User talk:SDr. Jessica

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Acupuncture - stop it

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the expectation for Wikipedia articles, even for contentious topics, and the current lead for Acupuncture does not use neutral editing or language. This should be changed and when I update the language, I am getting reverted by users without explanation or reasoning. Please advise on how you think I can proceed with a good faith edit. SDr. Jessica (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately your response doesn't clarify why the lead for Acupuncture should remain as it is, when it is clearly not written in a manner that properly reflect's Wikipedia's goal of providing neutral information on any topic. The point of any encyclopedia is to provide information from all viewpoints, not to convince anyone what to believe or to promote a particular side. Additionally, your response is not constructive. I could respond "you're wrong, completely wrong" to you and that would get us nowhere. I'm sorry but a person's personal beliefs on this topic should not dictate whether or not valid information can be added to the article or if tone can be edited for neutrality. The reality is the scientific community has indeed found recent, updated research that shows certain benefits for Acupuncture. All that is happening is individuals who have a strong opinion against it are blocking Wikipedia from reflecting alternative viewpoints. SDr. Jessica (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with a person's personal beliefs on this topic should not dictate, but the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia dictate how we should write our articles. WP:NPOV does not mean "the view from nowhere", that is explained at WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:SPOV.

Hint: in the literature about medical pseudoscience and quackery, acupuncture comes on the second place, right below homeopathy.

There is speculation that acupuncture can relieve pain, including to the extent that it can act as an anesthetic during surgery. Evidence to support this notion, however, is lacking.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

This article was most recently revised and updated by Kara Rogers.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)