User talk:Herbxue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section[edit]

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox[edit]

COIs must be documented on the talk page[edit]

See diff. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to go along with rules and norms, but, 2 things:
1. I have read the guidelines regarding COI. I am a subject matter expert, and I believe that is not the same as having a COI.
2. Is there a committee decision regarding posting COI of individual editors on article talk pages? If not, I would prefer to not be singled out as someone to be judged on an article's talk page. People should judge the reliability of my edits by the edits themselves.

Herbxue (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see the COI tag that problematic per se, i.e. it doesn't prevent one from editing the topic area. IMHO, as long as one sticks to MEDRS, there should be no problems. After all, the MEDRS literature we are able to quote - according to our best capability - reflects scientific consensus the best. I personally believe that no "woo" studies with their "woo" results will - or at least are likely to - pass the peer review process of notable journals.
If one believes otherwise and criticizes the peer review process of a given journal itself, well... that sort of speculation is no longer in our interest here at Wikipedia. We are here to summarize the sources, not to speculate on them. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input JS, but the thing is I do not have a COI any more than Ernst has a COI in "research". Unless professionals working in other areas of medicine (Doc James for example) are required to declare COI in medical articles, I will insist that this labeling of me on an article talk page is a misuse of the COI guideline, and may in fact be violating aspects of it. Herbxue (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not know your position in real life, Herb, but if you're an acupuncturist or TCM practitioner please be aware that during a recent arbitration case Middle 8 tried to argue that as an acupuncturist they had no COI as far as Wikipedia was concerned, and this view got no acceptance. Also arbcom recently passed a motion placing all altmed articles explicitly within the ambit of discretionary sanctions. Please take note of these things. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, do you have a link to the arbcom case? I've been aware of the discretionary sanctions for some time, but I don't believe my training and experience render me limited under those or other guidelines. Herbxue (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It was actually AE, here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but that discussion is not really relevant here - in the case you linked to Middle 8 was at risk (warned, not sanctioned or disciplined) because admins felt he was using the wrong process (arb enforcement) to resolve a content dispute. The fact that some other SME was met with a cold reception by some admins is a useful warning about the general atmosphere on WP (thank you for that), but it is not directly relevant to the question of what constitutes COI and is there a policy that requires people with identified COI to be tagged in a template on article talk pages. Herbxue (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
In the course of the disucssions M8 was told "Note that your interpretation of COI is likely not to be perceived by other editors or AE admins as accurate to COI", and indeed one arb referred flat-out to a COI. I just want you to be aware that the general consensus on WP seems to be that altmed practitioners have a COI as regards their speciality, if this applies to you. Simply asserting that it doesn't is problematic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't see how you get to a "general consensus on WP" from what you've mentioned. You've mentioned instances of editors supporting your view; I can cite instances of editors disagreeing. I'm not discounting anyone's view, but I'm not seeing a consensus, sorry. What remains global consensus is WP:COI, which has been clear for many years (cf. discussion) that simply editing in one's area of topic expertise does not, ipso facto, create COI. And in the "real world", practicing acu'ists write Cochrane reviews and aren't considered conflicted. I do think editors ought to be judged on their edits, and FWIW, I don't think WP:COI should be used to "win" content disputes by excluding editors with whom one disagrees. --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) edited 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You do have a WP:COI according to your own words. Herbxue, you wrote "Yes, I am a TCM practitioner and I regularly butt heads with those that seek to discredit it (by over generalizing or otherwise misrepresenting sources, or using inappropriate sources). I do not believe that I have a COI any more than Doc James has a COI in various medicine related articles."[1] See diff. Please disclose your COI on the talk page. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point though, and I wrote pretty much the same thing in my older quote as I wrote in response to JS above. I am disagreeing that my status as a professional in the field of AOM/TCM/Acupuncture is a COI here. Nobody accuses Doc James of COI in medical articles (and btw he's a fine editor I only use him as an example because he is a physician that edits medical articles). While my professional status is not seen as equal to his in the medical world, here in WP there should be parity in terms of assuming good faith and the application of guidelines. Unless there is a binding arb-com decision and agreed-upon wording that is applied equally to all subject matter experts editing articles related to their profession, I see no need to be labeled (and thus marginalized) on any article talk page. Because again, being a subject matter expert may make me scum in the world of wikipedia, it does not mean that I have a COI. Herbxue (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not an expert, but all I tried to say was that: "COI or not, it doesn't prevent one from editing". Hasn't Middle 8 made a COI declaration on his Talk Page? I think he is a more qualified person to answer this. Anyway, I didn't intend to discourage you from editing Herbxue, COI or not. By quoting good MEDRS compliant sources it doesn't really make any difference, does it? ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I understood you JS, and thank you for that. I just wanted to be clear that I viewed the directive to declare COI as a misinterpretation of what COI is. Herbxue (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty tendentious to say "You do have a WP:COI according to your own words" and then cite a quote where Herbxue states that he doesn't have one (and gives a good reason). [2] --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Klon Centaur


this was pretty uncalled for. You can say "no" without attacking me and there are valid reasons on the "yes" side. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have a hard time with the suggestion that a whole profession of people should be treated as untrustworthy to edit in their respective fields. It IS disrespectful, as are many of the comments supporting this idea. The best argument I saw in support was from Doc James who at least got granular enough to point out that where he practices he is not allowed to make any money off of the medications he prescribes - I cannot say that about my profession although many of us choose not to sell herbs or supplements ourselves for the very reason Doc James is not allowed to. The other comments in support were nonsensical conflations of issues unrelated to the question. The suggestion that an MD part of a profession but I am part of an "industry" is ignorant and insulting. At the end of the day, Doc James and I both provide good care for patients, within the limits of our respective disciplines and laws, and we send our patients elsewhere when we can't help them. To suggest that it is common for people in my profession to do otherwise is based on assumptions, not evidence. I know you've said this question is not necessarily tied to an enforcement outcome, but then what's the point? What is the goal of starting this conversation? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
my main goal is to resolve an unresolved question; the lack of resolution of which has resulted in disruption at the acupuncture article and (what i view as) hounding of Middle 8, which I do not like. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have mostly avoided WP even since my topic ban ended months ago, and seeing how we are still mired in the same debates got me riled up. I will edit my comments at the rfc.Herbxue (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did revert twice, because sourced text was removed without discussion. I will not revert again.Herbxue (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)