Talk:Eight Extraordinary Channels

Reverted Changes

I have reverted both changes by User:Middle 8. One change removed the category Pseudoscience with the comment that adding that category had to be adequately sourced. The other changed a proper representation of the NIH Consensus Statement on Acupuncture to a representation that was more favorable to the subject of the article. Of course, the NIH document does properly source the fact that this is pseudoscience, and the fact that the concepts of meridians are considered pseudoscience per scientific consensus as there is no scientific basis for this concept.

The NIH document states: "Even more elusive is the scientific basis of some of the key traditional Eastern medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and other related theories, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."

There is no scientific basis for the existence of meridians, per the NIH Consensus Statement. Omitting this fact gives undue weight to a fringe theory and constitutes weasel wording.

I urge you to check WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BURDEN as these revisions failed the criteria of all three. If you have a source that shows scientific evidence for Qi and meridians, please introduce it here. Otherwise, this remains pseudoscience. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Transity -- I'm quite familiar with those guidelines, thanks. It is true that we need a mainstream source in order to meet WP:PSCI's threshold for "generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community". The main problem is that the NIH source doesn't at all say what you seem to think it does, and consensus on other acupuncture-related articles in WP has never taken it to. The NIH panel doesn't use the term "pseudoscience" or any synonymous wording. It's a real stretch to take "difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information" as meaning "pseudoscience": it's possible, I suppose, but what demolishes your argument is that it's at least equally likely that they don't intend to go that far (as well as the overall context, which was considered too favorable to acu by some such as Stephen Barrett[1]). It sounds more like it should be taken at face value rather than assumed, via WP:SYN, to mean pseudoscience. Why not stick close to the source, as we have elsewhere, e.g acupuncture? Happy to take this to RSN if need be. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I only have access via a cell phone with a poor interface until Tuesday. I will respond when I can properly read your comment and actually type a response. Apologies if there are problems with this comment. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, take your time -- and may your connectivity be speedy. :-) I may play around with importing more specific language from acupuncture or something; if you hate it, you can just revert it, of course. In the meantime, please do consider the fact that dozens of editors (many of whom would self-identify as "skeptics") of Chinese-medicine-related topics have looked at that source and none have read it to say anything close to "pseudoscience". I do agree in general with WP's policies on pseudoscience, and have followed how they've unfolded over time; I think it's mainly the reading of the specific source where we disagree. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At work, so only a little time. I reverted to wording much like yours (I copied it from the meridians article). I'm fine with this. I guess my issue is the pseudoscience tag. In my mind, if this isn't pseudoscience, then I don't know what is. There is literally not a drop of good evidence to backup any of these claims. And there may not be a specific source stating that this is pseudoscience (I haven't looked yet), but surely that isn't the case with every article categorized as pseudoscience, and frankly that shouldn't be a requirement if there is no evidence to support a claim in the first place.

So I'm asking here, and it's not a rhetorical question or a "gotcha" - how is this not pseudoscience? --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to my reasoning above, and I appreciate your question and the honest way you asked it. That kind of sincere, reasoned approach is what gives me hope for WP. I'll give both my own views and what I understand WP's policies to say.

I think Chinese Medicine is more pre- or proto-scientific than pseudo-; see acupuncture, which cites sources showing that that basic questions about efficacy and mechanism are not settled, and that these are taken seriously enough to be a matter of active, mainstream research (e.g. Ernst and Cochrane). One aspect of this research is the extent to which traditional ideas like acupuncture points and meridians are valid; this too remains unsettled, though there are some promising areas.

Chinese Medicine's models predate science and were thus, by definition, never intended to be misrepresented as such. These ideas are analogous to an ancient astronomy that is geocentric and relies on myth, but still accurately predicts planetary motion and eclipses (except that with Chinese medicine, the predictive value is still mostly up in the air since study design is difficult for procedures, as in surgery; still, acupuncture cites mainstream sources that acupuncture does have efficacy for certain conditions. I would argue that since some of those treatments are not mechanistically predictable by biomedicine -- like the use of the P6 acupoint just below the wrist crease for nausea -- that is interesting, and suggests the territory described by the ancient maps is not mere fantasy).

Getting into how WP handles this stuff: While reasonable people can disagree about demarcation, WP:PSCI and WP:V do require a particular threshold of sourcing in order to use category:pseudoscience -- something that shows there is real scientific consensus that a topic is pseudo. (Obviously WP:NOTTRUTH comes into play here; we have to be careful about assuming what scholarly consensus is. See also Wikipedia:Rs#Academic_consensus.) A well-known topic like Chinese Medicine would need a scientific-consensus type source such as a statement from a mainstream scientific body in order to be "generally considered pseudoscience" (see the better sources at Scientific opinion on climate change); for tiny, fringe things or viral silliness like Time Cube, we don't need a source ("obvious pseudoscience"). Lacking such a source, and given affirmative evidence of active, mainstream research, we should default to considering Chinese medicine topics as "questionable science" or even "alternative theoretical formulations" (all these being from WP:PSCI).

That's not to say we can't cite other, non-sci-consensus sources on WP. We certainly can cite them, but as opinion, not settled fact or consensus (which the all-or-nothing nature of the pseudoscience category has usually been seen as implying). We can cite sources such as CSICOP, and we do at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, where Chinese medicine topics are listed. We just can't use the pseudoscience tag/category/infobox unless we meet the "generally considered" threshold in WP:PSCI. I remember lots of argument over whether to categorize homeopathy as pseudoscience; one thing most editors were able to agree on was that the "generally considered" threshold was finally breached when a legit sci-consensus source was found:

"In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public". "Scientists attack homeopathy move", BBC News, 25 October 2006. Retrieved 2 February 2008.

So, that's pretty good precedent for when to invoke the pseudoscience label. I'll leave it at that for now -- have got a bad case of flu -- I'll check back and reply when I can, hopefully soon. Good discussion, thanks again. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Fair enough. And I would agree that acupuncture should not have the pseudoscience category applied (since there are instances where the act of inserting needles into people seems to have shown beneficial effects). However, we aren't talking about acupuncture, we're talking about "qi" and "meridians" and, specifically, the Eight Extraordinary Channels. There is not one piece of evidence that shows these concepts to be anything other than fictional, and to my way of thinking, if we say that it's up to others to find a source proclaiming that meridians are pseudoscience, we are in breach of WP:UNDUE. The reason that acupuncture fails the pseudoscience test isn't because people can't find a source proclaiming that the consensus is that it is bogus, but rather because people have found reliable sources stating that it does have some effects (though the mechanisms behind those effects are not worked out).

Also, in looking at WP:PSCI, I can't help but feel that this article is about as far from questionable science as can be. The text on determining what is pseudoscience states:

Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

That seems to describe this article perfectly. Meridians fly in the face of basic scientific laws and reality, they lack scientific evidence that would justify such a change, and they rely on weak, often anecdotal evidence. It seems to be a perfect fit for pseudoscience to me.

So to me, this comes down to the difference between acupuncture falling somewhere between questionable science and generally considered pseudoscience (and hence not being a clear case to apply the pseudoscience category), and the mysticism behind acupuncture such as qi and meridians falling somewhere in between generally considered pseudoscience and obvious pseudoscience (and hence deserving the category unless reliable sources can be found to document evidence supporting the existence of meridians and qi).

I think I'll try to do a little more legwork to see how discussions like this one have played out in the past. I'm not convinced that acupuncture is a good analog, but I also note that article such as Meridian (Chinese medicine) are lacking the pseudoscience tag, so I think it's worth checking to see if I agree with the reasoning there, or if it's just another place where I disagree. I certainly don't want to rewalk old ground, but if this is a new enough path, I want to make sure I follow it to the end.

Hope you feel better soon. And thanks to you, too, for a good, rational discussion. Wherever it ends up. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Transity - actually, it does boil down to sourcing, as policy and precedent show. This quote of yours is a good place to start:

The reason that acupuncture fails the pseudoscience test isn't because people can't find a source proclaiming that the consensus is that it is bogus, but rather because people have found reliable sources stating that it does have some effects (though the mechanisms behind those effects are not worked out).

Prior to the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE Arbcom case and the incorporation of that decision into WP:PSCI, there was no general agreement on WP on when to use the pseudoscience category. Sometimes arguments like yours above were used, but there was a lot of contentious debate over just how much evidence for "scientific-ness" was needed, and whose criteria for pseudoscience should be used (lists of them abound on the internet, as I imagine we've both seen). WP:PSCI solved that problem, and did so precisely by requiring that we show, with a proper source, that there is sci consensus that a topic is pseudoscientific. That's what resolved the argument over homeopathy, cf. above. So your while logic is reasonable, WP uses a different standard.

Also, a comment on this:

There is not one piece of evidence that shows these concepts to be anything other than fictional, and to my way of thinking, if we say that it's up to others to find a source proclaiming that meridians are pseudoscience, we are in breach of WP:UNDUE.

It's actually not true that there is no scientific research or evidence on acupuncture medidians (see this interesting article on meridians and connective tissue planes), but that's not the central issue. As I mentioned above the baby and bathwater are still being sorted out (i.e., "it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point" -- from WP:PSCI on "questionable science"). WP:UNDUE is relevant, but not in a vacuum; again, WP:PSCI explains specifically what types of sources are needed and when. Obscure topics, "obvious pseudoscience", may be so categorized without a source. But in this case, when research is active (per this review by Ernst, no alt-med believer), it does boil down to sourcing. And the most mainstream sources that we have do not refer to meridians as pseudoscience, but rather use more nuanced language as the NIH source does.

What WP:PSCI did was remove most of the subjectivity from the equation. We might feel that a topic is or should be regarded as pseudoscience, but for reasonably well-known topics that have attracted mainstream commentary like acupuncture meridians, we go with what sources say rather than argue over how scientific we think the topic is. That saves major headaches, and it's really a pretty conservative approach; scientists themselves (in peer-reviewed literature) don't seem to throw the pseudoscience tag around lightly.

If NIH, or some scientific academy, wanted to call acupuncture meridians pseudoscientific, they would have done so. It's entirely possible that they will in the future, depending on what the baby-bathwater ratio is found to be. At this point there is no verifiable sci consensus on whether, and to what degree, acupuncture meridians are pseudoscientific; if they are proven to make good clinical predictions, then history will probably judge them more as proto- than pseudo-. Only recently did a sci-consensus source declare homeopathy pseudoscientific, and only then was there consensus on WP to label it umambiguously as such. It's not WP's role to get ahead of such sources and make our own judgement calls. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see either of those linked studies as addressing the issue at hand here. One talks pretty much entirely about the effects of acupuncture, which is not at all what this article is about. The other talks about trying to measure the electrical impedance along connective tissues associated with acupuncture points (and had inconclusive results). In addition, I don't know that either of these represents reliable sources as they are both journals dedicated to alternative medicine.

In addition, I am aware of the statement from WP:PSCI that says "it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point," but I don't agree that a reasonable amount of academic debate exists on the subject of meridians and qi. If it did, we'd see reliable sources calling out that reasonable debate. So while you are looking for a source to call this pseudoscience, I am looking for one that calls this anything other than absolute fiction. To my way of thinking, the burden of proof falls to the extraordinary claim, not the claim that fits with known science. And as I said, I see this as sitting in between clear pseudoscience and generally considered pseudoscience, so I don't necessarily agree that we need a source to proclaim this as pseudoscience in order to apply the category.

But as I also said, I believe I need to look at some past debates a little more to see what policy decisions I may need to bow to (whether I agree or not, if this is settled policy, then we need to conform to it), but I'm not yet convinced that this is a clear-cut case that has been decided already by precedents set elsewhere. Having read WP:PSCI and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, I must say that my reading doesn't at all show me that this issue is settled. I will continue to look around at this, but it may well be something that needs a more formal ruling. If you have suggestions of where I can look, please do share them. I'm in a little bit of a rush, so if something here doesn't make sense, please tell me and I'll explain (and accept my apologies as I usually take more time to proofread what I write). Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that those sources aren't reliable, unless I'm missing something in MEDRS about the journals. In any case, acupuncture is by definition dry needling involving TCM theory, so acupuncture research usually relates to points and meridians in some way; they're a central part of traditional acupuncture theory (which are, in practice, used clinically but not taken literally, per the quote at the end of Acupuncture#Acupuncture_points_and_meridians). Who's to say how many scientists see these models as bullshit as opposed to interesting, prescientific ideas that have clinical relevance and are worth studying? Some do say they're pseudoscience, but no mainstream sci-consensus source has come out and done so. Also please recall WP:NOTTRUTH.

It sounds like we disagree on burden of proof -- you say "the burden of proof falls to the extraordinary claim", but which claim are we talking about? The claim that meridians are scientifically verified, or the claim that they are not pseudoscience? If the former, there's no problem; no one is making that claim on WP, so we just cite facts about what traditional sources say. If the latter, then I believe you're inappropriately shifting the burden of proof. "Obvious pseudoscience" has never included well-known ideas or aspects thereof. "Generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community" has been interpreted as requiring a sci-consensus source; we can't just make stuff up -- that's very basic WP:V. But that's what you're essentially proposing: that we assume there is scientific consensus that aspects of a well-known, actively-researched topic are pseudoscience, despite the fact that amongst all the commentary on that topic no one has ever found a source to that effect. Lacking that, we can only assume no such consensus exists.

One good place to look for precedent on WP:PSCI is the archived discussion at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, which previously had separate tiers for "generally considered pseudo" and "questionable science".

My bottom line point is that TCM theory is well-known enough to have attracted mainstream scientific commentary, and no sci-consensus source has called it pseudoscience, which means that it remains in the "questionable science" category. Maybe RSN or article RfC? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You say: "acupuncture is by definition dry needling involving TCM theory, so acupuncture research usually relates to points and meridians in some way". However, studies about acupuncture generally only measure the effects of the needling itself (either at acupuncture points, or elsewhere). I am not aware of a single study that has ever shown that acupuncture points and meridians are valid scientific concepts, even if they have shown some beneficial effects to the needling. This, I think, is one of the main areas of our disagreement. I concur that acupuncture is not pseudoscience under Wikipedia policies because there are studies that have shown some effects. However, those same studies have never shown the existence of meridians and chi. So the entire basis of acupuncture is pseudoscientific, even though the act itself may have some benefit. That, to me, means that acupuncture is pre-scientific, but I still see nothing that makes the pseudoscience it is based on anything other than pseudoscience.

And the part of WP:NOTTRUTH that I think most applies here is WP:REDFLAG which states that "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." The exceptional claim here is that qi and meridians exist, despite the fact that they fly in the face of known science, and despite the fact that there isn't one piece of good evidence that supports their existence. That is the extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof should fall on the person making that claim. That is what I am saying. Without any evidence that these concepts are real, they should be either removed from WP (not good in this case as they are popular), or stated clearly to be fictional (in other words, pseudoscience). So yes, we disagree on burden of proof. I am leaning on WP:REDFLAG and WP:BURDEN, and my interpretations of those policies.

As a note, I also do not read WP:PSCI to say that we need a source specifically calling out this topic as pseudoscience in order to attach the category. I'm just not seeing that in the text of that page. That may be one interpretation of that text, but it's not my interpretation.

My bottom line is that, while acupuncture and some other aspects of TCM may be mainstream enough to fall into the "questionable science" category, I simply don't see the evidence or even the hint of evidence to push meridians and qi up the scale that far. As far as I can see, it falls somewhere in between obvious pseudoscience and generally considered pseudoscience. In addition, I don't see that WP:PSCI mandates a source calling either category pseudoscience before that category can be applied. It may well be that I need to look around more to find that mandate, but I haven't seen it yet.

Let's hang on with RSN or RfC or anything else until I can look over some more discussions on other articles. It may well turn out that I find something that makes me change my position. Since the category is currently applied, if I start to take too long (in your estimation), let me know and if I'm not close to done with my research, we can either move to RfC (or something else), or remove the category while I continue poking around. Real life could certainly sidetrack me, and I don't want to give the impression that I am stalling to keep my view in the article. I am very much interested in keeping the discussion civil, and I believe that is entirely possible given how we have progressed thus far. Thanks, and I'll comment again once I've had a chance to look at the discussion you pointed me to, as well as anything else I can find. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, Transity, no rush; feel free to take your time. Re WP:PSCI and sourcing, WP:V always applies, and Wikipedia:Rs#Academic_consensus applies directly to "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". How else can we tell what scientific consensus is but through sources (and without WP:SYN-ishly assuming that unproven = pseudo)? As for "obvious pseudoscience", I think you'll find that has been applied only to tiny-minority, oddball things, like the Flat Earth Society. There was never consensus that homeopathy (or, as I recall, any of its subtopics) would be covered by "obvious pseudoscience" because it's too well-known, and has too much of a following. I read WP:PSCI to say that once something has a significant following, "obvious pseudo" doesn't apply, and we have to use sources to see which if any of the other three choices do. The majority of editors at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, where demarcation on WP has been discussed with the greatest breadth and depth that I've seen, have agreed with this approach.

I actually think your argument makes some sense, but have grave reservations over presuming what scientific consensus is on the pseudoscientific-ness of well-known topics when there is no explicit source. Chinese medicine is perhaps the best-known, traditional medical system in the world, and meridians and qi are among its most basic principles. No scientific organization will have missed the opportunity to weigh in on the subject. I take that lacuna as indicating that a range of views exist and there is no prevailing view. From the literature, my sense is that there is a significant view that there's enough interesting stuff there to investigate, and because TCM's "map" describes but is not the same as the territory, it's premature to outright dismiss what the map says, even if that map predates the scientific method. (Another example would be botanical medicine, and prescientific classifications of plants and their actions.) Again, great exchange; if I sound a little edgy or abrupt above, that's not intentional, just an artifact of Wikipedia discussion. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've looked at the discussions and the current text on a number of articles, and I have to say that I'm still not seeing clear guidance on how to handle the underlying concepts behind practices like acupuncture. Whether that's because that guidance doesn't exist, or because I just haven't found it, is unclear to me.

That said, my personal view (outside of WP) is that acupuncture is pseudoscience precisely because it is based upon concepts that are themselves pseudoscience (meridians and qi). Those concepts are pseudoscience because there is no evidence at all to support them despite countless decades (and, in some cases, centuries) of research. That is my personal yardstick for what is considered pseudoscience, for whatever that's worth.

In the realm of Wikipedia, I concede that acupuncture should not be categorized as pseudoscience, and my understanding of why is that there are studies that show possible benefits to the practice itself. I do not concede that meridians and qi have similar supporting studies, and as such I believe they should be categorized as pseudoscience in Wikipedia. To me, the number of believers has no bearing on whether something is pseudoscientific, and I don't read the policies at WP:PSCI to say that a large number of followers translates into the need for an NIH-like source calling something pseudoscience in order to attach the category (though I understand your reading of it as such).

Given this position, and the fact that I see no clear guidance on this issue, I should be compelled to take this to WP:RFC or WP:FTN, or some other channel for guidance.

However, what I did see in looking at other articles is that, despite a lack of clear guidance, similar articles (Meridian (Chinese medicine), Qi, etc.) are not categorized as pseudoscience. While I believe that they are in error, I also see that the effort involved in making this case (across multiple articles, it would seem) would be both time-consuming and possibly an unwinnable situation. Frankly, I just don't have the desire to launch into that kind of debate - I have much more fun editing less contentious articles that don't require dispute resolution, and my past experiences with the WP:DR process (few though they may be) haven't instilled me with much confidence in their processes or their efficacy. What I mean is that it's entirely possible that, in terms of Wikipedia policies, I am wrong here, and I feel that, until Wikipedia policy is made more clear, it probably isn't a good use of my time to fight this particular fight.

As such, I will not revert if you want to remove the pseudoscience category from the article. I still believe that the category belongs on this article, and I maintain that I do not see clear enough guidance on this nuance of TCM to justify removal of the category, but I will not oppose the removal of the category, given what I've seen of the general atmosphere on Wikipedia concerning alternative medicine. If, in the course of my wanderings on Wikipedia, I come across something that I believe changes the playing field, or if Wikipedia policies change on this topic, I may come back to this issue, but for now I think I'll just disengage. The ArbCom thread on pseudoscience is enough to make me want to crawl under a rock with a glass of cognac and not come out until Spring, and I have no desire to get pulled into the bickering and fighting I see all across these articles (though not on this one).

What I'd really like to see, and what I think would be the best solution, would be to apply the policies and guidelines that we use for medical articles to alternative medicine articles as well. Frankly, I don't know why that isn't already the case. In a medical article, you need to have studies/reviews to backup your claims, or else your text will almost certainly be removed. If there's no solid evidence for something, then the default view is that is doesn't belong in the article. TCM makes claims of a medical nature, and those claims should be measured against the same yardstick as the theories TCM is trying to compete with. Again, though, trying to make a change like that is a big hill to climb, and I don't really feel like putting the time in to climb it. It's somewhere that I think Wikipedia needs to get to, though, if it wants to be considered a respectable source of information. So while I would certainly support such a push to solidify Wikipedia policies as such, I have no desire to lead such a push myself.

If the standards applied to medical articles were spelled out as applying to alternative medicine articles, our discussion would be simple. Since there is no good evidence for the existence of meridians in the first place, the subject should either be absent from Wikipedia as an unsourced claim (not a great option due solely to popularity - just as unicorns should have an entry, so should TCM), or called out as fictional or imaginary right up front (which is essentially what I'm trying to do by adding the pseudoscience category - just as the unicorn article begins with "A unicorn is a mythological creature" without any specific citation to backup that claim). This is the heart of our disagreement about sourcing and the burden of proof. And if the current Wikipedia policies/precedents disagree with my position, then in my opinion, that's a big problem.

Anyway, my next thought was that, without the pseudoscience category (and probably even with it), the article needed a criticism section, and I set off to find relevant language from other articles. But perhaps, instead of doing that, what should really be done is that this article should be merged into the Meridian (Chinese medicine) article. In looking at that article, it mentions the eight extraordinary channels, as well as the base twelve, but it only lists and discusses the base twelve. It seems to me that the list here and the brief verbiage around it would fit better as a section of that larger article rather than as its own entry. As a note, there doesn't seem to be an article for the other twelve meridians. Merging would also mean that the existing criticism section in the Meridian (Chinese medicine) article would apply to this text as well.

So what say you? Are you okay with a merge into Meridian (Chinese medicine)? If so, we can see how that goes. If not, or if a merge fails, then I suggest leveraging one of the other existing criticism sections (or cobbling a few together, which I'd be happy to take a stab at) and adding it here.

Let me know what you think. And I apologize for the length of this reply. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the merge is a fine idea, and I know what you mean about not having an appetite for contentious debates on WP; I recently decided to hold off on some problems with Quackwatch for the same reason. Neither of us is prone to tendentious editing, but as for some other editors, well....

AFAIK, alt-med topics pretty much are held to the same standard as conventional medicine, or at least should be, as acupuncture is; see specifically second para of WP:UNDUE.

WP:PSCI seems to have become a bit confusing with the wording added to "questionable science" (about the existence of debate, implying that some "questionable sciences" could be categorized as pseudo, which appears to contradict what ArbCom said). It appears to have been added in good faith but without consensus. When and if I decide to raise the issue at NPOV talk, I'll let you know; few things are more annoying than an editor trying to change a policy in the middle of a debate on applying that policy, or doing do without letting interested parties know, so I'm for transparency and notification about all that stuff.

Finally, do you know how to do a merge while merging in the edit history? I sure don't. best, Middle 8 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked Help:Merge - apparently edit histories aren't combined in mergers, so that's not an issue. Though we could just perform a merge on our own, I think I'll add the merge tags (this article to merge into Meridian (Chinese medicine)) and see if there are any objections so as not to stir up a hornet's nest. I'll try to get to it later today. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. You should be able to follow the link from this article to go to the discussion section I setup on the Talk:Meridian (Chinese medicine) page. We'll see what happens. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds very good. Certainly no harm done by taking the conservative route and soliciting commentary first. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was pretty verbose back in the day, and more than a little ADVOCACY- and CPUSH- like. Interesting & humbling, also encouraging to see the contrast with today. Nowadays I have no problem with category:pseudoscience for this article and similar ones; yes they are proto and pre, but they are also pseudo. I still think acu and chiro overall are mixed bags though (the practices themselves being testable, cf. Popper's falsifiability) and not appropriate to label as such. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 02:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)