Talk:Acupuncture: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 94: Line 94:




* Uninvolved editor drawn here by a bot. On the face of it, it seems fine to me. Stipulating to [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], {{ping|EEng}}, is there another high-quality example you qan drop here that qalls quackery quackery in the lede? {{User|Awkwafaba}} points to the passive voice as kind of an “out” — I feel a bit different, and think it might be preferable to state that e.g. “the medical establishment [eastern? western? worldwide? does it matter]? and/or International Council of Skeptics? Whomever... characterize acupuncture as quackery.” i.e. ditched the passive/non-attribution. I believe our MOS still generally frowns on citations in the lede, but if the quackery assertion is tendentious (I could imagine it being so), an exception might be appropriate here. --[[User:EEMIV|EEMIV]] ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]]) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
* Uninvolved editor drawn here by a bot. On the face of it, it seems fine to me. {{ping|EEng}}, is there another high-quality example you qan drop here that qalls quackery quackery in the lede? {{User|Awkwafaba}} points to the passive voice as kind of an “out” — I feel a bit different, and think it might be preferable to state that e.g. “the medical establishment [eastern? western? worldwide? does it matter]? and/or International Council of Skeptics? Whomever... characterize acupuncture as quackery.” i.e. ditched the passive/non-attribution. I believe our MOS still generally frowns on citations in the lede, but if the quackery assertion is tendentious (I could imagine it being so), an exception might be appropriate here. --[[User:EEMIV|EEMIV]] ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]]) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:59, 18 September 2023

shoulder pain and fibromyalgia

  • there was no robust evidence it was beneficial for anything, except shoulder pain and fibromyalgia

I cannot find the "except" part in the source. It does not seem to say that there is "robust evidence" for those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be the table. Brunton (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible. So, "certainty of evidence rating: High" was somehow translated to "robust evidence". That seems to be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy

Acupuncture is not pseudoscience! This has been long disproved. There are peer reviewed research papers on the subject. 72.69.249.98 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, written by quackademics, published in pro-quackery journals. Meaning: the papers claiming that acupuncture is effective against diseases. Just because a paper claims it's peer-reviewed, it does not mean it is a bona fide paper. If the purpose of the journal is making quackery look good, peer-review is useless. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics once dismissed the benefits of acupuncture as purely a placebo effect, a notion that still lingers among a portion of the public. But research has found a benefit for certain conditions, including chronic pain.
The data is so promising that, in 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started covering acupuncture therapy for chronic low back pain. Clinical trials over the past several decades have suggested acupuncture may be a beneficial treatment for other conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and constipation."
"...A 2018 meta-analysis of over 20,000 patients in 39 high-quality randomized controlled trials found that acupuncture was superior to both sham and no acupuncture for back or neck pain, osteoarthritis, headaches and shoulder pain. These outcomes mostly persisted over time — even after 12 months of receiving treatment.
--https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/07/24/does-acupuncture-work-chronic-pain/ "Does acupuncture work for chronic pain? Here’s what the science says." Mwanner | Talk 13:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"peer reviewed research papers" from China maybe? Forget about them: doi:10.1089/acm.2014.5346.abstract. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Both of you need to drop it. Beyond that, I defer to Drmies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Webclinic: There is no evidence that the view knows no borders — yup, because in China everybody who says otherwise goes to jail. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been brainwashed by mainstream western media such as the BBC, please open your eyes.You are the fourth weird thing I have encountered since I signed up for Wikipedia. Webclinic (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was one of the others that the Earth is round? --McSly (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever eidts if you have enough evidence to prove the Earth is round. Webclinic (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Webclinic: What? Does China allow honest citizens to spoil its national pseudoscience/cash cow? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:tgeorgescu, let's drop this OK? Webclinic, if you can make this argument without ridiculing the "mainstream western media" and stuff like that, you can play here. You can not revert in the article anymore, or I will block you from editing it; you can not turn this talk page into a Facebook reel, or I will block you altogether. OK? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not riduculing the MSM propaganda. I just Correct the imprecise expression."Acupuncture is a pseudoscience" is a controversial point of view.Not all countries or academic papers prohibit or support this view. Please respect the fact.OK? Webclinic (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Webclinic, this was the last "MSM propaganda" I will allow. Any more of that, or variations of that, and I will block you per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Webclinic: Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If you don't respect WP:MEDRS, you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also against Wikipedia principles to replace all opinions with individual opinions. Webclinic (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTSHOUTBIAS Webclinic (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines Webclinic (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you carefully read WP:DONTSHOUTBIAS? I guess you didn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Quackery" in the lede

The term 'quackery' to describe accupuncture, which is a covered service for some major insurance carriers in the United States, feels a bit extreme for an encyclopedia where value judgements should not be made. CranberryMuffin (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and it has been characterized as quackery uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I see no problem.
Also a covered service for some major insurance carriers in the United States should not imply it isn't quackery. Covering something is a consumer-political arrangement. It isn't science, and it should not be conflated with science.
In the medical literature, the topmost place of quackery belongs to homeopathy. Acupuncture occupies the second place. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very strongly held belief on this matter, even to the point of posting warnings on my talk page. Instead of going into a non-productive edit war with you, let's ask for other editors' opinions and form a consensus. To that end, I've started an RFC on this topic. Thanks. CranberryMuffin (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment re: 'Quackery' in the lede for Acupuncture

Should the term "quackery" be used in the lede for acupuncture? The term pseudoscience is already used and it has been described as non-scientific in that same paragraph/sentence. Does using the term 'quackery' provide additional information that is not already there, or is it making a value-based call that compromises the neutrality of an encyclopedia? CranberryMuffin (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • We generally do label quackery as quackery. EEng 17:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the current wording. The subjunctive mood even leaves open the door to people not describing it as quackery. awkwafaba (📥) 17:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Uninvolved editor drawn here by a bot. On the face of it, it seems fine to me. @EEng:, is there another high-quality example you qan drop here that qalls quackery quackery in the lede? Awkwafaba (talk · contribs) points to the passive voice as kind of an “out” — I feel a bit different, and think it might be preferable to state that e.g. “the medical establishment [eastern? western? worldwide? does it matter]? and/or International Council of Skeptics? Whomever... characterize acupuncture as quackery.” i.e. ditched the passive/non-attribution. I believe our MOS still generally frowns on citations in the lede, but if the quackery assertion is tendentious (I could imagine it being so), an exception might be appropriate here. --EEMIV (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&oldid=1175981904"