Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note: I previously posted the edit above here[2] however, Zad68 deleted my edit[3] without discussing this first - simply leaving a note at my Talk page hardly constitutes "discussion". This is extremely disruptive and uncivil. Please do not edit/delete my edits again without discussing them first. I have explained on my Talk page that I am following advice given in

Roxy, I happen to see how DrChrissy could view that edit summary comment as impolite and condescending and I agree that such a comment has no business in an edit summary. You should refrain from such behavior in the future as such comments serve no purpose but to inflame editors and create an unnecessarily tense atmosphere instead of a collaborative and respectful one as discussed on WP:Five pillars. This does seem to be an ongoing pattern of behavior despite numerous editors talking to you about this and many statements from you that you will work on these behaviors. Please refrain from further impolite or condescending comments. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

please note Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand why the effectiveness section has gotten the way it has but maybe now is a good time to try and get it a little under control. I recommend we start small and go for some obvious deadweight. Can anyone defend the "Fertility and childbirth" section as being encyclopedic? As far as I can tell from reading it we have poor evidence for not much of anything with some rebutted evidence of not much with a little evidence of something not really looked at. Is there anything salvageable there or should it just be let go? 24.4.204.245 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest gutting the entire section: see my discussion above at #No single scientific consensus on efficacy for pain or nausea.—Kww(talk) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree I just think the push back would stop any improvement. I was hoping to start with entries that are cruft and then try and summarize the more controversial evidence sections. 24.4.204.245 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We typical don't delete relevant

WP:MEDRS reviews. If there is no significant benefit and the section is short it can go in the other conditions. See Acupuncture#Other conditions. QuackGuru (talk

) 06:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

But how relevant are they if they are not imparting any knowledge? I respect the work that went into the findings but don't they taken as an aggregate come to pretty much the conclusion that there is not much evidence for much at all as it pertains to fertility and childbirth? It reads to me that these reviews go into a rather long list of good work that could be used in a more general summery of the lack of evidence for acupuncture. Until then they are not much different that the exceeding long list in the "other conditions" section and could be added there in the interim with the refs kept. 24.4.204.245 (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If the section is short like Acupuncture#Tinnitus and there is "no strong evidence of benefit" then it can be merged into Acupuncture#Other conditions. If the section is not short then I don't know how you could merge it without losing a lot of information. I would start by merging short sections with no benefit. QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is something I noticed earlier as well. The majority of the Effectiveness section reads like a series of lists, despite nominally being written in prose. Having so many single-paragraph sections is also poor style. Since we have a lot of high-quality sources, we can use editorial judgement to choose a subset of them instead of reporting them all. If any of the content might be useful, it can be split off into a sub-article (which could be a list, but doesn't have to be). Sunrise (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The sections concerned in this discussion imho, appear to be populated in the main by reviews of acupuncture for various conditions. The conclusions have been cherry picked by advocates of acupuncture to suggest efficacy, rather than random statistical events that are normal when a large number of studies are trying to find an effect where none exists. It makes the article look pathetic, and suggests that there may be a remote possibility of efficacy where no possibility of efficacy exists. We don't do this sort of thing in articles about real medicine, why should we do it for this quackery? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I remain in favor of gutting the section and replacing it with "The physiological benefits of acupuncture are non-existent or small. Most, if not all, of the benefits are derived from the placebo effect, where ineffective treatments appear to have an impact because the patient believes it will have an impact", citing it to Ernst and Vickers, and being done with it. Trying to do it piecemeal runs the risk of imbalancing this article further: there are so many of these attempts to validate acupuncture that come up with such a variety of extremely small results that I don't know how one would choose which ones to drop. That's the foundation of QG's argument, and I know how he got there: too many acupuncture advocates argued to remove the studies that found acupuncture was ineffective and retain all that show some small effect, so the only defense became to keep all studies that met certain criteria of reliability. The result is this: a giant laundry list that serves no purpose other than confusing and bewildering the reader.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I merged the short sections that shows little benefit. The other relevant and longer sections contain high-quality sources such as Cochrane reviews, systematic review of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, and reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section as-is basically boils down to a list of the conditions for which there is weak positive evidence consistent with Ioannidis' prediction for a null treatment. We should restrict this to conditions foir which there is unambiguous evidence of effect, assuming that any such actually exist. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

See Acupuncture#Osteoarthritis. The Osteoarthritis Research Society International released a set of consensus recommendations in 2008 which concluded that acupuncture may be useful for treating the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee.[92] A separate guideline issued by the National Clinical Guideline Centre stated that acupuncture should not be used in osteoarthritis management.[93].

See Acupuncture#Allergies. A 2015 clinical practice guideline released by the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery stated that clinicians may offer acupuncture as a treatment for allergic rhinitis to patients interested in non-pharmacologic treatments.[107] The confidence in the evidence of effectiveness of acupuncture for this condition was low.[108]

Maybe we can trim some of the sections. There are over 300 sources (194,968 bytes currently) in this article. This suggests there might be bloat. Do editors want to delete the above? QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the edits so far are an improvement. My thought is that as a first approximation, I would propose keeping all the content, but moving it to a sub-article (say, List of reviews and meta-analyses about acupuncture), and what remains here could just be a summary, probably the introductory paragraphs of the current section plus a few more paragraphs. That might be going too far in the other direction, but I think it would be an improvement, and we could add back parts as necessary afterward. There does need to be some objective standard, so one possibility is to only use MEDRS that analyze the literature on acupuncture as a whole. So information on individual conditions could still be included, but only if it is sourced to reviews that discuss it in the broader context of the entire field, giving us some idea of how much weight it should be accorded. Sunrise (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I 'd rather avoid a subpage that will likely turn into a lengthy article with even more sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Another subpage would also provide another opportunity for advocates of Acu and other ALT-MED proponents to influence wikipedia their way. No. Too messy. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of reliable sources we can trim some that are not needed such as older ones. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The US regulation section will need to be updated on both this site and the linked site Regulation of acupuncture

According to http://mx.nccaom.org/StateLicensing.aspx which has links to all the relevant state government pages except a few where it's banned, 22 states require its certification (which there is a link to educational requirement of on the page) to practice acupuncture, 6 states ban acupuncture entirely. I did a quick read through of the remaining 23 states. They all require state acupuncturist licences, and mention either one or more of the following: state exam, accreditation by the nccaom or acaom, degrees in tcm or acupuncture, often with specified required amounts of science and practical education. An important point which should be made in the acupuncture wiki page is if you are in the US and you see someone who is practising acupuncture without a state acupuncturist license, they are breaking the law and probably don't have adequate education to be safely or effectively sticking needles into people or ensuring proper hygiene while doing so.

Also, the Australian regulation section needs to be updated here as it has been on Regulation of acupuncture. Acupuncture and TCM are both now federally regulated. Gudzwabofer (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This statement is so non-NPOV it's almost laughable; it needs to be attributed and not said in WP's voice because the reference used for the assertion doesn't meet

The reference does not need to meet

WP:RS/AC for this claim. It is irrelevant if acupuncture is used in mainstream medical settings. Please provide verification for the disagreement. QuackGuru (talk

) 05:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: Needless to say, per NPOV, we don't speak in WP's voice when significant views disagree. Which Wang 2013 does, in the 2nd paragraph; the intent is plain. And yes, acu's use in mainstream medical settings is a fact that weighs in how we depict its reception. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the second paragraph is that the authors recognize that the scientific community views acupuncture as pseudoscience and that the authors believe that is unhelpful due to acupuncture having evidence of efficacy. I don't see them arguing that acupuncture isn't based on pseudoscience just that efficacy is the more important demarcation. If even acupuncture proponents recognize the pseudoscience consensus isn't that notable? 24.4.204.245 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(added after much of below thread but not really bearing upon it) @24.4.204.245: (a) Many sources say pseudoscience-demarcation depends on efficacy, e.g. Shermer (in Pigliucci; recent book chapter). (b) in context, no, Wang isn't saying that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with the statement as it is in the article and other sources...but do agree the article lacks any objective POV. The fact all the sources are so old makes the article look very dated.-- Moxy (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Moxy, most of the MEDRS's are within the 5-year rule-of-thumb freshness date, and much of the rest are concerned with history and don't need to be recent. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That something is "mainstream" does not automatically remove it from the realm of pseudoscience. That someone is employed at Harvard is not a guarantee against quackery. Acupuncture Is Theatrical Placebo Jim1138 (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Jim1138: We're talking about the scientific and medical mainstream, which we follow, and that community is not uniform in its demarcation of acupuncture as pseudoscience/quackery. That Colquhoun & Novella editorial you just linked to is a good RS and they say acu is pseudoscience, so we say that and cite it. Wang 13, the source I added, is also good RS -- in fact it's the companion editorial to Colquhoun & Novella; Anesthesia & Analgesia invited both pro and con pieces -- and they dispute acu's characterization as pseudoscience and quackery, so we say and cite that too. Acupuncture in 21st Century Anesthesia: Is There a Needle in the Haystack?. (pdf) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a violation of NPOV to include an unattributed assertion of pseudoscience in the article and omit the contrary view. These are companion editorials, pro and con. This article only cites these sources for the con -- a blatant violation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@TimidGuy NPOV does not say we must balance the pro and can for each claim. In fact, that would be

WP:YESPOV, we must state that unequivocally.   — Jess· Δ♥

11:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann Jess, the statement that there is "no significant controversy that acupuncture is pseudoscience" needs a very reliable source to back it up, given the large number of studies of acupuncture in peer-reviewed journals. Do you have such a source?

talk

13:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen such a source; it would have to meet

WP:RS/AC. Jess, journals don't invite pro/con editorials in areas where most of their readers have already made up their minds. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Roswell wasn't visited by aliens, that crystal healing doesn't work or that Time Cube
  is pseudoscience. We would only need it in ths specific case where we wish to invoke "academic consensus", as the policy makes clear.
• The Wang editorial comment seems to me to be misrepresnted too. I don't see Wang saying that acupuncture is not pseudoscience; Wang's line of argument instead is that "it works" (or at least is under investigation). We mustn't
  infer things from that
  .
• But why on earth are we using editorial/comment sources anyway? These are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to quality. Baran et al. is a modern medical textbook (so, good
  COI
  16:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The claim recently added by Middle 8 appears to be blatant OR. I kindly asked Middle 8 for verification for the claim but so far Middle 8 has refused to provide verification for the claim. The part "has been described as" was unnecessary wording and the part "though this designation has been questioned" appears to be the
  Understand? QuackGuru (talk
  ) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The source did question the pseudoscience designation. The entire piece did, as a matter of fact. I've restored some of its spirit, (the WHO) but we should consider adding in other parts as well. LesVegas (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must be missing it. Could you please quote me the text where the "pseudoscience designation" is questioned in this poor-quality source? some text which includes the word "pseudoscience".

COI

17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagreeing with restoring the weight violation and original research to the lede. The details are in the body without the misleading wording. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'm not supporting saying specifically that the pseudoscience designation has been questioned, as that could be OR, but the spirit of the piece was just that. Anyway, here's some quotes for you: "Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment.." (Which precedes "many scientists") "4 It seems some-what naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions." and "Overall, acupuncture practice should not be seen as a placebo intervention or merely a needle therapy, but a medical option that not only treats disorders but also fosters a greater awareness of how harmonic interactions between self, family, work, and environment play a role in promoting health and restoring order." To pull an acupuncture equals pseudoscience quote, alone, out of this piece (which attempts to defend acupuncture's validity) is quote mining and we don't want to do that, least not in the lede. LesVegas (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A

WP:MEDRS compliant review stated "Perhaps the most obviously over-optimistic overview is the document recently published by the WHO [28] (Table 1). Critics of acupuncture, however, continue to be unimpressed by such evidence and draw far less positive conclusions from the existing evidence [101]: ‘effectiveness could not be established with confidence for any condition studied. Taken as a group, reviews of clinical studies published since 1990 on the clinical efficacy of acupuncture do not support the notion that acupuncture is effective for any variety of conditions and cast doubt on efficacy for some specific conditions for which acupuncture has been reported as effective’."[6]

It was also original research because it was not even though or recognizes its efficacy. They recognized it can have a benefit. The WHO mention in the lede is a weight violation because a better source which is a review criticized the WHO report. Please don't use a lower quality source to argue against a review that is used in the body. QuackGuru (talk)

pretend I didn't answer him). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 19:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello my favourite SPA COI ed. Are you saying that sticking sharp thin bits of metal into people cures them, or has real effects other than the victim saying "Hey, I can feel that"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From

WP:PAGs

in pursuit of a position.

Homeopathy has a broad following. By your arguments Wikipedia wouldn't be characterizing that as pseudoscience either, wouldn't you say?! It is better to stick to

COI

19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, nothing mysterious about it; it is WP:FRINGE/PS that invokes generally-held sci opinion. And I think it's apparent that acu is not in the same category than homeopathy. One doesn't see invited pro/con editorials in non-alt-med journals, nor the active degree of research. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So (at the risk of getting off-topic), you're saying that our policy in practice is that

COI

20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not Alex, Homeopathy is an entirely different type of magic to Acu. You should know that by now. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, please do keep quiet if you have nothing useful to add. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn No, PAG for both are (obviously!) the same -- and for homeopathy, we do have at least one sci-consensus level source (The Royal College Of Pathologists [8], meeting WP:RS/AC) saying (essentially) it's pseudoscience. We don't have such a source for acu. Read WP:FRINGE/PS; it's clear enough. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If I must unpack WP:FRINGE/PS further: Acu's "following", journals and research are what demarcate it into "questionable" rather than "obvious" pseudoscience. But "following" or not, once you have the sci-consensus source for a topic being PS, it flips into "generally considered". See? Our PAG's (the development and application of which I've followed closely) are internally consistent, and ensure that we follow (MED)RS.--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) c/e 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Essentially" is OR. There is, as far as I know, no RS that states plainly that there is a scientific consensus that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. This is because there has been a lot of discussion about this at that article (check the archive). However, the article simply says that homeopahy *is* a pseudoscience, and that is well-sourced. Your argument that

COI

07:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's based on PAG. Funny to see you disputing a scientific body's criticism of homeopathy as unscientific on a semantic technicality; that was the objection rendered by editors seen as alt-med apologists. We're allowed to use/rely on paraphrasing, and on that basis the source was accepted by consensus; check the archives for "generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community". So yes, homeo ≠ acu, demarcation-wise. You seem unwilling to accept FRINGE/PS's wording at face value, but whatever, we can seek further input. (If we continue this exchange let's do below; threading is getting messy, since Everymorning commented before your comment above and this reply.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute their criticism, just note that we can't say there is "a scientific consensus" unless the source has exactly those words: that's what

COI

06:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In the past, RS/AC has also been taken as saying that a sci-consensu source, e.g. from a scientific academy, inherently indicates consensus. But anyway, yes, this wording is in fact consensus, that works for me. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, the main difference between homeopathy and acupuncture is the existence of government-level reviews saying that homeopathy is ineffective, [9] whereas no such reports have been published as far as acupuncture is concerned (to my knowledge). Besides that there is a fair amount of research into the possible mechanism of action of acupuncture, [10] while we know that it is physically impossible for homeopathy to work. [11]

This whole topic is a bit silly - pejorative terms like pseudoscience are thrown around by pundits, while scientists actually study acupuncture and only make conclusions based on specific questions being asked. Real scientists and doctors don't obsess over this term, they just do their best to find what works. Acupuncture is clearly becoming more mainstream, as evidenced by the journal Science recently publishing a series of articles on the integration of TCM with biomedicine Summary of part 1. We're just arguing about name-calling again while the actual world of science and medicine moves on.Herbxue (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@

COI

06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well said, and great find re AAAS/Science pub. [12] Quote: From the new WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy to the application of systems biology in studying TCM, we aim to highlight the potential for creating an integrated, network-based health care system. That nicely balances the much-discussed Nature diss of systems biology.[13] Again, an active research area, debated in mainstream sources. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) NOTE: The preceding comment about balancing Nature is off-topic for this thread; I'm referring to a different debate about systems biology and Nature's well-worn "fraught" quote[14]. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 06:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source said ...we aim to highlight the potential...[15] A "potential" is not solid evidence and that source did not address the pseudoscience designation. You did not provide V for the edit after I repeatedly requested for V. If Wang disputes the pseudoscience characterization then you would have no problem providing V. Otherwise, I think we are done here. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: (a) You misunderstand; I'm not saying that AAAS/Science source [16] goes directly to demarcation. (b) As for Wang and PS, I indeed provided V, yet you claimed I'd "refused" to. Hey - don't IDHT! You may not like or agree with my V/RS but don't pretend I didn't provide it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 04:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide the specific wording on the talk to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a strong

Shorter Middle 8: "WP:FRINGE requires proof of general sci agreement to call something pseudoscience in WP's voice"; shorter

Alexbrn: (crickets). "Generally considered PS by the sci community" isn't "invented". My response above

to your attempted reductio ad absurdum is straight from PAG and you offer no rebuttal (other than trying to ignore FRINGE's clear instructions, and a bit of ad hominem).

Re Science source, see [18] -- I'm not advocating its use here; my fault for not being clear on that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 06:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've said follow the sources. We don't need to decide about the demarcation question ourselves because RS does it for us. Baran et al. considers what is "science", "not science" and "pseudoscience" and places acupuncture in that latter category. Without equivalent countering sources, that's all the "proof" we need; the fact that Middle8 of Wikipedia disagrees with it is neither here nor there. Also see the Good (2012) source, which goes to the point that the question of efficacy is orthogonal to the question of pseudoscience:

• Good R (2012). Khine MS (ed.). Chapter 5: Why the Study of Pseudoscience Should Be Included in Nature of Science Studies. Springer. p. 103.
  COI
  07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, so cite them with attribution wording and that's that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My question is, how are we going to better reflect the source in question? It seems odd to state acupuncture negatively from the Wang source, when it is a defense of its supposed scientific merits. For parity, how could we add in statements like: "It seems some-what naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions." and "Overall, acupuncture practice should not be seen as a placebo intervention or merely a needle therapy, but a medical option that not only treats disorders but also fosters a greater awareness of how harmonic interactions between self, family, work, and environment play a role in promoting health and restoring order." Middle 8 summarized all of this but it was reverted and claimed to be OR. However, if we more directly quote from the source, it's not OR. My question is how do we do this? LesVegas (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We should not use that source at all, it's crap compared to Baran/Good.

COI

13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange,

Alexbrn, earlier you seemed to think that a Nature editorial was fine in the lede for saying whether acu is pseudoscience. [19] Why the inconsistency? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on its merits, that source is inferior. It's nothing more than editorializing without basis. Dr. Wang at least uses research to form his conclusions. And it was peer reviewed, something I don't see in Baran/Good. Published in Anasthesia Analgesia. Exactly how is it crap? Surely not because of its conclusion? LesVegas (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally, according to

COI

14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You made an interesting point. While I would rather we pull from a text that is specifically on acupuncture and not just makes a brief mentioning of it (lumping it in with chiropractic) I do think a Springer text could be a higher quality source. I also found another Springer text that might be even better, Current Research in Acupuncture which has much excellent stuff, and I particularly like it because it is specific to acupuncture research. "Substantial evidence has suggested that acupuncture can significantly affect various functions, and treat various diseases,especially ones based on neural mechanisms, through needle stimulation.." If others agree, we could remove the current wording, and replace it with that of Baran/Good and do so alongside a sentence like I suggested above. This way we achieve a degree of parity, albeit from two seperate sources. LesVegas (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, Everymorning already fixed it to achieve parity with "borderlands science" which might work just as well. The Springer text I cited might work best in other places. LesVegas (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What you had proposed is irrelevant to the pseudoscience designation.

For effectiveness we already have a similar sentence in the lede that summarises the body. See "An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews suggested that acupuncture may alleviate some, but not all, kinds of pain.[16] ". QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The section is a bit long. See Acupuncture#Low back. Maybe we can remove this. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All I care about is that we allow equality in criticism from non-MEDRS sources. We can remove it, and others like it and leave out criticisms of Ernst, or we can allow them all in. I don't care either way, just as long as we're not only criticizing pro-studies from the same level of sources as those we're excluding on the con-study side. Makes no difference which way we go and length isn't as big of an issue here as neutrality. LesVegas (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is only for the Acupuncture#Low back section. Not other sections or sources. The section is apparently long. I thought it could be trimmed a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd remove that, yes. It doesn't belong there; it might belong elsewhere, e.g. an article about the skeptic movement -- there, the issue of its (much) smaller weight relative to the NEJM review wouldn't be as much of a problem. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We have had repeated attempts to POV push the lede one way only and keep parity out. There have been strong objections to using Wikipedia's voice in edits like this The sources used to back this claim up, don't suffice for "is pseudoscience". Why does it have to be a constant battleground full of edit warring? LesVegas (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add weasel words or original research to the text. We are using strong sources for the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words like "is"?LesVegas (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To answer Les' question "Why does it have to be a constant battleground full of edit warring?" it is because we have to contain the excesses of advocates of acupuncture such as yourself. Also, you fail to understand why parity isn't an issue here. I suggest you read all the WP:PAG again before returning. Remember that with fringe and pseudoscientific subjects such as this, we are obliged to write from the mainstream pov, and while we are using good sources to illustrate the pseudoscientific aspects of Acu (all of it) we don't actually need to source the Pseudoscientific tag, as Arbcom has ruled that we can describe "obvious pseudoscience" as such. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Roxy the dog - AFAIK, Arbcom doesn't dictate PAG (anymore). Although the wording of WP:FRINGE/PS is derived from an Arbcom decision, it's only by community consensus that it remains; that's my understanding anyway.

That said: FRINGE/PS distinguishes among "obvious PS", "generally considered PS" and "questionable S" (and used to do so more clearly [20]). And there's a pretty strong PAG case for acu falling under "questionable science", cf. the guideline's criteria: (a) has a following (used in mainstream academic settings); (b) significant debate exists (over efficacy and when to use, efficacy itself being seen as a criterion for demarcation by e.g. Shermer). Also cf. Kww's comment below to QuackGuru below, 2nd para, [21] re practice ≠ theory. Consequently, the "questionable science" designation has actually flown in a number of discussions, probably more often than "obvious" from what I've seen. Wonder what the estimable Hans Adler would make of this argument? Any wagers? :-) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed some tenses in the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, can you explain to me how this edit can possibly be described as "tenses"? My first impression was that it was a blatantly deceptive edit summary, but I will extend you the courtesy of allowing you to defend it.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww I'm curious why you asked Jayaguru-Shishya about that edit, but didn't also ask QuackGuru about this edit?LesVegas (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

QG's summary at least included "wording". I agree, it was weak, and I should point out to QG that he needs to leave better edit summaries. It didn't seem to rise to the level of actively trying to deceive others as to what the contents of the edit were, though. JG's edit changed far more than "tenses", so that edit summary was worse than weak.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Three times now with a completely inadequate ES for the same edit and despite being asked not to; it's getting GAME-y. [22] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the tense change per my edit summary, also restored previous characterization. Zad68 04:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not about tense -- "has been described" is adequate for present-day -- it's about using WP's voice.

simple fact. [23] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 05:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You previously added original research (along with the past tense). Now you restored the past tense. The past tense implies it is no longer pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not an issue of tense. Not by any stretch of the imagination. "Has been described" is a perfectly good way to describe the situation where it continues to be described as pseudoscience. The issue is whether acupuncture is so clearly pseudoscience as to be stated as fact, or whether it can only be attributed. If you keep arguing about the wrong things, you can't persuade anyone. Not even people inclined to agree with you.

In my mind, it's a demarcation issue. Acupuncture is clearly based on pseudoscience. If it has any effect at all, no one has put forth any credible scientific explanation for how it could have it (and please, don't anyone mention "endorphins" again ... that's not a credible explanation when people are claiming that it treats rhinitis and breech birth). However, the word "acupuncture" is also used to describe the procedure itself, not the underlying nonsense, which makes the statement "acupuncture is pseudoscience" a bit hard to parse. You need to work out something like "acupuncture is based on pseudoscience" before you can have a supportable statement that also parses correctly.—Kww(talk) 06:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru - as Kww says, the grammar is fine. It's the present perfect tense and is not wrong, which is why I reverted. But simple present is just as good; it doesn't really matter. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 13:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer simpler wording for non-controversial facts. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As simple as possible, but not simpler, as the old saying goes. I could support "founded on pseudoscience", "based on pseudoscience", "derived from pseudoscience", etc.—Kww(talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not fully supportive of the current wording but I think Alexbrn was compromising with the wording. If you try to replace it with that wording you will get too much drama. Maybe if there were three refs at the end of the sentence to verify the claim the wording can be more straight forward. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)