Click to leave me any other kind of message.
Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ after it.
"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity." See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines. This is a cut and paste from the source.
"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture." This is a cut and paste from the source. See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions.
According to NCCAM, "results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments." This is a cut and paste from the article. See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions.
Is it a weight violation to use an article that is not a review when there are way better references already in the article or is it plagiarism? The TCM page is a different situation when there are not plenty of sources for the drug research section on pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really clear to me what you're asking, and since you aren't using quotation marks or italics or anything else in this message it's not even clear to me what parts of your message are your comments and what are pasted from articles. Also keep in mind that I'm not familiar with these articles, I only just stumbled across them recently, so I don't have much context for the issues you're raising. If you have a question for me please present it a little more clearly so I don't have to spend time deciphering it. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I edited my previous comment and added the source to make it more clear. You brought up the issue of plag on my talk page with a related article. The text in the quotes are a cut and paste but with the acupuncture article the text is not in quotation marks. Let's start with one question. Is that WP:PLAG? QuackGuru (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me stop you right there. There is no rule saying that if there is other plagiarism (or any other sort of problem) in one article, then it's OK for you to add more. There is no rule saying that if I report one instance of plagiarism (or any other sort of problem) then I have to read the entire article and report every other one. I happened to glance at just that one sentence of the article and its source (that is literally the only source in the article that I opened up and read) and saw that it was obviously plagiarized, so I dealt with it and alerted you to the issue. I am under no obligation to devote myself to scanning the entire article for it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. If you legitimately don't understand what plagiarism is then I can try to explain it more, but if you're trying to suggest that my notification to you was somehow "wrong" because there are other instances of plagiarism that I didn't report, then you are wasting your time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Nature editorial "Hard to swallow" at acupuncture
Greetings Rjanag! I've opened a discussion at Talk:Acupuncture#Citation_out_of_context about the use of the Nature editorial. I've concluded my opinion into four points. Would you care to take a look?
What's substantially different from the usage of the source at Traditional Chinese Medicine, is that when the context of the quote is restored, the whole source is solely about TCM, not about acupuncture. A mere "TCM as mainly pseudoscience, with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." alone is undue weight, but if we include the rest of the paragraph in the article, it'd say: "Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies.". IMHO, it clearly doesn't fit to Acupuncture.
I have suggested removing the unfit entries, and finding for better sources. Administrator Kww, however, replied to me that: " I would like to suggest that the next time you want to misrepresent the contents of a source, you should refrain from doing so.". I'd appreciate if you could have a look. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- No thanks, I do not wish to continue in the discussions within this topic area. It's like herding cats. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for input
I see you have had previous involvement with the editor Hijiri88. I would welcome any input you might see fit to offer at WP:ANI#Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Rjanag. Way back in 2009, you participated in an AfD discussion for Forever Oeuvre, and voted to delete it. The article was deleted, but was subsequently recreated. The new article did not address any of the concerns whatsoever and is in the same bad state it was in before. Thusly, I have relisted it at AfD, and would very much appreciate it if you gave your input. It has passed the initial 7 day period and has been relisted again at AfD to establish a clearer consensus, so I'm now reaching out to you. There has thusfar only been one other vote, and that is for deletion. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)