trouble understanding?

You can follow Wikipedia policies voluntarily, or we can force you to follow Wikipedia policies through page protection or through blocks, but you will follow Wikipedia policies (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR). Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks that I am being too harsh:[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do you feel lucky?" --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, QG is right. The article has been hijacked by acupuncturists who refuse to declare their conflict of interest in promoting their peculiar version of quackery. It's an embarrassment. That you are criticizing him is also something of an embarrassment considering he is one of the only people actually working to keep the article somewhat neutral. jps (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)