Bon courage (talk | contribs) |
→Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article: No disagreement about criticism, it is the unnecessary insults and false appearance of a "conclusion" that I take issue with |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
3. Both words "irrational" and "pseudoscience" are intentionally pejorative terms - they do not add anything to the readers understanding of the issues involved, they are simply insults. If you want the reader to understand the lack of confirmation of TCM ideas by science, you can do so by simply citing the results of systematic reviews (which is what we have to do to justify a positive statement in WP med-related articles). If you don't do this, you are giving an opinion here, but presenting it as if it were fact. That is inappropriate. [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
3. Both words "irrational" and "pseudoscience" are intentionally pejorative terms - they do not add anything to the readers understanding of the issues involved, they are simply insults. If you want the reader to understand the lack of confirmation of TCM ideas by science, you can do so by simply citing the results of systematic reviews (which is what we have to do to justify a positive statement in WP med-related articles). If you don't do this, you are giving an opinion here, but presenting it as if it were fact. That is inappropriate. [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Criticism needs to be [[WP:LEDE|included in the lede]], and since TCM is fringe this needs to be made plain according [[WP:PSCI|to policy]]. ''Nature'' seems [[WP:PARITY|a fine source for such a claim]], and age does not matter unless there's evidence TCM has lost its pseudoscience. Of recent interest here is Jimbo's statement on this subject: see [[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
:Criticism needs to be [[WP:LEDE|included in the lede]], and since TCM is fringe this needs to be made plain according [[WP:PSCI|to policy]]. ''Nature'' seems [[WP:PARITY|a fine source for such a claim]], and age does not matter unless there's evidence TCM has lost its pseudoscience. Of recent interest here is Jimbo's statement on this subject: see [[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
::I fully agree that criticism needs to be included, but an opinion piece in Nature does not constitute a fact that must be disproven (as you suggest), it is just an opinion. Your use of terms like fringe, pseudoscience, and lunatic charlatans shows that you are more interested in POV pushing than an honest appraisal of facts. You seem to take "Jimbo"'s POV to mean that WP policy is to push an anti-fringe POV - that is not what he said, he said some sources are reliable and others aren't. Not that I expect you to read any - I remember clearly you stuck your neck out to defend DominusVobisdu and TippyGoomba when they misrepresented Ernst's conclusions about acupuncture and the placebo effect. They were severely bitten by responsible editors that self-identify as skeptic (as were you, to a lesser extent). That clearly indicated that you either 1. Did not bother to read the sources but rather jumped on a POV bandwagon (hence my use of the term "circle jerk"), or 2. You intentionally lied about the source to push your POV. Which was it? [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 08:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:01, 13 April 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removing medical jargon
According to the manual of style for medical articles, medical jargon should be avoided because encyclopedia articles are written for the general public not medical people talking to each other. So, most often the language in the reference material needs to be switched to general language. And health care professionals need to be aware of their habit of using the language carried over from their work or schooling, and switch to general language when they write articles on Wikipedia. See Writing for the wrong audience. Also, articles should not be written as patient teaching materials--as if addressing patients. That is the reason that I reworded the article switching patient to people/person, and other minor changes of wording. My understanding is that these types of rewordings are non-controversial here on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, FloNight. Seems like a valuable principle to keep in mind, but I'm not sure "patient" counts as jargon. A lot of new vocabulary is introduced to the general reader in this article, I think as long as its clear the article is introducing and defining new terms its ok, we just can't assume the reader understands the technical jargon to begin with.Herbxue (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I disagree that we should be adding this particular terminology that is widely used by medical personnel when speaking to each other in healthcare but not widely used by ordinary people when discussing illnesses and treatments. "Patient" is jargon that medical personnel use when speaking of their clients and customers. It is not a word that ordinary people use when speaking of themselves in or out of a healthcare setting. Since the material is not specifically written for medical personal or patients I don't think that it is desirable to use that wording when speaking of people in Wikipedia articles. Beyond being unnecessarily, it denotes a mentality of ownership of healthcare topics by healthcare personnel that is undesirable in collaborative projects like Wikipedia where the end product benefits from the scrutiny of a variety of sub-populations of people interested in the topic.
- My background in healthcare is an OB/GYN Registered Nurse (dating back to the 1970s) who specialized in working with women with high risk pregnancies and pregnancy loss. Through my work with these mother, babies, and their families and friends, I came to see the value of eliminating unnecessary jargon from my language. It is not a matter of "dumbing down" information by substituting a less appropriate word. It is recognizing that the consumers of health information on Wikipedia are not best thought of as clients and customers of medical personnel. But instead people living with a medial condition, their family, friends, neighbors, and employers, and well as students and the intellectually curious reader.
- All that said, I normally remove unnecessary medical jargon in articles about diseases and treatments when I see it, and skip over them when the article is about a medical discipline. Not because I don't think alternative wording is better, but often I don't think that is seems as inappropriate. I went ahead and made the changes in this article because I felt it seemed appropriate to do it. A judgment call on my part. My usual practice on Wikipedia is that I don't ordinarily do any reverts when someone objects (unless I'm doing it in my capacity as an oversighter or checkuser based on strict policy.) So, I'm going to leave the article as you reverted it. If someone else sees that value of making the changes then they can do it. Happy editing :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the thorough explanation. I am certainly interested in the idea that the words or attitudes used in the article represent "ownership" by one group over another. NPOV can be tricky because the fundamental assumptions of each editor come out not only in the way we word things, but more importantly the basic questions we have that lead to fleshing out the article. Herbxue (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article
The end of the lede currently concludes that although TCM has some proponents, it is largely "irrational pseudoscience". This statement is problematic for several reasons.
1. The source for the statement is a 7 year old opinion piece. THe problem is not so much the age of the source, but the fact that one opinion is given the privilege of making the definitive value statement of the article (the last sentence of the lede).
2. The article should not be making a definitive value statement. The statement is certainly a notable and wide-spread OPINION, but it must be stated in the article WHO expressed this opinion. If not, it suggests that WP has collectively concluded that this opinion is fact. We have not.
3. Both words "irrational" and "pseudoscience" are intentionally pejorative terms - they do not add anything to the readers understanding of the issues involved, they are simply insults. If you want the reader to understand the lack of confirmation of TCM ideas by science, you can do so by simply citing the results of systematic reviews (which is what we have to do to justify a positive statement in WP med-related articles). If you don't do this, you are giving an opinion here, but presenting it as if it were fact. That is inappropriate. Herbxue (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Criticism needs to be included in the lede, and since TCM is fringe this needs to be made plain according to policy. Nature seems a fine source for such a claim, and age does not matter unless there's evidence TCM has lost its pseudoscience. Of recent interest here is Jimbo's statement on this subject: see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I fully agree that criticism needs to be included, but an opinion piece in Nature does not constitute a fact that must be disproven (as you suggest), it is just an opinion. Your use of terms like fringe, pseudoscience, and lunatic charlatans shows that you are more interested in POV pushing than an honest appraisal of facts. You seem to take "Jimbo"'s POV to mean that WP policy is to push an anti-fringe POV - that is not what he said, he said some sources are reliable and others aren't. Not that I expect you to read any - I remember clearly you stuck your neck out to defend DominusVobisdu and TippyGoomba when they misrepresented Ernst's conclusions about acupuncture and the placebo effect. They were severely bitten by responsible editors that self-identify as skeptic (as were you, to a lesser extent). That clearly indicated that you either 1. Did not bother to read the sources but rather jumped on a POV bandwagon (hence my use of the term "circle jerk"), or 2. You intentionally lied about the source to push your POV. Which was it? Herbxue (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)