→Risk of SAE: Is this vandalism? |
→Risk of SAE: two replies - re safety and disruptive editor |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
:::How about '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=495288232&oldid=495276400 this]'''? Maybe too much detail for the lede, but it's almost certainly appropriate in the body of the article, along with White's estimate of SAE's [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15551936] (at present only in the lede). --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 12:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::How about '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=495288232&oldid=495276400 this]'''? Maybe too much detail for the lede, but it's almost certainly appropriate in the body of the article, along with White's estimate of SAE's [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15551936] (at present only in the lede). --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 12:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm in agreement with Middle8 on this and I think the addition of the sentence beginning "Many of these are not intrinsic to acupuncture..." is unnecessary. The text ''"There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles(refs) and carries a very low risk of serious [[adverse effects]].(refs)"'' is more than sufficient for the lead. [[User:Famousdog|Famousdog]] ([[User talk:Famousdog|talk]]) 12:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
::::I'm in agreement with Middle8 on this and I think the addition of the sentence beginning "Many of these are not intrinsic to acupuncture..." is unnecessary. The text ''"There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles(refs) and carries a very low risk of serious [[adverse effects]].(refs)"'' is more than sufficient for the lead. [[User:Famousdog|Famousdog]] ([[User talk:Famousdog|talk]]) 12:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::We can/should be parsimonious in the lede, and the safety issue is not huge relative to the topic. If others like it, fine, but I'm neutral on it being there. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
It appears that SR is repeatedly eliminating well-sourced and good faith edits without discussion. Is this something that warrants a request for a topic ban? He/she keeps mentioning NPOV, but the text that is being removed is clearly supported by the research (such as Cochrane reviews). [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
It appears that SR is repeatedly eliminating well-sourced and good faith edits without discussion. Is this something that warrants a request for a topic ban? He/she keeps mentioning NPOV, but the text that is being removed is clearly supported by the research (such as Cochrane reviews). [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:He might already have been: I have good "radar" for socks, and am pretty sure that he is a sock of a banned user. '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkepticalRaptor&diff=495989275&oldid=495888724]''' If I'm wrong about that, he still should have been subjected to a series of escalating blocks a long time ago. Come over to my user-talk page if you want to discuss this more. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Sham acu== |
==Sham acu== |
Revision as of 20:39, 4 June 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Sources
Tweaks to lede
This edit restores a sentence lost in complex partial reverts, namely, a better sentence about adverse events than the previous one (better in terms of weight, since adverse events are exceedingly rare, and better sourced because three sources are used compared to Ernst's single source which didn't even give a rare rate (i.e., per N treatments) for adverse events). Also, it removes "tentatively" from endorsements by various org's because "for certain conditions" is sufficient qualification. Finally, it says who criticized the various orgs' statements: certain scientists, not other org's (WP requires attribution, specifically WP:WEIGHT). These a minor tweaks, and the assertion (expressed in one ES) that these edits are "anti-science" is Wikipedian hyperbole at its best. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see that my edit above was reverted by User:Sgerbic with the edit summary (ES) "No the lede before was better", which does not advance the discussion at all. Explaining our reasoning in ES's worked OK for the first few rounds, but now I think we need to discuss in detail, i.e. here. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- A late comment, but anyway - I agree with Sgerbic's revert. That part of the lead already noted that acupuncture is generally safe with trained practitioners, and that edit removed the fact that adverse effects are rare - but do occur. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
I recently reverted an edit calling acupuncture a pseudoscience. MEDRS is part of it as it is a forbes claim, and we have much, much higher quality sources (Cochrane reviews) that don't refer to it as a pseudoscience. I think that giving the forbes claim any weight when we have such high quality sources is WP:UNDUE. Secondly, "pseudoscience" on WP generally applies to method, i.e. something is pseudoscientific if it doesn't hold to the scientific method. While acupuncture may be indistinguishable from a placebo, it is in fact studied scientifically. Whether it has an actual effect or not is not what would make it a pseudoscience. I could see that Qi or meridians can be referred to as psuedoscientific, but acupuncture does not need those to be acupuncture, which is the act of inserting needles. Doctors who also practice acupuncture do not generally talk about esoteric energy. SÆdontalk 07:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that WP forbids categorizing acupuncture as pseudoscience given sources at hand. Your comments are helpful, but I think there are some reasons that are even better because they are deeply rooted in WP policy and the development of scientific consensus itself. See WP:FRINGE/PS & WP:RS/AC: editors who wish to add the category have the burden of proof to provide evidence of sci consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience. Statements by individual scientists, or signed petitions, obviously don't meet that threshold; what would be needed is a statement by a scientific academy where there is a cross-range of views, adequate review and no selection bias. Pragmatically, it's better for WP to restrict the category of pseudoscience for the whoppers like creation science; otherwise, it dilutes the message. And from the standpoint of being faithful to scientific consensus, it's simply inaccurate to use the category. Now, we can certainly use good MEDRS's giving the considered opinion of scientists, but that would go in the article body, not in the category space. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- You both make some good points, but the matter becomes confused because of a mixture of content that:
- (1) "mentions" that someone has called it pseudoscience (non-MEDRS sources are okay for such statements because they are part of the controversies surrounding the subject, and not strictly and solely about biomedical claims);
- (2) "categorizes" (the use of the category tag, as well as declaring in the Wikipedia voice, that the subject is pseudoscience) the subject as pseudoscience. Per the ArbCom ruling, we are allowed to document that individuals and groups have called acupuncture pseudoscience, but acupuncture (as a whole) isn't really eligible for categorization as PS. I hope that the distinction is now clear. We need to restore documentation that it's been called PS (including in Forbes), but keep the category tag off the article -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) @Brangifer, 22:09: quite right re categories (as usual, we agree on the criteria for those). Re Forbes, that source is an article by a well-credentialed scientist giving his considered opinion that ear acupuncture used on the battlefield is pseudoscientific and a waste of resources. Forbes is indeed a reliable source for quoting that, although we obviously wouldn't use it for any kind of thing that would require scientific peer review. So I agree that we can use the source, with attribution, to say what he says; I added it here to the article body, with appropriate wording.
But --and I'm saying a lot of this for other editors, not you, because I believe you grok it -- we can't use the source as a statement of fact, i.e. "acupuncture is pseudoscientific". And we certainly can't put it in the lede straight away; we first need to discuss whether the weight of sources altogether justify talking about pseudoscience in the lede.
BTW, please share your thoughts, if you wish, on the discussion under the preceding header; and/or let me know if I should clarify the issue further. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. You also added it to a logical section. It doesn't deserve mention in the lede. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. I wonder what on earth this was about? Thanks for fixing. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't think the page can be put into Category:Pseudoscience on the basis of that article, the current mention in the body is adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. I wonder what on earth this was about? Thanks for fixing. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Criticisms of Acupuncture
There is so much controversial information on this page, and so many people who want to use it as a soap box, that I suggest creating a separate criticisms section to clean up the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoulterTM (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- It would be much better if the lead stated: "Acupuncture doesn't work as shown by these studies. Pro-acupuncture pushers rely on these two laughable articles. Incompetent acupuncture pushers have killed people. There is no reliable information that supports the existence of the pseudoscientific crap that is the foundation of Acupuncture. If you want to read the pro-acupuncture propaganda, go ahead and read this article, but just know that there is no supporting science except if you're really good at research mining for the one or two articles that really don't show anything, but the acupuncture-pushers think they do. Acupuncture is only shown to be useful in Wikipedia, because this project has no clue what constitutes science." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- CoulterTM, see WP:STRUCTURE. A topic that has reliable sources criticizing it should include those criticisms in the parent article. We shouldn't ghettoize them into a separate article.
- SkepticalRaptor, your statement is unacceptably partisan. Though acupuncture is based on a prescientific mode of thought and lacks conclusive evidence it works the way it is described to work, there is considerable evidence supporting its limited use. Though I personally think that eventually the topic will become discarded and considered pseudoscience at some point in the future, it is undue weight on the skeptical point of view to make such a claim in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- WTF cares if it's partisan. I didn't change the article, so I'm stating a well-based scientific opinion. Prescientific? Are you serious? Acupuncture is not plausible, yet this article makes it appear to be. It is absolutely pseudoscientific, since it is based on poorly designed primary articles that have not been repeated in real science. Without a plausible mechanism, it is pure pseudoscientific crap. And you use skepticism in the most pejorative sense possible, the paradigm used by the pseudo skeptics. In fact, I present a scientific skepticism that demands real evidence, because Acupuncture is junk science. It makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Speaking of undue weight, we're giving vast amounts of undue weight to weak studies. But hey, if you want to accept the crap level of this article, so be it. Acupuncture is just one of several crap medical articles on Wikipedia, because it's overrun by pseudoscience believers. So, good for you in reverting reasonable edits and lecturing me on the sanctity of a pseudoscience article, just because I'm not a delusional anti-science jerk. I get to rip this article amongst real science and medicine fans, and we laugh on how you all pat yourself on the back by providing unscientific junk science to the world. I'll stand up for real neutral science, but if you've got some good evidence that acupuncture is anything more than a failure (placebos are complete failures in medicine). Let me go work on water memory and homeopathy. Oh wait, you probably think that works too, or it's "pre-scientific." Damn, this is too funny to even imagine. LOL. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't like the rules, you are not obliged to edit - but if you don't follow them you'll end up blocked and your contributions won't last very long. If discussions aren't aimed at improving the page, then they shouldn't be occurring as wikipedia is not a forum - for skeptical debunking or pro-acupuncture boosterism. If it makes you feel any better, pro-acupuncturists argue the page is hopelessly biased toward the skeptical side.
- Anyway, per WP:NPOV we must represent things in proportion to the degree and weight of attention given in reliable sources. Despite acupuncture being implausible in both its original magical form and it's more modern "counter-irritant" form, it's still an active source of discussion and serious (albeit credulous) research - so we can't simply portray it as debunked. You are free to add reliable sources that address the missing skeptical information, as they are required to verify any information on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand SR's frustration over this article. I am looking at this one sentence in the lede that really worries me. "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles" Yes there are citations that are listed but don't you think that poking sterile needles into someone is just someone poking sterile needles into a body and then taking money for it. How can we with a good conscience allow this statement and then allow the next sentence "but does carry small but serious risks and adverse effects including death"? Sometimes acupuncture is harmless, unless it results in death? I'm sure that acupuncture supporters think that this page is too skeptical, because there is some skepticism on the page. IMO we need clean up the page to say, "this is acupuncture defined", "here is its history", "there is no scientific evidence that shows that acupuncture works, but there are real cases of people who have died because of it". http://whatstheharm.net/acupuncture.html We must remember that Wikipedia is a powerful resource for people who are relying on it to know if there is anything to it. It should be a clean lede stating the facts and not glossing over some obscure studies that "might" show some effect. Be Bold. My two cents. Sgerbic (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for you two cents. However, WLU already said everything there is to say in this regard. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sgerbic, if you have reliable sources that can be used to verify these points without having to engage in a synthesis, then have at thee. I'm middling familiar with the sources and have yet to see anything that would support such a stance - not that they aren't out there, perhaps I just haven't seen them. But sources always come first.
- Re: the lead, perhaps the sentence could be reworked but the essence of the point is there - acupuncture generally results in very few adverse effects when clean needles are used by sterile practitioners. The fact that it may have no main effects is a point that would require addressing using a different set of sources, expanded upon elsewhere in the page. But again - sources come first. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for you two cents. However, WLU already said everything there is to say in this regard. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand SR's frustration over this article. I am looking at this one sentence in the lede that really worries me. "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles" Yes there are citations that are listed but don't you think that poking sterile needles into someone is just someone poking sterile needles into a body and then taking money for it. How can we with a good conscience allow this statement and then allow the next sentence "but does carry small but serious risks and adverse effects including death"? Sometimes acupuncture is harmless, unless it results in death? I'm sure that acupuncture supporters think that this page is too skeptical, because there is some skepticism on the page. IMO we need clean up the page to say, "this is acupuncture defined", "here is its history", "there is no scientific evidence that shows that acupuncture works, but there are real cases of people who have died because of it". http://whatstheharm.net/acupuncture.html We must remember that Wikipedia is a powerful resource for people who are relying on it to know if there is anything to it. It should be a clean lede stating the facts and not glossing over some obscure studies that "might" show some effect. Be Bold. My two cents. Sgerbic (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- WTF cares if it's partisan. I didn't change the article, so I'm stating a well-based scientific opinion. Prescientific? Are you serious? Acupuncture is not plausible, yet this article makes it appear to be. It is absolutely pseudoscientific, since it is based on poorly designed primary articles that have not been repeated in real science. Without a plausible mechanism, it is pure pseudoscientific crap. And you use skepticism in the most pejorative sense possible, the paradigm used by the pseudo skeptics. In fact, I present a scientific skepticism that demands real evidence, because Acupuncture is junk science. It makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Speaking of undue weight, we're giving vast amounts of undue weight to weak studies. But hey, if you want to accept the crap level of this article, so be it. Acupuncture is just one of several crap medical articles on Wikipedia, because it's overrun by pseudoscience believers. So, good for you in reverting reasonable edits and lecturing me on the sanctity of a pseudoscience article, just because I'm not a delusional anti-science jerk. I get to rip this article amongst real science and medicine fans, and we laugh on how you all pat yourself on the back by providing unscientific junk science to the world. I'll stand up for real neutral science, but if you've got some good evidence that acupuncture is anything more than a failure (placebos are complete failures in medicine). Let me go work on water memory and homeopathy. Oh wait, you probably think that works too, or it's "pre-scientific." Damn, this is too funny to even imagine. LOL. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) Agree with WLU on sources. Regarding the death soundbites: This study looked at 12 prospective surveys over one million treatments and found that the risk of "serious adverse events" was five in one million treatments. That means that the risk of death is much lower: probably about two orders of magnitude lower given that only 12* of the 715* serious adverse events were deaths. (*Note that these numbers were from every source they looked at, not just the prospective surveys used to quantify the risk as a rate). It's incredibly unscientific to make a big deal out of anecdotes or raw numbers without a rate (and the lede currently makes the latter error -- other articles on far more lethal treatments don't, for good reason). How could a "skeptic", a degreed scientist, abandon science in favor of advocacy?--Middle 8 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the risk of serious adverse events including death, not normally one anticipated in acupuncture, is worth keeping. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
NPOV re efficacy in lede
Just made a tweak to lede [5]. The ES suffices, but am starting a thread here anyway in case there is debate: We need to qualify both assertions ("tentative" -- per editors' reading, and by whom, e.g. NIH) and rebuttals (by whom - in this case, not scientific bodies, but individuals). See WP:WEIGHT and WP:VNT. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I anticipated some objection, but nothing like this from USer:SkepticalRaptor, whose ES distorts my history of editing (and tends to assume bad faith), fails to address the rationale I provided, and misrepresents sources -- all this from an editor who's rarely if ever discussed anything with me. The ES says:
- Reverted to revision 492664200 (...): Per WP:WEASEL. Editor continues attempt to POV the article by making it seem only "certain" scientists think acupuncture is junk medicine.
- There is no evidence that I "POV the article"; see my preceding edit, for example, which is not atypical. Show me a single disingenuous edit. And please use this page to refute my logic, or just ask if it's not clear. The "pro" opinions by groups carry more weight than the "con" rebuttals that are not by groups; that's just the way WP works, even if it makes some skeptics sad. Provide sources indicating what percentage of scientists think acupuncture is junk medicine, if you want to slant the article that way. In fact, Cochrane-type reviews vary depending on which condition is treated, and basic questions about study design (e.g. controls) remain unsettled. See this re increasing medical acceptance, which does not always weight for gold-standard EBM evidence if costs and risks are low.
- Anyone else want to weigh in? I'll revert in a couple of days if no rebuttal. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the version reverted to by SR. "Certain scientists" marginalizes the opinion unduly, and the change is unclear (as well as having a grammatical error). There are no percentages for how many scientists accept versus criticize acupuncture that I'm aware of, a popular article doesn't merit inclusion or rewriting of the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to marginalize the opinion, but rather accurately source the comments: these are different things. An attempt to imply that the criticisms represent some larger view is OR unless we can find other sources indicating a larger swath of opinion. The sources we have are large, prestigious groups have giving qualified endorsements of acupuncture efficacy, and individuals and maybe Quackwatch refuting. None of the rebuttals are in the same league, MEDRS-wise, as the other groups. How to fix this?
- Moreover, the passive voice ("have been criticized") is weaselly, and the prose ("however", followed by critics' rationale) makes it sound like the groups are wrong and the critics are right. The critics get more space than the endorsers despite the latter carrying less weight. Needs to be fixed. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the version reverted to by SR. "Certain scientists" marginalizes the opinion unduly, and the change is unclear (as well as having a grammatical error). There are no percentages for how many scientists accept versus criticize acupuncture that I'm aware of, a popular article doesn't merit inclusion or rewriting of the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality Tag
I have sufficient concern about the article that I think it's time to bring in more editors, and one of the best ways to do that is to POV-tag it. Please leave the tag there -- there is no good reason to remove a good-faith tag added for nontrivial reasons. My concerns include undue weight to the skeptical side, e.g. the lede's mention of large organizations that have given acu qualified endorsements, followed by an imbalanced mention that these endorsements "have been criticized" (by whom?) and then going into some detail for the criticisms. This is massive undue weight because (a) the WHO, et. al. far outweigh the individual critics, and (b) only the critics' side is explained.
I'm also concerned about the credulous mention of fatalities when risk of "serious adverse events" is 5 in one million, which means the fatality rate is much smaller (see this article, which used to be in the article, and was removed for some reason). Waving hands about raw number (Ernst's 86) without a rate is bad science; only a rate is meaningful. And the rate is so low that mentioning it in the lede is undue weight; saying that acu is safe from a qualified practitioner suffices. And there's other stuff -- the general tone is slanted, and specifics need adjustments, or at least broader consensus than what a half-dozen habitual editors generate. We need more editorial eyes and a tag is a good way to get that. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- We can fill the criticisms in if you'd like.
- The mention of fatalities seems perfectly valid, couched as it is with their rareness.
- Tags are terrible ways of gathering outside attention, noticeboards are much better. Tags are usually seen, used and treated as badges of shame, they never actually succeed in gathering outside attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also think that we should mention the fatalities, the question is just where. If the number is correct and SAE amount to about 5 in one million treatments, Middle 8 actually has a point - mentioning death in the lede would give undue weight to this matter. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Middle8 that fatality rate is so low that it does not belong in the lead. Once this is fixed, however, the POV banner has to go. Famousdog (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that'd be desirable. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tweak, FD -- I tweaked further to accord with the source above, which I added. I'm not especially happy with removal of the tag since the SAE is obviously not the only actionable issue I mentioned. But I'm fine with using noticeboards if the rest of you dislike tags that much, and if I can count on you to help uphold WP:DR ("for the enemy" and otherwise). In particular, I suggest that we all undo drive-by reverts (and otherwise discourage them). By "drive-by reverts", I mean reverts done with little or no serious discussion on this page. This has happened a couple of times lately. I'm fine with my & others' edits not sticking if consensus so dictates, but not when it's just bullying behavior by an editor blowing off just about every aspect of WP:DR. Sound OK? -- Middle 8 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here's yet another drive-by revert with a boilerplate, meaningless RS and not even cursory discussion on talk. All the edit did is remove a good source and prose that stuck close to it. It's a good example of this strategy, which we've seen before [6] [7]. Now's the time for others to step up and undo the drive-by if you want to help promote reciprocal good faith and decent WP:DR here. I can't be the only one doing this. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- This revert by SkepticalRaptor is definetely unacceptable. However, I don't see the problem in the what you call "drive-by' fashion it was done; what concerns me is that SR deleted sourced material without consent, discussion, or even a rationale. Anyways, thanks for keeping your cool. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Mallexicon -- Yes, "drive-by" is a misleading term; it had to do with my suspicion as to how the revert was made: reflexively, with scant attention to the source or logic behind it, and probably just because it showed up on a watchlist or something, and didn't slant in the "acupuncture is a big fat murderous lie" direction. I appreciate your comments -- collegiality, calmness and rationality are like gold around here. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- @SkepticalRaptor (since you don't want posts on your talk page): "Reverted POV edits back to a strictly NPOV position that accupuncture has no efficacy and may have high risks" is not a valid rationale to delete sourced material. And the MEDRS evidence we have in the article contradicts your definition of a NPOV towards acupuncture. Middle 8 feels bullied by your behaviour, so please take it a little easier. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- (1) I agree that the death thing need not be mentioned in the lead.
- This revert by SkepticalRaptor is definetely unacceptable. However, I don't see the problem in the what you call "drive-by' fashion it was done; what concerns me is that SR deleted sourced material without consent, discussion, or even a rationale. Anyways, thanks for keeping your cool. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here's yet another drive-by revert with a boilerplate, meaningless RS and not even cursory discussion on talk. All the edit did is remove a good source and prose that stuck close to it. It's a good example of this strategy, which we've seen before [6] [7]. Now's the time for others to step up and undo the drive-by if you want to help promote reciprocal good faith and decent WP:DR here. I can't be the only one doing this. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tweak, FD -- I tweaked further to accord with the source above, which I added. I'm not especially happy with removal of the tag since the SAE is obviously not the only actionable issue I mentioned. But I'm fine with using noticeboards if the rest of you dislike tags that much, and if I can count on you to help uphold WP:DR ("for the enemy" and otherwise). In particular, I suggest that we all undo drive-by reverts (and otherwise discourage them). By "drive-by reverts", I mean reverts done with little or no serious discussion on this page. This has happened a couple of times lately. I'm fine with my & others' edits not sticking if consensus so dictates, but not when it's just bullying behavior by an editor blowing off just about every aspect of WP:DR. Sound OK? -- Middle 8 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that'd be desirable. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Middle8 that fatality rate is so low that it does not belong in the lead. Once this is fixed, however, the POV banner has to go. Famousdog (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also think that we should mention the fatalities, the question is just where. If the number is correct and SAE amount to about 5 in one million treatments, Middle 8 actually has a point - mentioning death in the lede would give undue weight to this matter. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- (2) Tags are a pain in the ass! They rarely do any good.
- (3) As to "drive by" editing, if the edit summary is clear, discussion isn't always necessary, but if BRD is then violated by a restoration (edit warring), rather than a revision that deals with the concerns raised in the previous edit summary, problems ensue.
- (4) If SR isn't participating, then (s)he should be encouraged to do so. If SR isn't accepting communication on their talk page, they don't deserve to edit here PERIOD! Talk pages are for communication, including with editors who hold opposing and uncomfortable views and comments. One has to tolerate a certain amount of it. We edit collaboratively here. If SR can't handle that fact, they shouldn't edit Wikipedia, or they should at least stay away from conflict and controversy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Brangifer -- (applause) -- very well said. More below to Famousdog. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the issue of the minute risk of death does not need to be specifically addressed in the lead. To mention it specifically is giving it undue weight. The general statement about serious adverse events in the lede is consistent with other articles about medical treatments. I reverted the article back to the version that currently seems to hold consensus, without the specific mention of death. Puhlaa (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Brangifer -- (applause) -- very well said. More below to Famousdog. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- (4) If SR isn't participating, then (s)he should be encouraged to do so. If SR isn't accepting communication on their talk page, they don't deserve to edit here PERIOD! Talk pages are for communication, including with editors who hold opposing and uncomfortable views and comments. One has to tolerate a certain amount of it. We edit collaboratively here. If SR can't handle that fact, they shouldn't edit Wikipedia, or they should at least stay away from conflict and controversy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Middle8, I agree SR is being a bit unhelpful, but including those edits by OrangeMarlin doesn't contribute anything to this particular discussion. It seems you're labeling as "drive-by" anything you don't agree with. They look fine to me. In terms of changes to the lead, i would recommend getting rid of "(five in one million)" because it impairs readability, is covered adequately by use of the word "small" (if you don't agree, feel free to make it "very small") and research has shown[weasel words] that most people don't understand or misunderstand probabilities stated like this. Just saying. Famousdog (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Famousdog -- Why, yes, I would very much appreciate it if you could undo any and all reverts of my edits -- and I have some general ideas for edits that you might do on my behalf. I am a busy person, after all. (j/k)
- Seriously, Brangifer and Mallexicon explained it better than I did. Instead of "drive-by reverts" we might just point out reverts that are poor on the merits and poor substantively. Maybe (as in this case) they show hastiness, or occur in a pattern slanted toward a certain POV or targeted at a certain editor. I suspect SR has an eye on me because s/he reverted reverted me even after I added a good skeptical source. So you can see why I appreciate it when Brangifer restored the edit, sparing me a probable edit war.
- As for the year-old examples I cited from OM, I remember that they were similar to SR's at the time, e.g., eschewing the talk page (cf. exchange at User_talk:Middle_8#Acupuncture). But your reply caused me to realize that those examples are not obvious without context, and it's a long time ago, and who cares, so.....
- Finally, good idea re not cluttering up the lede with numbers; done (with quote and attribution, in hopes of keeping it stable -- but feel free to revert to plain text if it looks too busy). regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- @SkepticalRaptor: This is the second time you reverted a good-faith, reliably-sourced edit by Middle 8 (after this). Please stop doing that, it's disruptive. Much better to have a discussion instead. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Risk of SAE
Hi SkepticalRaptor! You reverted another good-faith, reliably-sourced edit (here), this time from me. May I asked what your objection to my edit was? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
(re another edit)... @Mallixicon, I think this is redundant: if the risk of SAE's is not zero but very low, then by definition they will occasionally be reported. In terms of summarizing Ernst (et. al., 2011, pmid21440191), I think his points are are already covered in the lede (partly because his comments are echoed in some of his other publications that we've already used). He raises concern about the risk of SAE's (despite giving no estimate of a rate), and goes on to say:
- Many [SAE's] are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists. This might explain why surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications.-- Ernst et. al. 2011, pmid21440191
I think we mostly have that covered when we say:
- "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles".
... but we might want to highlight it more, because the distinction between the risks of the modality and the training of the practitioner is important -- especially when talking about efficacy and risk. Ernst's other comments about efficacy -- that he doubts acu is, specifically, good for pain -- are also covered in the lede, in the second paragraph, second sentence. I would suggest that we use Ernst (2011, pmid21440191) as a citation for both of the above sentences in the lede. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Any else comments? Otherwise I'd delete "These have, however, occasionally been reported[8]" again (per consensus). --Mallexikon (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- How about this? Maybe too much detail for the lede, but it's almost certainly appropriate in the body of the article, along with White's estimate of SAE's [8] (at present only in the lede). --Middle 8 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Middle8 on this and I think the addition of the sentence beginning "Many of these are not intrinsic to acupuncture..." is unnecessary. The text "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles(refs) and carries a very low risk of serious adverse effects.(refs)" is more than sufficient for the lead. Famousdog (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- How about this? Maybe too much detail for the lede, but it's almost certainly appropriate in the body of the article, along with White's estimate of SAE's [8] (at present only in the lede). --Middle 8 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Any else comments? Otherwise I'd delete "These have, however, occasionally been reported[8]" again (per consensus). --Mallexikon (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears that SR is repeatedly eliminating well-sourced and good faith edits without discussion. Is this something that warrants a request for a topic ban? He/she keeps mentioning NPOV, but the text that is being removed is clearly supported by the research (such as Cochrane reviews). Herbxue (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- He might already have been: I have good "radar" for socks, and am pretty sure that he is a sock of a banned user. [9] If I'm wrong about that, he still should have been subjected to a series of escalating blocks a long time ago. Come over to my user-talk page if you want to discuss this more. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sham acu
I agree that Mallixicon's edit [10] is reasonable, but I think the lede should explain the reasons suggested for the observation stated here. There's already too much weight in the lede toward the "not-efficaceous" view (e.g. my concern that certain scientists' views are weighted over those of the scientific bodies they criticized). We should explain why (or simply mention the fact that) "sham" acupuncture may actually be active; as I recall, the link I just mentioned goes into some detail. I'll have a look. -- Middle 8 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
question: has anyone seen Ernst comment on which controls might be better than others in attempts to blind acu patients? I'm curious as to what he thinks. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Trick or Treatment made the point that when retracting needles were used, which allowed double-blinding, the evidence base for acupuncture eroded considerably.
- Part of the issue is what are you controlling for? Your options are needle placement, needle penetration, depth of penetration, manipulation, diagnosis technique, disease/disorder/symptom addressed and practitioner characteristics as a minimum starting point.
- The use of "interestingly" is not a good choice, I've reworded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)