→Purported MEDRS violation: White 2004 indeed says 5 in one million. aka 50 in 100,000 |
→Purported MEDRS violation: whoops math typo! & clarify |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:::::If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka [[WP:IDHT]], why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8#top|talk]]) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC) |
:::::If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka [[WP:IDHT]], why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8#top|talk]]) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&curid=159422&diff=584091803&oldid=584088352 the older source does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million numbers and it does not specify whether the estimate included adults and children]. See [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
::::::You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&curid=159422&diff=584091803&oldid=584088352 the older source does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million numbers and it does not specify whether the estimate included adults and children]. See [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::White 2004 indeed states 5 in one million. Well, actually |
:::::::White 2004 indeed states 5 in one million[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15551936]. Well, actually 0.05 per 10,000 (treatments). Which I think we can agree is that same thing as 5 in one million. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion. Why do you dispute it? As for adults and children, it doesn't specify, so we can just report the result; there's no reason to think children were excluded. (Same logic applies to any such review.) There is no IDHT on my part here -- but as before on Talk:Acu, you're repeating simple misunderstandings of fact. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8#top|talk]]) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Purported violation of [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims]] == |
== Purported violation of [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims]] == |
Revision as of 04:57, 2 December 2013
This user is a scientist. |
This user is an acupuncturist. |
This user is a humanist. |
Template:Busy2
Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Wikipedia beyond what I disclose on this page. If you know, or think you know, any other personal information about me -- such as my real name or any previous accounts I've had -- don't post it (per WP:OUTING). I've had to deal with some harassment in the past from fanatical editors, and now choose to edit pseudonymously.
If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.
userpage boilerplate for mirror sites
|
---|
Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)
Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate
- Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the research interesting. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The response by Vickers
Hi Middle 8. QuackGuru interpreted your remark to mean that you oppose citing Vickers's response to Ernst in the article. Is that accurate? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I do support citing Vickers' response to Ernst; sounds like QG misunderstood my comment. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging in reasoned and reasonable discussion on the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- To you the same, MB3. I think the overall trend is pretty good. We may even make a "good article" out of it one day. That would be pretty cool. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Purported MEDRS violation
A 2004 cumulative review should not be used to replace the 2011 meta-review. See WP:MEDDATE.
Current text: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million, which included children and adults.[166]"
The numbers are now in the article using a newer source. The older source did not did not specify if the estimate included adults and children, but the newer source did. The newer source gives a better explanation about the numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out at Talk:Acupuncture, that 5-in-one-million number comes from White 2004. The newer source simply quotes White. Standard practice is to cite the original. That's not controversial and it appears other editors are on board, so if you don't want to join consensus in this case, fine, but your objections to this source are now well past the WP:IDHT threshold. (See Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events.) --Middle 8 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit was original research. I object to replacing the 2011 meta-review with dated source. I don't see a rationale explanation to replace the newer 2011 meta-review with the dated source. I don't understand how your edit improved the article. The 2011 meta-review does not cover the 5 in 1 million number yet you continue to insist to delete the newer source. I recently updated the article with the numbers using another source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting multiple things, and I'm not the only editor to notice this. It's disruptive. And there's no reason to discuss this here when Talk:Acupuncture will do. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposal has too many problems. For example, I explained on the talk page that your proposal is tantamount to original research. The newer source explicitly states the 5-in-1 million numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka WP:IDHT, why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when the older source does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million numbers and it does not specify whether the estimate included adults and children. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- White 2004 indeed states 5 in one million[1]. Well, actually 0.05 per 10,000 (treatments). Which I think we can agree is that same thing as 5 in one million. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion. Why do you dispute it? As for adults and children, it doesn't specify, so we can just report the result; there's no reason to think children were excluded. (Same logic applies to any such review.) There is no IDHT on my part here -- but as before on Talk:Acu, you're repeating simple misunderstandings of fact. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when the older source does not explicitly state the 5-in-1 million numbers and it does not specify whether the estimate included adults and children. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka WP:IDHT, why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposal has too many problems. For example, I explained on the talk page that your proposal is tantamount to original research. The newer source explicitly states the 5-in-1 million numbers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting multiple things, and I'm not the only editor to notice this. It's disruptive. And there's no reason to discuss this here when Talk:Acupuncture will do. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit was original research. I object to replacing the 2011 meta-review with dated source. I don't see a rationale explanation to replace the newer 2011 meta-review with the dated source. I don't understand how your edit improved the article. The 2011 meta-review does not cover the 5 in 1 million number yet you continue to insist to delete the newer source. I recently updated the article with the numbers using another source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Purported violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims
You restored the disputed primary sources against WP:SECONDARY and you restored excessive details against WP:WEIGHT. Your edit violated the WP:RS guideline. Editors at the talk page disagree with you. See WP:CON.
Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is "vital" that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims. Please be more careful next time. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- First: Under MEDRS, as you well know, primary sourcs are acceptable in some situations. My edit was per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GERAC, where multiple editors agreed that the sourcing was fine. The article is not intended to be about current medical consensus, but rather a notable experiment; to whatever degree it's been superseded, the article can and should say so.
- Second, your comments could as easily have been at Talk:German Acupuncture Trials. I watch article pages regularly and don't need to be reminded. I'm going to copy and paste your remarks there. In general, I prefer to discuss articles at their talkpages. Your comments are not particularly welcome on my talk page given your poor reciprocal communication: you IDHT at article talk and above, and you simply delete comments at your own talk page. Therefore, I'm going to copy and paste your comments and my reply to Talk:GERAC.