Talk:Acupuncture

Good article in a month or so?

Moving some comments from above: lately we've had a nice influx of editorial skill and enthusiasm, and with a little bit of cooperation and AGF-ing, we just might be able to get this to good article status fairly soon, with featured not too far off. My motivation for this had waned, but I think we've now got a good group and can make it happen, if we want, and that would be a lot more rewarding than turning this into a battleground -- which I think the large majority of editors here are smart enough not to want to do. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah it only appears so from the outside. I don't think the article has gotten any better in the past while. Some useful information has been added, but a lot has also been removed or misparaphrased to oblivion. Now we have ToRT in several sections of the article criticizing anything pro-acupuncture- a book that doesn't contain footnotes (which was a reason cited for rejecting the use of Natural Standard), a book that I've read and noted that it selects the studies it talks about to prove its point. I've seen editors paraphrase 4 positive results from studies as "acupuncture being no better than sham acupuncture". I've seen editors slyly misparaphrase study results after deleting my direct quotations from the conclusions, calling direct quotations misleading. I've seen editors arguing against setting a standalone statement for a consensus statement just because it gives some credibility to acupuncture. I've seen editors calling the noting of publication dates for reviews as criticism (if noting publication dates itself is criticism, then why are those reviews sourced here in the first place?). I've seen outdated, negative studies remain on this page for seemingly years, and when I add new positive studies, there is suddenly a frenzy from a certain editor to find negative studies. I've seen editors remove 3 pro-acupuncture reviews because "only 1 is needed", and then proceed to post a negative study result and conclude that the results are mixed. I've had edits reverted and then been met with silence on the discussion page as well as their user talk pages. I've had an edit reverted with discuss on talk as the change summary only to have the editor not respond at all. I've had editors tell me it's "a big no no" to remove sourced information and then proceed to remove my sourced information from systematic reviews or consensus statements a few days later. I've had editors tell me that only the very newest reviews should be posted, and when I try to reinforce the same rule, I am told to stop. I've seen editors randomly bring up conspiracy theories about CAM saying doctors and the AMA looking out for their own income by protecting their profession from CAM (or oversupply even). Conspiracy theories promoted by Milton Friedman and other economists. I've posted on the RSN page to get someone to comment on another issue only to have an editor accuse me of being an IP sock instead of actually helping with the issue. I've used editor's assistance and then have them agree with me only to be subsequently told by an involved editor that editor's assistance is informal and useless (despite it being described as being useful for dispute resolution), whereas request for comment (a service with long response times apparently and ALSO described as informal) as being more useful. Now that I think about this, these past few weeks have been a gigantic waste of time trying to move mountains. A group of 3 editors seem to linger around here with their finger on the revert button with much higher restrictions on the posting of anything pro-acupuncture even if it's from systematic reviews or expert consensus statements (or weight less or misparaphrased), whereas anything anti-acupuncture, no matter how unreliable the source is kept and weighted more heavily. We have one editor here who actively does his best to misparaphrase anything pro-acupuncture to make it seem less important, while deleting direct quotations from review conclusions. Worst of all, I've been told these editors are extremely experienced and have made thousands of edits. That truly shakes my faith in Wikipedia. Anyway, tl;dr, I've lost the ability to AGF from wiki editors controlling this article. I will take my leave from contributing to Wikipedia now since my enthusiasm for this article and anything wiki-related to be dead. Feel free to gradually push this article into POV territory WLU, you won't be stopped by me and you certainly won't be stopped by the likes of Verbal, SH and Brangifer who are no doubt too busy and can only step in when someone adds anything sound pro-acupuncture. Good day. /rantJohnCBE (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel that way. This page has several excellent examples of how NOT to treat newcomers -- instead of being treated in a welcoming and patient manner, you were berated and baited. Not real great. There are things you need to learn too, like picking your battles and being briefer in your comments, but those who violated WP:BITE and WP:TPG with you should have known better. But there is a subculture within WP that takes things like Quackwatch and ToT as gospel that doesn't require attribution, and believes that WP:CIVIL is less important than keeping away editors they believe are pushing "pseudoscience". WP really is a joke in many ways, and I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. At the very least, you should take a nice break and clear your head. Maybe I should walk away too, and let people who don't understand TCM fuck the article up into a total joke. But if you return, I'll work with you and other reasonable editors, because the page needs editors who understand TCM from the inside. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I agree with you about the paraphrasing. It's a problem. I don't see what's wrong with quoting (e.g.) NIH's own words rather than rephrasing it; it's too easy for bias to creep in that way, intentionally or not. I also agree that there was no good reason to remove the systematic reviews you added. "Undue weight" is a bullshit excuse -- we should just list the best ones we have, not delete a couple positive ones because there's one that's negative. They all looked fine to me as MEDRS's. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And, with some editors just doing fly-by reverts of anything other than the straight, boring skeptical take, it becomes pointless and frustrating to edit. I get your frustration and am not inclined to go it alone. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not read this blame piece. I prefer short, concise suggestions justified by references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. True, I could've been briefer. Still, I think it's important to set up a strong argument, especially against editors who try to find any reason possible to revert your edit. No, I will not be returning, especially not to this article. It takes far too much time to get any change for this article... unless it denounces acupuncture. I mean, I had to use 2 methods of dispute resolution just to note the review dates of the AMA statement. It took almost a week for something that shouldn't really be controversial. I can't even imagine making more significant changes to this article. It would be nice to work with you and other reasonable editors, but the truth is there are no other reasonable editors working on this article. I honestly have not interacted with anyone else that had a speck of NPOV aside from the people who commented through dispute resolution and coincidentally agreed with my changes.

To WLU: Of course you read it. You just can't reply to it, because it simply highlights all the BS edits and reverts you made over the course of a few weeks. How the hell could anyone justify that kind of crap?JohnCBE (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TCM stuff in article

Too bold, WLU -- not to diminish your other efforts, but since you apparently haven't read any TCM texts, you're over your head. Why not bring it up here and ask for others' input? I have Cheng (1987) from which most (not all) of the section is sourced. (Some material did need pruning but your edits went too far.) If this is going to turn into homeopathy where skeptics plunge on too boldly and editors who know the traditional aspects of the topic per se are treated poorly (e.g. Verbal's niggling revert of two sources), I don't see much reason to spend my time here. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not going to revert and fix this. I'm going to leave it in its messed-up state so that it will be obvious to anyone with a shred of knowledge of TCM that it's been butchered. Have fun. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT I could have removed nearly the whole thing. Rather than blaming my good-faith efforts to make a wandering section short and concise, if you have the sources and knowledge to improve it, please do so. It cuts both ways, and that section has been tagged as unclear for almost a year. As far as I can tell, the "butchered" version is just fine. Please feel free to do so with reliable sources but I would suggest caution to not phrase it as "acupuncture/zang-fu/Blood/qi are..." These are unproven concepts believed by practitioners and should be clearly described as such. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you think your edit to the TCM section is fine -- by your own acknowledgement, you (a) haven't read any books on TCM & acupuncture [1], and (b) you've already made up your mind about it anyway: it's pseudoscience [2]! Simple -- you're an instant expert now. I think this page needs as few editors as possible who are really TCM-literate, and as many as possible who not only don't know about, but actively deride the topic. And to keep it that way, a few drive by reverter's. That will bring the article more into line with Wikipedia's universally-recognized and respected high standards. I trust you to lead the way in this regard. Have fun educating the masses -- anyone can do it! --Middle 8 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can improve the page by providing sources that correct any errors in the current version, that's great. All the time spent on this talk page could easily have gone into finding references, integrating them into the page and making it more reliable and NPOV for our readers. The fighting over single words and lengthy talk page postings aren't helping - I can't argue with a reference but I'm not going to take anyone's word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction in the United States?

Presumably, Chinese immigrants brought a knowledge of acupuncture with them to the United States along with other aspects of Chinese medicine. If that introduction is documented, it would be interesting to record it here.

What's more likely to be documented, and what I'm personally more interested in, is the introduction of acupuncture to the Western medical profession in the United States. A tradition in my family says that Dr. M. E. Carrère of Charleston, South Carolina (1813-1879, M.D., U. Penn., 1837) was the first American physician to use acupuncture. I doubt that he was the first, but he definitely used it. See Atkinson, William Biddle, ed., The Physicians and Surgeons of the United States (Philadelphia 1878), p. 620, available on Google Books. Can anybody contribute a section on acupuncture's history in the US?

--Jdcrutch (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience?

Sometime in the last few months, an editor added category:pseudoscience to the article; I removed it for reasons that I hope were clear in my edit summary: per WP:PSCI and WP:RS#Academic_consensus, we need a proper source showing acupuncture is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community. Such a source would be on the order of a mainstream scientific academy, such as those found in List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design and Scientific opinion on climate change. Lacking such a source, per WP:PSCI, acupuncture is an "alternative theoretical formulation" and/or "questionable science", and as such "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point" (emphasis mine). That means we shouldn't use the category, since inclusion in the category is a binary condition, ergo unambiguous. However, it's fine to cite reliable sources within the article who do consider it pseudoscience, just as it's fine to cite reliable sources who don't. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite there, though doubtless many would agree that it is. I support the removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per previous discussion, and scientific view of meridians and acupuncture is clear. Sham is as good as "real" (see refs in article). Verbal chat 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Verbal: that reasoning is weak at best, and at worst wrong or simply absent. (1) Which previous discussion? Link to it so we all can see it. (2) Scientific view isn't clear at all: read the lead re "active research", "controversial" and lack of settled agreement over proper design of sham controls, as well as meta-analyses showing positive results for efficacy (I like how an earlier editor weasel-ishly changed negative results to "many", with two cites, and positive to "some", also with two equally good cites). (3) You haven't refuted or even addressed my reasoning above re NPOV (see: WP:PSCI) and VER (see: WP:RS#Academic_consensus). You've also got two editors disagreeing with your position. I'm reverting (and fixing the "many/some" silliness). Please take the time and effort to address 1-2-3 above specifically if you disagree. Also, your edit sloppily removed a good reference fix by WLU. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is needed is a high-quality reference that clearly labels it as pseudoscience. I don't think we're quite there yet. Acupuncture appears to be nonsense based on a flawed, medieval, probably alchemical understanding of the body, but it's not quite considered pseudoscience - even Edzard Ernst has stated that it's got merit with nausea and some types of pain. It obviously lacks any merit for treatment of conditions (rather than symptoms) but it's not quite pseudoscience. If an explicit reference can be found that's not one of the obvious skeptic sources (like the ones a google books search turns up at the top), maybe. I think it's arguable that it could be said "some have called it pseudoscience", I think it's theory is utter, utter nonsense, but I think this falls into the "questionable science" category at WP:PSCI. There is a reason to believe that jamming needles into the body does help with some symptoms (pain and nausea, and of course there's also dry needling), even if the reason why is not what is usually voiced, or not completely understood. It's pseudoscientific to claim that it treats any actual condition, but unlike homeopathy or astrology, it's still considered as to have some merit in a limited number of cases. Certainly there is merit to exploring claims of it being pseudoscientific, but ultimately it is now being investigated scientifically and there are secondary reviews indicating limited effectiveness for (again) pain and nausea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between calling acupuncture as a whole pseudoscience (while still documenting that some do say that), and calling most of its (1) claims and its foundational ideas ((2) acupuncture points and (3) meridians) pseudoscientific. Those three can clearly be labelled and categorized as pseudoscience. The question of whether acupuncture works for some things is actually irrelevant. A parallel situation exists for chiropractic. We can't categorize chiropractic as a whole as pseudoscience, but we can categorize many of its (1) claims and its two foundational ideas ((2) vertebral subluxations and (3) Innate Intelligence), as well as its (4) Applied kinesiology diagnostic method, as pseudoscientific. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but would we then use the category "pseudoscience" or restrict it to the subpages that are clearly pseudoscientific? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be the subpages, but the proper sci-consensus sources (cf. above) would still be needed. And remember, the map (TCM theory) isn't the territory (clinical efficacy), but it's still found useful in practice (e.g., distal points like P6 for nausea and LI4 for dental pain aren't predicted by biomedical knowledge, so the ancient Chinese apparently spotted something and explained it in their own terms, much as an ancient culture might predict eclipses correctly but explain them mythologically.) I don't get why more of the writers for scientific-skeptical publications don't grok this simple distinction. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) I reverted Verbal's revert, which he attempted to justify solely by a bogus COI accusation in the edit summary. AS WP:COI says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Verbal didn't discuss his revert on the talk page or address any of the issues I raised just above. Verbal, please re-read WP:COI and WP:DR, and please stop engaging in the kind of careless behavior that has gotten certain other editors put on restricted editing. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All those "theoretical" aspects of acupuncture are pretty obvious pseudoscience. They wildly contradict medical and anatomical knowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think we'll be able to get aspects of TCM theory into Category:Pseudoscience under the "obvious pseudoscience" rubric. TCM is far too well-known and has far too many followers, or people who at least use its ideas to guide their treatments (even if they don't take it literally), to be put in the same basket as "Time Cube" and the like. Even notable skeptics Beyerstein and Sampson note that some Chinese scientists see the concepts as clinically interesting or useful metaphors (scroll to "CSICOP on pseudoscience in China). "Obvious Pseudoscience" is a category for things that are in some way notable, but that scientists haven't bothered to comment on; see WP:Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2 and other findings in the ArbCom case on which parts of NPOV ((i.e., WP:PSCI) are based. TCM is almost certainly the best-known, most widely-practiced and widely-researched traditional indigenous medicine on the planet, and mainstream scientific bodies will not have missed a chance to weigh in on it. So, if we can't find the sources, it's because mainstream scientific bodies are not as eager as writers for scientific-skepticial publications and their audiences to dismiss aspects of TCM theory. The amount of research going on and the reticence of high-quality, sci-consensus-type sources to call qi, meridians, and the like "pseudoscience" shows that the scientific consensus simply isn't there yet. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any proof for the existence of meridians, qi, acupuncture points? There's a lot of evidence that it doesn't matter where you jam the needles (or even if you use them) - sham acupuncture in the best designed trials works as well as "real". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly good question (although I disagree that the issue of sham controls is settled), but not germaine to whether or not to use category:pseudoscience on these topics. If I were wanting to insert text in an article stating that there exists unambiguous proof for the physical existence of meridians and that each acupoint had specific activity, then your question would be relevant, and under WP:BURDEN I'd have to provide a good source supporting an affirmative answer. But that's not at issue. If you and/or Brangifer want to use category:pseudoscience on qi, meridians, etc., then you have the burden of proof, and need to show that these well-known topics are "generally considered pseudoscience" with a proper source per WP:PSCI and WP:RS#Academic_consensus. I'm not aware of any such source, and have yet to see anyone produce one. So, as things stand, these topics remain in the "grey area" of "questionable science". regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In the book The Body Electric, Dr. Robert O. Becker found evidence of meridians using a cookie cutter electrode. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, until the scientific community proves that this is actual science (which it has not), it should be considered psuedoscience, because it is based on ancient ideas more closely tied to philosophy than science, much like chiropracty. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The first search result of my first search on Google term ("scientific evidence" acupuncture meridians) came up with this paper which negates this whole argument and demonstrates that this article is POV. I wish I had more time to work on this article because I have personally experienced over a hundred treatments through acupuncture from over 20 providers (mostly students), and while the results do vary depending on condition, diagnosis, skill, and technique, overall it has been quite effective. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see how one primary source paper contradicts the argument. Dogweather (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that [1] claim or appear to be scientific, but that [2] are not considered being so by the scientific community" (Category:Pseudoscience) It's pretty clear that (2) is the consensus view, but what about (1)? Do proponents of acupuncture assert that it's scientific? If so, then the category tag is justified. Dogweather (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The source I gave (Tsuei, Julia J. (May/June 1996). "Scientific Evidence In Support Of Acupuncture And Meridian Theory". IEEE, ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY. 15 (3). Archived from the original on 2010-05-30. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)) is most certainly a secondary source (summary of primary/secondary sources). Look up WP:SECONDARY. Next, who/where/when claimed that accupunture is science? Acupuncture is a healing art that came from observation, trial and error, and intuition. Western medicine is no different. Both have been challenged, refuted, and improved by using the scientific method, however neither TCM nor western medicine can be considered scientific theories. When I think of psuedoscience, I think of phrenology, or melanin theory - not acupuncture. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source is excellent support for tagging this article Category:Pseudoscience: It's evidence that acupuncture is accompanied by claims that appear to be scientific (satisfying element 1), against the consensus view of the scientific community (element 2). I'd like to find another similar sources: More articles written by proponents attempting to cast a scientific light. Then we'd have great support for the Category:Pseudoscience category. Maybe the recent Adenosine study is RS for this. Dogweather (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

urethral stricture

hi sir/ madam

i am the patient of this disease urethral stricture from about one year. i had operated last year in july but after 3 months of operation this problem is reoccured in me. and because of that now i'm unable to urinate easily. i go for a checkup n had everytime ultrasound n uroflow test n all that which is now a hectic for me. some one says me that in accupuntre there is a full chance of recovery of my problem is that true??? i don't want to operate once again because if i do this time they give me one rubber tube n after operating they teach me how to use that rubber tube in my penis and this i hve to do for may b whole life, me just 28yrs old and dont want this thing happen to me. i assure that i didn't hve any kind of sex with anyone but i do a lot masterbate earlier. i just want to know is my problem can solve by this treatment completely so i can live my future life fearlesslly. please do reply to me i'm waiting. please i don't want to operate agin in my life.

I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not offer medical advice. Please consult your physician, as he or she is likely to be much more qualified to answer this question than we random strangers on the internet.

The article currently contains no information regarding this condition. A quick scan of Google Scholar does not indicate that we necessarily should include anything, but if anyone turns up a solid reference, please include it or start a new section below. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Manipulative therapy

I'm removing Category:Manipulative therapy because acupuncture does not involve any manipulation of the joints or other structures. Withing TCM, tui na (a TCM massage technique) however can involve manipulation and does belong in this category. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the reasoning behind that categoriztion was that acupuncture claims to manipulate Qi, which is a bit different than what one traditionally thinks of with manipulative therapy! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sham vs. Real section removed

I removed this section for WP:PRIMARY. I'm looking for a secondary source on the results of the trials using sham acupuncture as placebo, but haven't found one yet. When I find one, I'll restore this section. Dogweather (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, beautiful; it's already covered in the article with a proper secondary source: An analysis of 13 studies of pain treatment with acupuncture, published in January 2009 in the journal BMJ, concluded there was little difference in the effect of real, sham and no acupuncture. Dogweather (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Issues in Study Design"

This section is way too long, and needs to be sourced. There are some great sources for the advent of and use of sham acupuncture. This section should skip right to "sham" after noting that there have been problems designing studies. The whole block quote from Inst. of Med. is unnecessary fluff. Dogweather (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess "fluff" is in the eye of the beholder; the IOM is arguably the best MEDRS on English Wikipedia, and their point about controls is directly germaine to study design here. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sham vs. Real section redux

@BadgerDrink, I do believe there is OR going on in the section as you reverted it. I made an edit, and I think it's a good compromise: what do you think? I made the edit to make it clearer exactly what this article is reporting: that the two studies found similar results for the two types of treatment. I still think this is dangerously close to original research: we should *not* be analyzing or summarizing primary biomedical sources. We should instead use secondaries, such as literature reviews. Dogweather (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to Globalize

I added Template:Globalize. Edit Summary: Scientific views are mostly western while much of research is from Chinese and not translated to English. *under-represented* There is no prohibition on using Chinese language sourced refs, yet are not included.

I noticed that there was no mention of the Shanghai Research Center of Acupuncture and Meridian, which seems to be the main research institute for acupuncture in China. An English translated link is here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is, and is not, an issue with using these sources. For one thing, being able to read and verify the text is important. For another, one of the criticisms made against research in China is significant publication bias; zero negative trials. In comparison, Western trials with solid placebo controls return very mixed results, many positive and negative trials. Chinese sources can be used, provided they are secondary sources, in high-quality journals. Which presents issues - how do we know what the high-quality Chinese sources are? And are any of them more respected than BMJ, Science, Nature, NEJM, JAMA, etc. who publish good science irrespective of where it comes from? Is there any merit to insisting on using Chinese sources?

Plus, {{globalize}} means representing a global perspective, not using global sources. The language doesn't matter, it's the perspectives. Science is universal, based on method, peer review, honesty and criticism. Though China did originate acupuncture, it's now researched and used throughout the world, so "representing China's perspective" isn't necessarily warranted, and may in fact result in the use of poorer quality sources with considerable publication bias to produce a less accurate page. As a medical and scientific topic, rather than a political issue, I don't know if using Chinese sources will necessarily and automatically improve the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks WLU, I removed the tag and left a much shorter justification than yours - however it seems not to have saved. Thanks for giving the reasoning and making up for my error. Verbal chat 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine

So the adenosine paper is, from what I can tell, a mouse model. For one thing, those results are suggestive, but not revolutionary, for humans. If we were treating mice, and adenosine was a known marker for something, we might have a finding. But this article is primarily about humans. Second, that is a primary source article, making it inappropriate for this page per WP:MEDRS.

I also note that the study is being pimped by the media as "amazing" and "conclusively proving acupuncture works". Not even close, and even if valid in humans, only "works" if you define acupuncture very differently from what TCM does - making it closer to dry needling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary source, animal model, nothing to do with TCM, wildly overhyped be the lay press ... yeah, that sounds about right. We might could add this to the gate control section or something like that, but even then MEDRS stipulates that we should be very cautious. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good analysis. I agree. Dogweather (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Adenosine can be presented as a THEORY based on animal study. We are talking about theories in this section. And adenosine is a very plausible theory can should be included. All possible scientific theories should be included. At the end of the day, only one or none is true. 220.255.112.34 (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Who Wrote That? (or, Proper Attribution of WHO Review)

Several months ago there were some edits concerning Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials (2003, WHO). The edits were apparently based on a couple of faulty assumptions:

• (1) that the review was authored by one individual: false; it is attributed to the WHO itself according to ISBN data, and the WHO itself is speaking in the Acknowledgements. The confusion may have arisen because the introduction is signed by one Dr. Xiaorui Zhang[3];
• and (2), that the review was not vetted by the WHO or somehow did not represent the WHO's considered views. This misunderstanding may have arisen from this disclaimer[4]: "The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use." In fact, those words (or an approximation of them) are used on virtually every one of the WHO's publications on that website! This disclaimer appears to be of the standard, legal variety, and given its ubiquity it cannot reasonably be taken as any sort of disavowal of content by the WHO (beyond the simple fact that scientific knowledge changes over time).

Once we acknowledge and fix the attribution of the WHO review, the balance of WP:WEIGHT shifts considerably, since the WHO carries a great deal more weight than the individual scientists who are critical of it. Those objections should certainly be mentioned , but as the article stands it gives the impression that the objections carry more weight than the review itself, which would be OK if we were talking about "Acupuncturist claims in a report published by the World Health Organization" (LOL! - that subheader is classic Wikipedia), but not when we're talking about "World Health Organization Review" (as it was originally & correctly cited). Even if the critics' opinions are closer to the truth than the WHO's, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTTRUTH prevail. I'll be fixing the factual content and the weight issues soon. Please let me know your thoughts and particularly whether I've made any factual errors here. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point (1) is demonstrably false. The report itself states who wrote it: "Dr Zhu-Fan Xie, Honorary Director of the Institute of Integrated Medicines, First Hospital of Beijing Medical University, China, who drafted, revised and updated this report. Further, Dr Xie made numerous Chinese language documents available in English. We also thank Dr Hongguang Dong, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland for providing additional information." These are both acupuncurists. There was no input from recognized authorities who were not acupuncturists. Every single neutral and independent source has criticized WHO for putting out this report without consulting the vast literature disputing it. We have the sources here and they are WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. The disclaimer you cite in point (2) means we absolutely CANNOT attribute this draft of acupuncturist lunacy to anyone but the acupuncturists who drafted it. The WHO explicitly denies that the information is correct! That's different from every other medical source (see WP:MEDRS). Do not change it. You have a conflict of interest in the matter. Changing it will result in a filing of a direct complaint per the arbitration case that this case is under and may result in your censure. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@Science Apologist: (1) Proper attribution is to the WHO, as I demonstrated above, not someone you picked out of the paper's acknowledgements section (which you should re-read; there are lots of other possibl "authors"). If you doubt that grabbing a name from a document's "acknowledgements" section is not the proper way to determine authorship, you might ask at RS/N, or just any freshman English teacher. Your WP:IDHT doesn't change that. Yes, there have been critics of the source, but how many of them are RS's remotely comparably in parity? To counter something of the WHO's stature ("big", as WLU aptly put it) we need to be using something on the order of the Lancet editorial or Ernst's popular book (which, if it really doesn't use footnotes, is not as good a source as it could have been). The WHO are big indeed, and in this case probably wrong to some extent -- but cf your comments about Galileo at the top of your talk page, which dovetail with WP:NOTTRUTH. You also say "There was no input from recognized authorities who were not acupuncturists." -- got proof?

(2) The disclaimer, again despite your WP:IDHT, is a standard one and appears, with minor variations, in a number of other WHO publications. A search of their site for the phrase "does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct" turned up 54 hits; there are probably others using slightly different wording. Here are the first few; scroll to bottom of page to see disclaimer in its entirety: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Nothing about this strikes me as odd given that fact that the WHO are a UN organization and need to be diplomatic, as well as cover legal liability. In any case, we've established that it's not specific to their review on acupuncture.

Finally, (3) about your obsession with my non-existent COI: You keep bringing this up, so it merits a few choice words. Once again, you need to go back and read the page, WP:COI, which says: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Most editors who know me on WP know that I have "professional or academic expertise" in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, among other things. That alone does not mean I have a COI; to rise to that level, I'd have to be promoting my own practice or book or gizmo or whatever, which of course is not the case. This has been pointed out to you before, but I see you are still playing the WP:IDHT game with it. So, go ahead and make whatever frivolous complaints against me that you want -- all that will happen is that you'll add to the pile of examples of your own misconduct that have gotten you blocked/banned/censured over and over again, with excellent reason. Somehow, I've managed to figure out what the boundaries are around here, so forgive me when I completely ignore any lectures you have for me about getting censured. Mind your own WP:KETTLE and all that. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is duly impeached and WLU's version below does a good job explaining how that works. You and other acupuncturists have leaned heavily on this report to self-promotional ends. This is beginning to be transparently clear that you are here for one reason: to promote acupuncture. Finally, the fact that you refuse to admit that you are here to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't point out the obvious pseudoscience that is part-and-parcel to the majority of acupuncture practices is really problematic. Thus, the COI report. I will take this as high as it needs to go in order to get you to stop this advocacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's highly amusing logic -- You say my motivations are to promote acupuncture, and the fact that I don't admit that is "problematic". How very Soviet! --Middle 8 (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ScienceApologist and the article text is fine (with a little cleanup). However, the heading for that section is absolute tofu. Can we change it to something snappier, like World Health Organisation review 2003? Famousdog (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I also fully agree with SA. Verbal chat 11:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I agree with Middle 8. I think the lead's use of that study and the frontloading with "an acupuncturist" is both unnecessary and prejudicial. In fact, I'm actually inclined to simply remove it from the lead totally and fold in whatever information that's actually carried in that back-and-forth of "WHO acupuncturist produced, everyone else hated on" into one of the generic "it's controversial" statements. In that badly-titled section, however, I think there's much that could be done. First, it is a WHO report, even if written by an acupuncturist. You wouldn't frontload a review article with "An allopathic/western/white/pharma shill doctor wrote the WHO report on vaccination", and I don't think it's important here. I think it is however, important to state "The WHO produced a report. It was criticized by many people. Edzard Ernst [or whoever] stated that the report was substantially written by a single acupuncturist..." In other words, flatly state that it's a WHO report and carries their imprimatur. Immediately follow that up with all the criticisms of the report, in reasonable detail - summarize why the researchers didn't like it. That's far more valuable to the reader than simply throwing in a weaselly "An acupuncturist wrote it (and therefore you can't trust it)". This is the WHO. They are big. But since the WHO report was not a slam dunk, and was in fact heavily criticized, I don't think it deserves a place in the lead. I also think it should be dealt with body better. You can see where I did this last September with the WHO study via Trick or Treatment. This actually helps the reader by providing the scholarly criticisms for why the report is not trusted rather than simply stapling an implied ad hominem to a poor choice of sentence. We're much better off using the secondary sources available to expand the article than we are trying to point out the flaws in the WHO document, essentialy using it as a primary source for its own shortcomings.

Oh, and Quackguru's collapse of that lengthy bulleted list into a paragraph was a good start, but I think we'd be better off simply stating which conditions it was best proven useful with, and leaving a vague "as well as other conditions" for everything else. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim of WHO-imprimatur strike me as inappropriate because the WHO has this bizarre disclaimer prominently on the site that links to the report. This standard boilerplate is far different from those contained in, say, Lancet, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, etc. Claiming that it is WHO-supported strikes me as problematic since the WHO washed its hands from assuming any factual basis for the report. I'm not aware of any other medical source going to such lengths to specifically deny that what they published was factual or not. In fact, it makes a very good case that the report should be carefully vetted and claims from it probably shouldn't be included here because they fail the test of verifiability which is the Wikipedia-standard-bearer. It is important to mention that the report was written by acupuncturists without any input from skeptics. That is acknowledged by independent sources and the WHO report itself and shouldn't be hidden behind some massive organizational authorship (which is incorrect in any case). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I wouldn't necessarily say "supported", but "published" is certainly accurate. It is certainly verifiable that the WHO published the report, and it's hosted on its website. Also verifiable - that many had issue with the report. Think of how much more powerful an explicit discussion of this would be for all these points, versus an interpreted insinuation that skirts the line of appropriateness for wikipedia. Since we have a source for these points, why bother with the leading "acupuncturist" at all, when Ernst and others clearly state not only that this is problematic, but why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That the WHO published it is certainly correct. However, I think that the fact that they published it with the boilerplate makes it very questionable from the perspective of WP:V. What does it say, exactly? Are there many acupuncturists who are using it? Granted that Ernst's critique of the report is valuable, but his impeachment of it seems to indicate, to me at least, that the report isn't really all that useful for us as a reliable source. I guess what I'm saying is, I think a good case can be made for removing the report in almost its entirety and certainly at least from the lead. Does it deserve its own section as we currently have it? I'd wager to say, "no." ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The present wording is puerile. Ad hominem, yes, but more importantly, unconvincing. I completely endorse WLU's points. The WHO report needs to be addressed by this article, but addressed effectively. I would very much like to see a proposed rewording from WLU. Anthony (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

From me? Crap. That sounds like work. I've removed it from the lead, does anyone have, or is aware of, any other criticisms of the WHO report? Right now we've got Ernst & Singh, and McCarthy. I like Edzard Ernst, his credentials and arguments are impressive and the Lancet gives a lot of credibility to the McCarthy article (which is primarily about homeopathy by the way, but does explicitly discuss acupuncture). But to do that section justice, we really need more explicit sources about the 2003 WHO report.

Sources - can someone get me PMID 15157677? And can we use this document?

Here would be my draft of the section. I compressed it to a single section and tried to shorten all the points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another possible source: [12] who criticizes the validity of the list included in the report. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to study your draft, WLU, but shall as soon as I can. I have emailed that Pain editorial you asked for. Anthony (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks, and I hadn't thought of Quackwatch. Some more sources - [13] - a good general source too. And can anyone get Sampson, W. (1998) On the National Institute of Drug Abuse Consensus Conference on Acupuncture. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine? I probably won't have time this weekend, but I'll try to get to it early next week. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The WHO is big, yes. How big is Quackwatch? Let's stick to peer-reviewed sources. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Quackwatch is, and has always been viewed as an adequate depiction of the skeptical mainstream scientific opinion, just like CSICOP. It's adequate to make comments on the less well-supported, more questionable claims, but if its points can be supplemented or replaced with peer-reviewed sources, that's an improvement. The whole point of criticizing the WHO report is that, despite it being a big organization, it fucked up. It ended up introducing a large report supported by shaky science that claimed a whole bunch of poor-quality trials, from a country that never produced any negative evidence, written by a practitioner with reason to be biased, that is now waved about as proof that acupuncture can cure cancer and shit. The WHO is big, so they get substantial mention. But knowledgeable critics get to make their fair comments as well - and many think the report was highly biased and inaccurate. Quackwatch is one such critic, and it gets to make its points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two points -- (1) sure, critics get to make their points, but since we're talking WP:WEIGHT I'd say QW's cite would be minimal at most. A gauge of weightiness for MEDRS's is a source's reliability as a journal citation. WHO would qualify, just as Cochrane and other position statements and meta-analyses would. Quackwatch, well, when was the last time you saw them cited in a peer-reviewed journal? They're pathetic in terms of WP:WEIGHT, as is the idea that there's some separate "skeptical POV" that needs to be covered that is somehow not the same as scientific POV(s). "Skeptics" have their own journals, and seminars, bypassing peer-review, as well as their own mini-gurus --- gosh, sounds like CAM or something. Just pathetic. (sidebar -- we talk about the NIH Consensus Statement -- same deal here, just call it "WHO Review On Efficacy; no need to squirm around and try to minimize the source by desperately trying to find an individual author where there is none). (2) "written by a practitioner with reason to be biased" -- where is the source for that? Who says and how do they know? That claim needs attribution, and if it's just from a popular book with no footnotes -- I don't care who wrote it -- then I don't see why it's reliable. Claims of an individual author's bias get into WP:BLP territory and need to be documented adequately -- but probably the best resolution is to drop the invented author idea entirely and cite it just as we do the NIH, AMA, NCCAM, and other group statements. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight is addressed by attribution - "Quackwatch says..." Quackwatch is recognized, internationally and by many respected organizations, as doing a great job of giving a mainstream, skeptical position on dubious treatments including acupuncture. It's not like acupuncture is revolutionizing medicine - each time the research base improves (bigger studies, better placebos, improved blinding, higher-impact journal) it tends to notch down a little bit more. Since the 90s when the research base was mostly anecdotal and pilot studies, it's lost out on a fair number of conditions and probably isn't good for much beyond certain types of pain and nausea. Also, I wouldn't plan on using it for citing actual studies and results - I'd use the pubmed-indexed, peer-reviewed journal article for that. Quackwatch is, however, great for pointing out that meridians are nonsense, acupuncture points don't really exist, and that the "theory" is nothing of the sort. That is what I would use it for. While acupuncture's use as a pain/nausea/other treatment is a MEDRS issue, the existence of qi, meridians, acupuncture points, and the TCM system/"theory" is a WP:FRINGE issue, therefore quackwatch is an appropriate secondary source.

Skeptics tend to have the conventional research base on their sides. Adopting the mainstream position that qi doesn't exist and therefore you can't manipulate it with needles, doesn't require a revolution in physics, biology, chemistry and medicine. That's why the mainstream position doesn't have a WP:FRINGE equivalent, why they get to include WP:PARITY sources, and why WP:UNDUE is a policy while REDFLAG is a warning.

Providing an author is just good practice, it's not pathetic, and the WHO is still included as a linked publisher. As for the author being biased, I can't recall seeing that exact issue, and my draft doesn't include it.

Trick or Treatment is reliable. Two authors noted for their criticism of alternative medicine, Random House is a mainstream publishing house. The opinions expressed in TorT are also clearly attributed to it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Health organizations draft

===Statements by medical organizations===

Citing research that had accumulated since 1993, in 1997 the American Medical Association (AMA) produced a report that stated there was insufficient evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and highlighted the need for further research. The report also included a policy statement that cited the lack of evidence, and sometimes evidence against, the safety and efficacy of alternative medicne interventions, including acupuncture and called for "Well-designed, stringently controlled research...to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies."

Also in 1997, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a consensus statement on acupuncture that concluded that despite research on acupuncture being difficult to conduct, there was sufficient evidence to encourage further study and expand its use. The consensus statement and conference that produced it were criticized by Wallace Sampson, writing for an affiliated publication of Quackwatch who stated the meeting was chaired by a strong proponent of acupuncture and failed to include speakers who had obtained negative results on studies of acupuncture. Sampson also stated he believed the report showed evidence of pseudoscientific reasoning. In 2006 the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine stated that it continued to abide by the recommendations of the NIH consensus statement, even if research is still unable to explain its mechanism.

In 2003 the World Health Organization's Department of Essential Drugs and Medicine Policy that, based on research results available in early 1999, listed a series of diseases, symptoms or conditions for which the author, Zhu-Fan Xie, believed acupuncture had been demonstrated as an effective treatment, as well as a second list of conditions Xie believed could be treated with acupuncture. Noting the difficulties of conducting controlled research and the debate on how to best conduct research on acupuncture, the report was described as "...intended to facilitate research on and the evaluation and application of acupuncture. It is hoped that it will provide a useful resource for researchers, health care providers, national health authorities and the general public." The coordinator for the team that produced the report, Xiaorui Zhang, stated that the report was designed to facilitate research on acupuncture, not recommend treatment for specific diseases. The report was controversial; critics assailed it as being problematic since, in spite of the disclaimer, supporters used it to claim that the WHO endorsed acupuncture and other alternative medicine practices that were either pseudoscientific or lacking sufficient evidence-basis. Medical scientists expressed concern that the evidence supporting acupuncture outlined in the report was weak, and that the WHO had been biased by allowing the involvement of practitioners of alternative medicine. The report was criticized in the 2008 book Trick or Treatment for, in addition to being produced by a panel that included no critics of of acupuncture at all, containing two major errors - including too many results from low-quality clinical trials, and including a large number of trials originating in China where, probably due to publication bias, no negative trials have ever been produced. In contrast, studies originating in the West include a mixture of positive, negative and neutral results. Ernst and Singh, the authors of the book, described the report as "highly misleading", a "shoddy piece of work that was never rigorously scrutinized" and stated that the results of high-quality clinical trials do not support the use of acupuncture to treat anything but pain and nausea.

The proper attribution is WHO. We don't get to guess the author by looking through the acknowledgements. That's not how tertiary sources like WP are written. Here's what the acknowledgements say:

The World Health Organization acknowledges its indebtedness to the experts who participated in the WHO Consultation on Acupuncture held in Cervia, Italy in 1996, at which the selection criteria for the data included in this publication were set. Special thanks are due to Dr Zhu-Fan Xie, Honorary Director of the Institute of Integrated Medicines, First Hospital of Beijing Medical University, China, who drafted, revised and updated this report. Further, Dr Xie made numerous Chinese language documents available in English. We also thank Dr Hongguang Dong, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland for providing additional information.

Using the logic that we can pick an author from the acknowledgement, we could just as well attribute the authorship to "the experts who participated in the WHO Consultation on Acupuncture". Or, more simply, we could simply use the attribution that I already cited in the ISBN info, and which is obvious from the document itself: the WHO. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"...drafted, revised and updated this report" is authorship as far as I'm concerned, but if you look at my citation template, I have him as an author while Zhang is an editor. WHO is the publisher, not the author. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Being mentioned in the acknowledgments for part of a group effort isn't how authorship is designared. Obvious, right? Have you ever fished thru an acknowledgments section to determine authorship in the past? It makes no sense. It was a group effort that the WHO evidently wants attributed to the WHO per se. Hey, don't believe me -- believe the ISBN. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's deeper than that. The standard boilerplates from WHO reports indicate that the agency does not take responsibility for them other than to be their publisher. This is very much like other respectable publishing houses who publish questionable material but do not take a stand on whether the material is correct. WHO's report publication system is simply different from what we normally expect of peer review. Nothing wrong with that, only that quackwatch is just as reasonable a balance in this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You said WHO is "big". How big by comparison are the Lancet editorial, Ernst & Singh, and Quackwatch, respectively? Just a ballpark guess. This isn't a gotcha; we're going to have to answer it satisfactorily in order to rewrite the section. We need to be careful about this, because even though the WHO fucked up, they're major, and carry the weight of, I'd say, hundreds of scientists. ScienceApologist is, as usual, disingenuously making way too big a deal out of the disclaimer, which could simply be legalistic (cf. the other comments to the effect of "not endorsing any country's borders"). Also cf. my comments on the disclaimer above, in the section beginning "@Science Apologist: (1) Proper attribution is to the WHO... ". --Middle 8 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Sampson piece you were after? [14] Anthony (talk)

I endorse your draft, above, and recommend inserting it. If it is to be one section, perhaps the AMA bit could be folded into it. Anthony (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is, I'm going to try to track down a better version but that seems a suitable convenience link if we can't find it.

Middle 8 - the WHO is a health organization, not a scientific one. It doesn't represent hundreds of scientists, and the report has been criticized for using poorly-controlled studies. Verifiable, to respectable and reliable sources.

Pasted in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dry needling

Dry needling looks very much like acupuncture sans magic. Right now it appears twice - once in the body and once in the {{acupuncture}} template. Anyone know anything about dry needling? Has this been developed at all since 1979? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The term does come up in the literature, and while I think you're right, we would need an RS making clear the distinction. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons why Acupuncture should be marked Category:Pseudoscience

Hi everyone. I'm re-starting the conversation, because I think we were a little off track the last time.

Reason #1: Category:Pseudoscience's first sentence defines a pseudoscience as "a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that [1] claim or appear to be scientific, but that [2] are not considered being so by the scientific community." [Numbering added.] The plain text of this policy gives us a simple test for inclusion: that (1) proponents make scientific-appearing claims which (2) are not considered so by the scientific community. There are ample RS's that support these two requirements for Acupuncture and therefore it should be tagged pseudoscience.

Reason #2: Acupuncture is Category:Energy therapies. And Category:Energy therapies is Category:Pseudoscience (See its "main article" Energy_medicine). Therefore, Acupuncture is Category:Pseudoscience.

Dogweather (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing we've never decided is which umbrella categories are adequate for declaring pseudoscience. For example, a wide-range of articles in Category:Paranormal are clearly pseudoscience, but the argument was made that since they are in the paranormal category they don't also need to be placed in the pseudoscience category. I would, however, like to see a pseudoscience infobox placed here (in the relevant section). ScienceApologist (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I guess I disagree with that argument, not to apply both categories. That would have made sense, if our category system was hierarchical; a taxonomy. But it's not; it's like a flat set of tags. So to be a service to the reader, it seems like articles ought to be tagged with all applicable categories. Dogweather (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason #1 for not labeling it "pseudoscience". It will alienate many open-minded readers who see the term as the judgment of a few pompous, up-themselves Wikilosers and (rightly) purely derogatory. I think acupuncture is dangerous (in that it distracts people from effective treatment) hokum. Your hamfisted and unconvincing rhetoric, ScienceWatcher and Dogweather, is harming this article. Anthony (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, let's keep this friendly. I see your point, but I think you might be raising a bigger issue than simply Acupuncture: i.e., perhaps pseudoscience isn't a good category to have. This might be a good policy discussion in the forum/portal.

And about my points; I avoided being verbose, but I'm pretty serious about it: Take my reason #2: Acupuncture really is an "energy medicine", which really is pseudoscience. There's no way around it, that Acu. is pseudoscience too. Dogweather (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. My original wording was both offensive and not what I think, so I've reordered it. (If you'd prefer a strike I'll do that.) It is reasonable to discuss here whether categorizing acupuncture as pseudoscience (which it is) will strengthen or weaken the article's rhetorical power. I assert that it will weaken it, as does your ham fisted treatment of the WHO report. The article should approximate a cool, pithy, persuasive explanation, not a derogatory polemic. A simple, neutral statement of facts is all that is required. I mean to be blunt, not unfriendly. Anthony (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the suggestion by SA in the section below is actually a good one - acupuncture might work for symptoms, but its theoretical conception of the manipulation of qi is pseudoscientific. But the most important thing is a set of reputable sources for this - can we find sources that? I think so: [15], and there's more [16]. Better, of course, is a discussion of why acupuncture is (and is not) pseudoscience. The TCM "theory" is nonsense - the placement of needles doesn't make a difference and this is where the pseudoscience comes in - but there is research showing acupuncture can reduce pain and nausea compared to nonpenetrating needles - and this is where the science is. Far, far better than a priori assumptions about acupuncture being pseudoscience or not is a source-based discussion of if and why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dogweather and all - I hate repeating myself, so would you mind addressing my explanation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines just above, under Talk:Acupuncture#Category:Pseudoscience.3F? Please see especially WP:PSCI and RS#Academic_consensus. NPOV policy is quite clear about what we can and can't label unambiguously (e.g., with a category or infobox) as pseudoscience. Our own opinions on demarcation are OR and therefore not relevant; for well-known topics like psychoanalysis, acupuncture and astrology, Wikipedia says we leave that to high-quality MEDRS's that are reliable indicators of scientific consensus. In the case of astrology, sources meeting that level have said it's PS, so we use the category. Not so for acupuncture or psychanalysis. That doesn't mean we cant cite sources like the ones WLU provided just above; it just means that those sources aren't enough to unambiguously characterize acupuncture as pseudoscience. The same goes for TCM theory, qi and so on. TCM is probably the best-known and most-used indigenous medicine in the world, so no mainstream body will have missed a chance to comment on it. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're making things up. There is no statement about unambiguous labels anywhere. We have plenty of reliable medical sources which say that meridian manipulation and poking is rank pseudoscience. We reference them in these articles and they are good enough for us to explain this to our reader as plainly as possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm citing policy that you need to re-read: WP:PSCI says that well-known topics like psychanalysis "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific" -- e.g. categorization or infoboxes. We can still cite scientists' opinions, but without a concensus-level source, we can't use things like the category or the infobox. That's been well-established on WP for awhile now. But I guess you didn't hear it, did you? --Middle 8 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not psychoanalysis. This is vitalistic qi superstitions. Every source listed in the article and above identify it as pseudoscience and the consensus is clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's suggestion of placing the pseudoscience infobox in the TCM section seems like the best approach. That is clearly the most appropriate place to put it, since it is the "theory" that is problematic. No-one has ever confirmed the existence of qi or meridians, but jamming needles into people still appears to work. The fact that it still works irrespective of where you jam the needles, whether you use needles or toothpicks, whether you actually penetrate the skin or not, that's what demonstrates the pseudoscientific aspect. But again, we need sources for this. But we should be documenting what parts of acupuncture are considered pseudoscientific, and what parts are actually supported by research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, WLU. We have many sources at all levels of discussion about this issue: for example, this piece from Discover Magazine. I haven't seen a single peer-reviewed article that even attempts to vaguely hint that qi meridians are plausible. The closest we can come to is that they happen to be near nerve endings through a trail-and-error adjustment of the maps, but the nonsense about qi is simply that: nonsense. Acupuncture theorizing is well-sourced as pseudoscience. I think I count half-a-dozen sources we've mentioned explicitly here. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the Pseudoscience infobox. Let's go for it. Middle 8, you write some text in a quote, then I go to your source (PSCI), and can't find the quote. The policy doc there supports our position, IMO. I believe that the main argument of people saying "no", not pseudoscience is that they want to find a RS making this exact statement. This, however, is an unrealistic criterium, because this is not what scientists write about or do. They typically just ignore pseudoscience. This is why I believe the best test for inclusion in the category is to simply apply the definition that WP:PSCI gives us: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." Note that us applying a category label is different than us placing content in an article's text. The category label system is how we organize wikipedia. For these reasons, I believe pseudoscience category applies. Dogweather (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a policy discussion about just when to apply Category:Pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#When_to_apply_Category:Pseudoscience.3F Dogweather (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's supported by RS and should be in the appropriate categories. Verbal chat 09:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And I just realized that it has been in Category:Pseudoscience for a very long time: Because Acupuncture is in at least two of its subcategories. So, explicitly marking this Pseudoscience isn't radical. Dogweather (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted last bit of Gate control section

...because it erroneously leaves the spinal cord out of central control, and adds nothing to the article but a vague veneer of scientific respectability.

Calvino B, Grilo RM. Central pain control. Joint Bone Spine. 2006 Jan;73(1):10-6. Review. PubMed PMID: 15922645.

Can anyone access the ref for this section (Melzack R. Acupuncture and pain mechanisms Anaesthesist. 1976;25:204-7)? Anthony (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think a 34-year-old paper is useful for much. The statement it's used to verify is actually a description of how that paper was used, not a summary of the paper itself (in other words, it's a primary source used to justify a secondary claim). We should choose better sources, such as this one, or for that matter, Trick or Treatment has two paragraphs on gate theory and opiods. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Google won't let me read that in Australia. Speculation has moved on a bit. I read this

• Brown CA, Jones AK. Physiological mechanisms of acupuncture: beyond placebo? Pain. 2009 Dec 15;147(1-3):11-2. Epub 2009 Sep 30. PubMed PMID: 19796877.

commentary earlier today and it points to the endogenous opioid system and the HPA axis as 2 systems associated with acupuncture relief of pain. And this

• Napadow V, Ahn A, Longhurst J, Lao L, Stener-Victorin E, Harris R, Langevin HM. The status and future of acupuncture mechanism research. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Sep;14(7):861-9. PubMed PMID: 18803495.

looks promising, though I've barely glanced at it yet. It shouldn't be too hard to bring the mechanism up to date. Shall I give it a shot? Anthony (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox

For your consideration. Consider inserting it in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Acupuncture

An acupuncture needle inserted into a patient.
Claims	By inserting and manipulating needles into locations along channels where qi or blood flow, any number of medical ailments can be ameliorated or cured.
Related scientific disciplines	Medicine
Year proposed	antiquity
Original proponents	Traditional Chinese doctors
Subsequent proponents	Organizations and schools American Academy of Acupuncture, British Medical Acupuncture Society, Institute for Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, International Society of Acupuncture, Midwest College of Oriental Medicine, Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, World Medicine Institute, Yo San University Individuals Jill Blakeway, Guanyuan Jin, Christopher Hobbs, Miriam Lee, Felix Mann, John G. Myerson, Nakayama Naotaka, James Tin Yau So, Tao Ping-Siang, J. R. Worsley
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

This doesn't fly for the exact same reasons category:pseudoscience doesn't fly here; cf various reasons above including WP:PSCI and WP:RS#Academic_consensus. We don't categorically label anything as pseudoscience without the proper source. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you're going to make substantive edits, especially controversial ones, please use an informative edit summary and not the kind you used here. Please re-read WP:ES if you aren't familiar with it. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We're only discussing the meridian aspects of acupuncture here. Academic consensus clearly is that qi meridians do not exist. Consensus of the editors including those arguing against categorizing this page as pseudoscience seem to be that this approach is okay (e.g. WLU's opinion above). We have plenty of sources which indicate that this concept is pseudoscientific and zero reliabls sources which dispute it. Also, stop being condescending. You very well know I'm familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed two of the practitioners from the list because they explicitly reject qi and meridians. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me a sci-consensus level source saying meridians are pseudoscience. Like the kind we waited for, and finally, found, for homeopathy -- something from a scientific body. If they haven't commented, we don't use a category or label. Simple. Why wouldn't they have commented? Speculate all you like. Just find a proper source, please. It should be easy, right? -- Middle 8 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Trick or Treatment would probably work, but a) there's no proof meridians exist b) TCM is based on the geography of China, not the anatomy of the body and c) I think category:pseudoscience would apply if any of the major parts of acupuncture could be labelled pseudoscience. All the mainstream sources (particularly governing bodies that talk about acupuncture are explicit in saying "we don't know how it works, the theory doesn't make any sense in modern terms, but there is evidence it appears to work". Meanwhile as better placebos appear, it becomes more and more apparent that a large part of the effect is placebo based, and certainly not based on actual manipulation of an invisible energy. All things to be expanded, but clearly, there are many authors who believe acupuncture is outright pseudoscience. Stating "X person has called it pseudoscience" is adequate attribution I think. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP has a specific threshold that is based on sound encyclomedic parameters. If we can't meet it, there's no point trying to rationalize away the need for that threshold. The placebos are dicey, as well; we don't know the mechanism, so how can we be sure that "sham" isn't a mild "verum" that is bound to generate falsely negative results? Don't you think there's a reason why scientists don't use the term much in the literature? Sure, some topics are too obscure to mert a mention, but that's not the case for homeopathy or acupuncture & TCM theory. It was only recently that a scientific body got around to affixing the label to homeopathy. If they haven't done so with TCM theory, it may be because TCM is more pre-science than pseudo-, but it still contains interesting stuff worth looking at, particularly activity of distal points like LI-4, UB-67 and P-6. Just as an ancient culture might describe eclipses as battles among the Sun and Moon gods, but correctly predict eclipses' timing, there is much in TCM theory that academics find interesting enough to research. Don't be so eager to follow the skeptical popularizers like Shermer who are overeager to use the term and stick a fork in too many topics prematurely. Ask yourself why academics are more reticent about using the term. Using sources like Quackwatch, instead of good ones like an Academy of Sciences, only weakens the skeptical argument. We should be using the best sources we can, not dicey material that's self-published and/or not peer-reviewed. Don't you see the contradiction between advocating for science on the one hand, while on the other using sources that no scientist would use in a respectable publication? It's a double-standard, and not very encyclopedic. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes, apply the infobox and the category. Dogweather (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a policy discussion about just when to apply Category:Pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#When_to_apply_Category:Pseudoscience.3F Dogweather (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does acupuncture claim to be derived from scientific method? Anthony (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. On this talk page alone, you'll see references to acupuncture described with scientific-sounding terms, and references to academic articles attempting to square it with science. Dogweather (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. 2000 years ago the ancient Chinese said "there will be a thing called science arising in 1400 years or so, and at that time we will claim that our medicine, based on Taoist philosophy, is scientific." No question about it.  ;-) --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I support a Pseudoscience section as long as it is written from a NPOV using reliable sources. Adding this infobox (or cat) without consensus or sources is inappropriate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that both the infobox and the source have to pass WP:PSCI (and RS#Academic_consensus). Only recently did homeopathy pass that threshold, with a sci-consensus type source from a scientific body. I've seen no such source yet for any aspect of acupuncture or Chinese medicine, just the usual teh awesome articles by Shermer et. al. -- not really indicative of scientific consensus. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't settled yet. We should be supplying the sources and edits to the pseudoscience question before putting in the infobox and category. I think that there are sources to be applied before a category or infobox can be added, but I think the infobox is inevitable. Source first, then edit, then infobox people, that's how it works. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, WLU. I'll follow your lead. Can I help at all? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You could get everyone to shut the hell up and stop reverting. And assemble sources. I'll try to get to this, but frankly the stupid and unnecessary reverting is making me want to walk away in disgust. We aren't at the point where the infobox should be added yet, we're at the point where we should be trying to find sources that label acupuncture or parts of it as pseudoscience, then integrating those sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on it, WLU. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonghan System

I realize that my recent addition of a link to Bonghan System is likely to be controversial but this new research has plenty of published science behind it and has been confirmed in different labs in a number of countries. With these new discoveries a statement which claims that scientists have been unable to find evidence that supports the existence of meridians misrepresents a truth that has now become more controversial and less absolute.DavidWis (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed has 7 hits for "Bonghan". Looks like a fringe theory. This one in 2005 starts with the very promising "Threadlike structures on the surfaces of internal organs, which are thought to be part of the Bonghan duct system, were first reported about 40 years ago, but have been largely ignored since then." Emphasis mine. Even less support than acupuncture, it may merit its own page but I don't know if it's appropriate here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Trick or Treatment does not mention Bonghan, and the "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies" isn't pubmed indexed. I've removed the statements. Bonghan appears, even within acupuncture, to be a fringe claim. I've seen it mentioned as a "radical challenge to modern anatomy" and a justification of meridians. This shouldn't be mentioned on this page, and the Bonghan system itself should be purged of unreliable sources, primary sources, and include critical commentary. Frankly, if there isn't even critical commentary in skeptical sources, and if this has been ignored since the 60s and 70s (at a time where the evolution of medicine has been so incredibly rapid no-one can even keep track of it), I don't know if there's enough merit to include it at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

COI issue

Wrong venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<span id="Wrong venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)"> Please note this is relevant to this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Meritless allegations, but you screwed up by posting what you thought was my personal information. Outing is a no-no with severe consequences. You crossed a line. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The COI arises because you are clearly here to promote acupuncture rather than dispassionately write encyclopedia articles. You also have an interest in the normal sense. Verbal chat 09:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's ok to be passionate as long as you remain civil and neutral. Revealing a personal webpage that the user does not include on their wikipedia userpage is outing and should disiplined. SA's userpage indicates a strong POV and COI with the interest in this article (which means no more AGF). I can't believe that there's so much controversy. I'm one of the primary authors of Commons:Sexual content and things are, at least recently, much more harmonious that here. I'm going to keep monitoring this. Anybody who crosses boundries will be dealt with appropiately. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No more AGF?? Middle8 linked himself to these things. It is clearly not outing. If Middle8 wants a fresh start he is free to do that, but would have to avoid acupuncture. Verbal chat 11:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note I said promote which is different to passion. With the COI and history of changing accounts, it shows a problem. Verbal chat 11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's that about changing accounts? Anthony (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle8 has previous edited under a different name in the same topic area causing similar problems. Verbal chat 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Socking? Anthony (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been active at this page for a few years now, to the best of my knowledge Middle 8 has never engaged in any sock puppetry, and I would be surprised if they did. Can we please close this thread and continue any necessary discussion at a more appropriate venue? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle8's new account is a legitimate one, a fact known to many editors who have edited alongside him, but he has previously used another account where his profession was clearly identified. There were also questions about a COI then, and I don't think his profession has changed, so he should be very careful when editing in this area as a COI that leads to promotion and defense of acupuncture and related topics is potentially problematic. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There was socking but after the account was caught the editor claimed it was an alternative account. The account was being used in the same alternative medicine topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, QG, there wasn't socking, which you know perfectly well -- but thanks for the troll. I had two accounts at first to avoid wikistalking by some of the same drama-addicts who are hassling me now. Simply having two accounts doth not a sock make, as you know (but pretend not to, which is just adorable). Full explanation here -- enjoy poring over every lurid detail. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At first you did not declare it was an alternative account and you were editing in the same topic. You were pretending to be a new account and editors were concerned the account was a sock. After you got caught you dumped the account. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Brangifer: you seem to imply that the statement "there were also questions about a COI" means anything -- anyone can question anything whether the question has merit or not, and the correct statement is there have never been findings of COI on this or any account, and when the accusation based on profession was made, it was immediately dismissed as meritless (read WP:COI and you'll see why). As a matter of fact, I've never been sanctioned, blocked or banned for anything on Wikipedia. (The secret: I'm too patient with assholes.) Read my userpage and you'll see that I identify my profession with this account too. The idea that I (or anyone in my position, editing in my professional area) somehow would make money from editing WP is absurd, and drastically overestimates the influence Wikipedia has -- it's widely seen as a pathetic joke for anything substantive, and this thread is a good example of why.

By the way, using this "COI is everywhere" logic, shouldn't ALL healthcare practitioners editing this article declare a potential COI, since casting acupuncture in a poor light might indirectly financially benefit them? Yes, that's certainly true. Anyone declaring?

(crickets)

But wait: the same goes for any scientist supported by grants, since grant money is scarce and skewing the article for/against acupuncture might influence some grant evaluator, somewhere, maybe. And librarians, too, since including references to texts you carry will help keep your employer open. Yes, there's no doubt: practically anyone editing this article should tread very carefully around bullshit COI issues, and spend as little time as possible substantively on the article so that a few hypermotivated wannabe-Wikistuds can have their way with it. Yes, this is all potentially problematic -- wait, I meant to write patently absurd. Or simply, "welcome to Wikipedia". --Middle 8 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not appropriate for an article talk page. It belongs here. What is covered needs to be aired there. Anthony (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note. I agree the conversation should continue there, but a cut and paste does not help the situation. Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? [17][18] Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest may not be a concern (I don't think so) but civil pov-pushing may be. That's a separate conversation, whether a topic ban is warranted. I don't know if that's the case at this point, but the damned edit warring isn't helping.

Middle8 - you must accept that it is verifiable many people don't believe acupuncture is proven, it's certainly debated and far from settled, and most don't believe the traditional Chinese beliefs of qi and meridians have any merit. Advocacy for acupuncture is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi WLU (et. al.) -- You don't know me very well on WP. Besides the acupuncture, I have an advanced degree in a physical science from a university with an outstanding department, and the better part of a decade in pharmaceutical R&D (my first career). So I'm reasonably science-literate in addition to understanding TCM. (Obviously, I'm no match for bright-eyed college kids quoting Ernst, but that's natural, since WP has always denigrated editorial expertise.)

Of course I understand that what you say is correct about the scientific landscape, but I'm sure that you also know that there are doctors who believe there's something to some CAM's, particularly acupuncture. Before saying that I "advocate for acupuncture", you might try to understand my history here. Several years ago I wrote the "criticism of TCM section", large parts of which remain. I update Cochrane reviews and the like irrespective of their findings. I have added, or don't object to others adding, properly-sourced and -weighted cites critical of acupuncture. I'm fine with acu and TCM being included in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience since we agreed on and found the proper sources. And of course we need to make sure that the TCM side is covered adequately, which is an area where TCM-style and other acupuncturists can come in handy.

The only thing I've ever objected to, without adequate sourcing, is the unambiguous characterization of acupuncture as pseudoscience (via the category, infobox or anything else that is a binary condition). There is a reasonable debate to be had about demarcation and what kind of sources suffice, but not when certain hyper-aggressive editors and their acolytes find me taking a stance opposite to theirs, and resort to ad hominem and wikidrama ("COI!" "POV-Pusher!") instead of discussing. Indeed, the goal is to drive the opposition away, not engage any sort of WP:DR. This is a global problem on WP, well-summarized by User:Gleng, a professor who used to edit here, on his user page.

More later on the demarcation argument; I just noticed that WP:PSCI now directs to a different place. What I've been meaning to point to is at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience. That clearly says that well-known topics that have following and have attracted commentary must verifiably be shown to be considered pseudo by the scientific community. That's where WP:RS#Academic_consensus comes in. The rest seems fairly obvious. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fallacious to conclude that Category:Pseudoscience or a pseudoscience infobox are unambiguously characterizing an entire article as such. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines which indicate this. It is, in fact, a rule you made up out of thin-air. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the "unambiguous" characterization; it is mentioned in WP specifically with respect to categorization and other yes/no type labels. Being in a category, or having an infobox, is a binary condition and therefore unambiguous. Thus, with respect to well-known topics, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience distinguished between topics that are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community .... and may be categorized as pseudoscience" and topics that are "questionable science" that "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific" (emphasis mine). The razor here is WP:RS#Academic_consensus, which is how we determine whether consensus exists. Obviously, tiny fringe topics don't require a source (read the guideline), but well-known ones do. Homeopathy, for example, was categorized on WP as pseudo after a British medical body (the Royal Society, or something) called it pseudo (or something close). Global consensus on WP has been to follow this approach for some time, and it's worked well: it's unambiguous (there's that word again), conforms to NPOV and VER, and there are no glaring omissions or bad inclusions in the category. --07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle 8 (talk • contribs)

Please show me the policy where WP specifically mentions "unambiguous characterization" associated with infoboxes or categories since you claimed it existed but couldn't seem to be bothered to actually show it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience in its entirety keeping context in mind. There is a difference between saying "Joe Blow saidacu is pseudoscience" and saying "acu is pseudoscientific", whether in so many words or by having a binary descriptor like a category or infobox. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That guideline says nothing about categories and infoboxes indicating unambiguous characterizations. Try again. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable relying on the common sense of most editors here, who I imagine can see that having an all-or-nothing category (or infobox) is synonymous with "binary" and "unambigous". I fully expect you and a couple of other editors to continue being disingenuous (see WP:SPADE) and pretending you don't get it. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So you think it is common sense that this arbcom ruling you are quoting is referring to infoboxes and categories as being unambiguous/binary characterizations. Go ahead and start a request-for-comment on that one. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this off-article discussion go somewhere else please? For COI go here, for outing go here, to discuss anything else, other than article content, take it to a user talk page. Anthony (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently added "Clarification needed" tags

I'm sleepy, so probably just missing it, but QuackGuru, don't the 5 references here explain the "some" and "others"? Sorry if I'm being stupid. Anthony (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Many of us have seen this from QG before: game-playing; trolling. (As is said in multiple contexts in WP, "assume good faith is not a suicide pact".) --Middle 8 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Several[not in citation given] review articles have been published on the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment with several concluding it is an effective treatment modality,[neutrality is disputed][3][8][9] while others[clarification needed] attribute it to the placebo effect.[10][11]" This sentence is poorly written and needs a lot of work. According to Anthony and Middle 8 the source verified "some" not "several". However, putting different sources together to come to a new conclusion is SYN ans OR. According to Anthony you need the 5 references here to explain the "some" and "others" Using 5 references to come to a new conclusion is going beyond the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I had another crack at it, the lead has to be somewhat vaguer than the body since it is meant to be a summary. Hopefully the current version, which is way too specific in my opinion, is adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Anthony? Huh? Don't twist my words. Anthony (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Thanks for that. Now can we actually work on the citations? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Maybe the best thing to do is to write the text here that we need citations for and to start looking. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Below is a shoddy, shoddy draft with no sources. A lot of the information might better fit into multiple sections. And frankly, it's mostly my opinion right now. But it's a start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Acupuncture is considered by some {{who}} to be pseudoscientific and wholly due to the placebo effect. Others {{who}} believe that while acupuncture has some merit for certain symptoms, but the traditional Chinese medicine system used to select the points to apply the needles, and the theory of qi, has no basis in science.

Sources

• [19]
• [20] and [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• Dold, Catherine (1998). "Needles & Nerves". Discover magazine. Retrieved 2010-06-07. Of course, there are still many skeptics. "Cho's paper proves nothing," says Wallace Sampson, former chief of medical oncology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and a member of the board of directors of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a private organization. "It's a simple case of pseudoscience." {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Peudoscience

Per the ArbCom case, this should not be categorized or infobox-ed as pseudoscience, because there's a significant body of thought that supports its efficacy, e.g. "Acupuncture may ease pain by triggering release of natural painkiller", The Guardian, May 30, 2010. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For those more familiar with the scientific literature (no offence, realizing that statement will pretty much inevitably invite offence...) there is a lot of body of thought that finds acupuncture is simple placebo; the guardian is a good paper, but not as good as peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates considerable doubt when proper placebos are involved. That particular study, hasn't been replicated (yet), wasn't on humans, and illustrates more that local irritation may temporarily overcome competing stimulation.

Also, a large part of the pseudoscience around acupuncture is in the "system" used to deliver it - sham does as well as "real" acupuncture; nonpenetrating needles do as well as penetrating needles; no real evidence of meridians, qi, acupuncture points or Blood (that's Blood as detailed by the TCM theory, not blood); toothpicks working as well as needles; TCM diagnosis with six different pulses, tongue colour and ear wax; moxibustion; laserpuncture; and so on. Dry needling, which is pretty much "acupuncture without the magic", might be a better name and direction to take acupuncture if there is ever unequivocal evidence for it but we're not there yet.

All that to say - there is certainly evidence supporting acupuncture may be useful, or something. There is certainly evidence against that statement. It is absolutely certain that the jury is out. But it is also certain that there are many who consider acupuncture, or at least the traditional Chinese medicine parts of it, pseudoscientific in much the same way that alchemy is pseudoscience. The body of thought that states acupuncture is pseudoscience at least in part certainly passes the threshold at WP:UNDUE.

But here is where my ignorance comes in - if a part of something is pseudoscientific, can the whole page get a category? I can't even think of an example where this would apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom case concluded that: "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." And "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." See here. Acupuncture falls under one or both of the above, so the category should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Twenty hacks saying that the CIA killed JFK doesn't make those ideas anything but conspiracy theories. Likewise, twenty quacks pushing bad science doesn't magically turn acupuncture into anything beyond placebo, as documented in several peer-reviewed papers published in accredited sources. I'm not quite sure, but I don't think the ArbCom was elected to decree what is and isn't science - I'll have to double-check the election documentation. Regardless, by their statement Creationism wouldn't be considered pseudoscience, so it's obviously far too broad to be useable. Badger Drink (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, you write, "there's a significant body of thought that supports its efficacy, e.g. ..." I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I also believe that paying attention to that one study is OR in the health/bio-medical area because it's a primary source. As it happens, that study, and especially the mainstream news reporting, have serious methodological and logical problems. But I don't think I should go into it, because it's OR. As an admin, I'm glad you're here. You'll see that the article itself uses high quality secondary sources — academic journals publishing literature reviews and meta-studies — and these conclude that there is no efficacy. In honesty, I happen to believe that this is the scientific consensus. Dogweather (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reset archives to 250K, Miszabot

In case anyone's interested I standardized the archives to 250K, adjusted the dates at the archive box and started Miszabot. They were all over the place with different sizes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)