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.
If we are telling readers that Cochrane Reviews are "high-quality", we should provide an appropriate citation.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed your unneeded CN tag. it isn't needed, so please don't place it again. thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of high quality."[1]QuackGuru (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The source you quote is a primary source and should not be relied upon as indicated by WP:MEDRS. It requires a secondary source. Please replace the CN tag.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Calling a Cochrane Collaboration review "high-quality" is kind of WP:OBVIOUS; if sourcing is insisted on it need only be light-weight for such an uncontested label. I don't think sourcing is necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, this is a primary source. It is like an experimenter saying in an experimental paper, "I have found X" and me including it in the article. WP:MEDRS would not allow this. It needs a secondary source to review the information about the strength of quality of Cochrane reports. The quality/existance of Cochrane might be obvious to some subject-experts, but it would not be obvious to many non-experts. In fact, I would imagine many non-experts have not even heard of Cochrane. I must say I am a little surprised to see such knee-jerk opposition to a suggestion that would only improve the strength of the article for the sake of providing one more source.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, this is a review.[3]QuackGuru (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The url provides a list of reviews. Just so we do not get distracted, please can you specify which review you are referring to. I really am surprised by this response. I had expected a flurry of responses from the medic guys providing overwhelming evidence of the high quality of Cochrane.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Acupuncture for pain: an overview of Cochrane reviews.
Thanks for that. The review states "Cochrane reviews have the reputation for being more transparent and rigorous than other reviews" Surely this is a primary source when used to make a statement about the quality of Cochrane. What we should be providing is a source which reviews papers that assess the quality of Cochrane reports and indicates the statement is correct. This is what WP:MEDRS guidelines indicate.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If we've already got WP:MEDRS open, note that it says "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality" right in there, so it's already in the Guideline, a cite isn't needed. Zad68 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
For grading the quality of evidence (high quality, moderate quality, low quality, and very low quality), please see the GRADE guidelines. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zad But if we are to be using the WP:MEDRS guidelines as the support for this, it is like citing WP articles as sources, which we all know is inappropriate. A statement has been made that Cochrane articles are "high quality". The community needs an independent, external secondary source to support the contention that Cochrane reports are high quality...that is what WP:MEDRS requires.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to be a stickler Zad (and I don't edit this article much), but in your quote it specifically says "generally" (meaning not always but usually the case). Normally, I have zero issues with the claim of Cochrane reviews being high-quality (and I certainly agree that they are). However, a Cochrane review on a separate topic (the whole oseltamivir debate) generated significant controversy and was opposed by numerous scientific bodies with respect to that specific issue. Just some reminders that Cochrane isn't perfect and perhaps shouldn't always automatically get a free pass on being high-quality just because it comes from Cochrane. I have no specific comments to offer about the cited Cochrane review itself but I don't see a compelling reason for Lee's review of reviews cited above not to be reassuring to DrChrissy since it says right in the abstract "Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of high quality." Also, please note that I'm also not saying that the oseltamivir Cochrane article wasn't high-quality (but their methodology was questioned by several opposing medical bodies during the controversy). The source of information should always be questioned and critiqued regardless of what journal it comes from, what collaborative group it comes from, etc. and evaluated for its merit so I don't agree with the spirit of it's Cochrane, therefore it's automatically okay, but I think you're on the verge of making a mountain out of a molehill on this one DrChrissy and I think your concerns have been adequately addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this insightful comment. I really am not trying to make a mountain here. Earlier today, I read the Acupuncture article (for the first time I think) and I baulked when I read that a WP editor had written the articles reviewed were "good-quality". I wanted to know who said they were "good-quality". I realised that the writers of the review article described them as "good quality" but then got to thinking "it's a primary source of this view". If I was to write a WP article on Animal Intelligence and I wrote "There was a review of articles written in Animal Behaviour which the author described as good quality...." I think you would question this and deem it to be a primary source. Is this not the case? Is it not simple enough to find a secondary reference which states that Cochrane reports are good quality -- that is really all I am asking...not even ALL Cochrane reports.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I already explained above the wording is accurately sourced using a WP:MEDRS review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Alexbrn, you wrote "Calling a Cochrane Collaboration review "high-quality" is kind of WP:OBVIOUS; if sourcing is insisted on it need only be light-weight for such an uncontested label. I don't think sourcing is necessary." Actually the source verifies the claim. See "Several Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for a wide range of pain conditions have recently been published. All of these reviews were of high quality."[5]QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and while Zad is correct that MEDRS states Cochrane reviews are high quality (and in many cases they are) we cannot cite a claim that they're "high quality" with a WP source. What we can do is use Cochrane reviews, and even give them higher weight versus a source that's less well known/established. But everything must be verified. And, yes, for the record, Cochrane reviews are great sources, but I've seen specifically with acupuncture research they're not the final word by any means. They currently seem unaware of acupuncture specific reporting standards adopted by CONSORT, for instance, and they take in plenty of sources which are unaware of these as well. Anyway, Cochrane is great, but we're misleading the reader if we act like Cochrane is the voice of God. And, just to be clear, we verify everything else on the page, even no-brainer statements like "it aims to treat a range of conditions," so the "high-quality" nature of Cochrane should get no special treatment. LesVegas (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not about what MEDRS states. This is about what the review states. The objection was the review did not verify the claim but the review does verify the claim.[6]QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct, Lee's 2011 review of reviews cited above unambiguously states that the Cochrane reviews it reviewed were all of high-quality. A review of reviews is certainly a secondary source that meets WP:MEDRS and is certainly a strong enough source for a relatively uncontroversial claim. That really should be the end of the matter. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A review of reviews is not a secondary source if it states that the papers it reviews were good quality withour an independent source to verify this - who else says they were good-quality?. I can not believe this guys - you are all intelligent and articulate; if this is so obvious to you, why not simply provide a suitable secondary source or even a second primary source and the non-experts (me) will scurry back under their rocks satisfied, but none the wiser why this was such a problem for them!__DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, they are "high quality" according to Lee, not according to God. It should be attributed, i.e., "the Cochrane reviews were high quality according to Lee.." We attribute and don't use Wikipedia's voice for claims of any kind. LesVegas (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, are you suggesting we need a review of a review of reviews? That sounds over the top to me. How Wikipedia defines primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary can be seen here WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources review the primary studies and then discuss the strength of the evidence (e.g., a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluates those RCTs (the primary sources doing the original research of interest) and determines the strength of evidence after evaluating all of them, accounting for biases & methodology, etc etc). This does not seem different to me as a review of reviews since it appears to me to be a secondary source reviewing other secondary sources (which sounds like a tertiary source not a primary source). Your concern seems to strike at the heart of defining primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources. According to Wikipedia, here is how we define primary sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." My read of that would be if the Cochrane review itself said something to the effect of our review is high-quality, then that would be a primary source account of it being high-quality whereas if another independent source (e.g., different authors, etc) reviewed the Cochrane review and said yeah, this Cochrane review was high-quality (as done in this 2011 Lee review of reviews), then that would be a secondary source account of it being high-quality. If anything, it's probably a tertiary source as it seems to fit Wikipedia's definition of that as seen here: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." This review of reviews is summarizing secondary sources (Cochrane reviews that are reviews of primary sources). So, I really don't agree with the interpretation of this being a primary source for the claim of the Cochrane review being high-quality. Are you saying a review of Lee's overview of reviews is needed that has to say something like "According to Lee in his review of reviews, the Cochrane reviews were all of high-quality. We agree with this assessment."? I might agree with you if Lee or Ernst were one of the authors of the Cochrane review being reviewed... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for banging the same drum but if this is such a non-problem, why doesn't someone simply supply a second source (secondary, primary, tertiary, quaternary...whatever) confirming these specific reviewed reports were high quality - I will then disappear in a puff of total confusion.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand the current source being used is a review and does verify the claim? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, why are you IDHT'ing again? I would think you would be on better behavior with an Arbcom pending against you at the moment. Why have you failed to address the points Dr Chrissy and I have asked? Namely, that it is secondary for some purposes, primary for others. It was not a review on Cochrane, so it's not secondary for Cochrane. It's secondary for the data Lee/Ernst studied. Please observe TylerDurden8823's behavior and take note of how he addresses points and, even though he believes a mountain is being made from a molehill, note how responds to the concerns addressed. That is good behavior to follow in a dispute. IDHT'ing isn't. If you are going to actually start following policies, of all times, now would be the ideal time to do it. LesVegas (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
...DrChrissy, did you read any of what I wrote? The Lee review does confirm that these reports are high-quality. No further confirmation beyond that is necessary. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did read what you wrote and I have to say, starting a comment like that is a little inflammatory. There can be no denial that the Lee review states the reports were high quality ("All of these reviews were of high quality"). However, this is the opinion of the authors. You stated above that the Lee review "confirms" the reports are high quality, which means this has been written elsewhere. Where has it been written elsewhere, please?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, try to put yourself in my shoes and read your comment after what I posted and you'll see how it could be a little frustrating. I genuinely did not know if you read what I wrote. I'm not trying to be inflammatory but perhaps you're also being a bit sensitive. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. A review of reviews is more than adequate. Of course it's the opinion of the authors, but the point is that the authors writing that opinion are not the authors directly involved in the primary research (or secondary research since they reviewed Cochrane reviews in this case) so their opinion is therefore secondary (i.e., they're reviewing the Cochrane reviews of interest). I disagree that we need another source to confirm or analyze Lee's evaluation. We do not need a third source saying that Lee's evaluation of the Cochrane articles as high-quality was a sound judgement and that they echo that sentiment. As I mentioned earlier, when we use secondary sources (e.g., lit reviews, systematic reviews, etc) they review primary sources and evaluate them for quality, etc and we often use those secondary sources to summarize what they say about the primary literature that they reviewed (e.g., a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded (based on its review of primary literature) that there is strong evidence (due to the high-quality methodology of the reviewed primary studies) that green is not the same color as blue). We use secondary sources in this manner all the time. The same principle applies here except this source is reviewing other secondary sources (reviewing Cochrane reviews which are themselves secondary sources). No additional sourcing beyond Lee is needed. For me, I'm considering the matter closed as I do not see any evidence that this is a primary source in any way and it confirms the uncontroversial claim of the Cochrane reviews being high-quality. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. So, if I was to write "An overview of high-quality Association of Animal Behaviour reviews suggested that dogs are less intelligent than cats" - would you accept that statement?__DrChrissy(talk) 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you were a recognized expert on the subject, published an evidence-based analysis like that in the form of a literature review on the topic, and did so in an appropriate journal, then yes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Which leaves the obvious question "Who is an expert?" How do I know that Lee (et al.,) are experts?DrChrissy(talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's well known for example that Ernst (2nd author of this review of reviews we're discussing) is an expert in the area of complementary and alternative medicine. I'm not personally familiar with Lee but I'm sure it's not difficult to verify his expertise. This also sounds more like a semantic argument now asking for the definition of an expert rather than questioning the credibility of the article itself. If you require verification of Lee's expertise, you can find an example of it here: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/european-journal-of-integrative-medicine/1876-3820/editorial-board/myeong-soo-leeTylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Roxy - please explain your edit
Roxy, why did you make this edit deleting comments here?[7]DrChrissy(talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I doubt very much I will get an answer from you on that, so please apologise for being WP:uncivil.
DrChrissy(talk) 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be better off sticking to ducks, and leaving the quackery articles to someone else. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Hmmmmm...How is that intervention in any way supposed to improve the article? It is inflammatory and appears to be warning me off making edits. I suggest you strike it.DrChrissy(talk) 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy I have just looked at your user page and I was astounded to see that you are an admin! Surely comments like yours above are completely unbecoming of an admin?DrChrissy(talk) 10:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the talk page of an article at Wikipedia—why are you posting these pseudo-questions, and why here? If you have a complaint, take it to an appropriate page, although there is no appropriate place at Wikipedia for the issues raised above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Post closure of Roxy - please explain your edit
I felt the closure of the thread above by Alexbrn was somewhat premature - but perhaps it looked like other users were making edits that might have got them into trouble. It is actually not clear why the thread was closed. I am assuming it is the argument that discussions about user behaviour belong on the user's Talk page rather than an Article Talk page. However, this issue is really not that clear. Please see discussion here[8]. For anyone who may be interested in following the closed thread, I have raised my discussion with User talk:JzG under "comments unbecoming of an admin".DrChrissy(talk) 11:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Editing of a closed discussion
An editor recently edited a discussion that had been hatted.[9] The template clearly states that hatted discussions should not be modified. Do I raise this issue here on the Article talk page, or on the Talk page of the user?DrChrissy(talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
|}
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ermmm... are edits being automatically redirected into the hatted discussion below? Surely this is editing a closed discussion?DrChrissy(talk) 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There was no {{hab}}, so anything added below would be added to the hatted discussion. I have now added it.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem was caused by a newbie edit error by the Doc. It has been fixed now. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you please clarify, who is "the Doc"?DrChrissy(talk) 16:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It is pleasurable? Really?
Has anybody besides the doc read that acu is pleasurable? Surely that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
WHOA! Sit Boy! If that is aimed at me, you are well off the mark. I have been puzzling over that same statement for several days.DrChrissy(talk) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Direct link to page in source cited (Google books): linkZad68 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
user:Zad68 recently removed a comment I added, tagging the inline ref as "unreliable". Zad68, please would you elaborate why you think this is unreliable.DrChrissy(talk) 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As my edit summary stated I don't think we should be using veterinary textbooks to support content related to human health. Appears to be a WP:MEDRS issue. Per WP:BURDEN it's really up to you to make the argument why we should make an exception here. Zad68 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:Burden relates to verifiability and is a red herring. The source I have given is a secondary source. I do not see why because the comment is written in a veterinary source it makes any differerence whatsoever. The review comment is about studies conducted on humans, not non-human animals. Are you suggesting that an author writing in a veterinary text book is automatically deemed to be writing lower quality science than someone writing in a human related source?DrChrissy(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrissy, WP:BURDEN is indeed relevant because that policy says the editor adding content must show that the content is supported by a reliable source, and whether something from a veterinary textbook is ideal to use as a source to support content about human health is the focal point of our disagreement, isn't it? Per WP:MEDRS, the best sources come from experts in the relevant field, and veterinary medicine isn't human medicine. Will you be providing a reason why the article should be making an exception here by using a veterinary textbook for a statement about human health? Zad68 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we know that the author of the article is not an expert in human medicine?DrChrissy(talk) 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we care? The only thing we need to decide here is if the coverage of animal acu, a cruel practice imho when real vetinary is available, is warranted in this article. I'm not sure if we should observe that the ethics of treating animals with a treatment that wont help is actually cruelty or negligence? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
C'mon Roxy let's try to keep our own thoughts about the article topic off the Talk page... For this case, yes we do care, the edit proposed looks to add content related to human health based on a veterinary source, that's the point under discussion here. (And it might be reasonable to add a sentence regarding the ethics of vet. acu. if the sources discuss it, a brief mention here and more content at Veterinary acupuncture per WP:SUMMARY.) Zad68 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrissy re "Do we know that the author of the article is not an expert in human medicine?"--again per WP:BURDEN that's your argument to make. If she is a published expert in pain care for human medicine it should be easy to find something she's published in that field, we cite that instead, and then this issue is resolved. Zad68 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This is no longer an issue. I have edited the article and the reference we are discussing no longer pertains to human medicine. Our discussion does, however, raise the rather horrible thought that if editors challenge any of the human based citations, somebody would have to "prove" the authors are expert in that field.DrChrissy(talk) 13:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks Chrissy.
I don't want to get into an expansive, general discussion about policy on a particular article Talk page but generally if the source clearly meets the relevant guideline there shouldn't be a reason to challenge. If there does appear to be a significant mismatch between the source and Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, it's reasonable to raise that as a concern and it's up to the one interested in using that source to demonstrate that it does meet the guideline. Zad68 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand. If someone has published a paper in a reputable journal in a subject-area, that pretty much makes them an expert (in that subject area). It would be disruptive to go around challenging that without good reason.DrChrissy(talk) 14:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We already discuss the various Cochrane reviews, and include the detailed results (generally that the effect is so small that its existence can be legitimately questioned and, even if it exists, is smaller than the placebo effect). What would we gain by adding a misleading one-sentence summary to the material we already have?—Kww(talk) 14:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kww As I said above, the reference no longer pertains to human medicine. I don't follow the point of your posting.DrChrissy(talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen that it had been determined that the Cochrane reviews discussed in the quote were of veterinary studies, not the ones covering humans that we discuss.—Kww(talk) 05:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the Cochrane reviews were of human studies of acupuncture. However, the summary of the studies by Alvarez was from a veterinary handbook (making it a tertiary source). Some editors feel that because the summary is published in a veterinary source it is automatically of lower quality. The Alvarez source was then used by another editor here[11] to indicate non-human related content.DrChrissy(talk) 09:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Acupuncture as pseudoscience again
I find it weird that the lead merely says that acupuncture "is described as a type of pseudoscience" while the "Conceptual basis" section flatly refers to it as "a type of pseudoscience". I think we should try to resolve this discrepancy, perhaps by removing the part in the conceptual basis section described above. There are sources that say that acupuncture is not pure pseudoscience--for example this book [12] says that it was considered pseudoscientific in the past but now there is plausible scientific evidence for its effectiveness. Thus I don't think it's appropriate to say that acupuncture is pseudoscience as if it were an undisputed fact. Everymorningtalk 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. As a matter of fact, for the sake of parity, we should even include that source in both the lede and the body. LesVegas (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, as I'm reading the source now I think it contains better parity than what we currently have in the lede in and of itself: "The claim that acupuncture is medically effective has in the past been declared a pseudoscientific claim (by e.g. Sampson, et al) (1991)), but we now have some plausible scientific evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness. (Achilles 1996, Jones 2002.)" The problem with the current wording in the lede, "many within the field of science view acupuncture as quackery" is the context, both before and after it. Here is how the source reads, in full:
Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization8 as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of sci- ence view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.”4,9–14 It seems some- what naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions. Should we modify the lede to say "many within the field of science naively believe"? That wouldn't be popular, but that's what the source means. The claim does not verify the in-context source in that instance whatsoever. Further, we have the "borderlands science" quote by two individuals who are not notable enough to be in the lede. In my opinion, the best way for parity is to use the Routledge source. LesVegas (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No one has ever demonstrated a mechanism for acupuncture to be effective beyond placebo, scientific consensus is that the primary effects of acupuncture are placebo effects, and there's nothing about being a placebo that would contradict the statement that it's pseudoscience. Homeopathy certainly has some placebo-based benefits as well, and I would hope no one here is dishonest enough to claim that homeopathy isn't pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been plenty of sources that have demonstrated that it's effective, high quality ones too, but you either keep deleting them or ignoring them. And I thought QuackGuru was the only one with an IDHT issue! LesVegas (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The two primary reviews of effectiveness for acupuncture (Ernst and Vickers) both conclude that any actual effect of acupuncture is smaller than its placebo effects, and the conclusion that there is any effect at all is widely attacked as an artifact of Vickers's biases. There are some outliers (the one I find most hilarious is the study that purports to demonstrate that moxibustion cures breech birth), but you'll have to point out the one that demonstrates that there's a plausible mechanism beyond placebo. At best. there's some handwaving studies that can't conclude anything stronger than "suggesting" a possible mode that requires "further study". Precisely what is the explanation for how jabbing someone with a needle could effect his allergies that doesn't involve qi, yin, yang, meridians, or similar pseudoscience?—Kww(talk) 02:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Kww, why do you keep failing to address, for instance, the Hopton/MacPhereson review which you have been shown several times now? There's more like it, too, Kww, and you keep ignoring evidence. I just looked on Pubmed and only found one study within the last year which had negative findings for acupuncture and the rest (20+ or so) were positive. Look, it's okay to have an opinion here. Everyone does. But we quote sources, not delete the ones we don't like for no other reason than "I don't agree". That is Wikipedia:Randy in Boise to a T, and you're better than that. LesVegas (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Kww, is this what your argument has come to, where the only way you can establish in the lede that "scientists believe acupuncture is quackery" is by quoting a source that defends acupuncture, in context, and actually calls these very scientists "naive" for believing acupuncture to be pseudoscience? Really? LesVegas (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate any reason to believe that that particular study is more reliable and more highly regarded than Ernst or Vickers, I'll pay attention to it. The particular source you are using here (Routledge) is an opinion piece about the various philosophies of when a topic should be considered pseudoscience, and doesn't refute the notion that acupuncture is widely considered to be pseudoscience, simply that the author thinks the reasoning people are using is up for debate. I'm willing to entertain better sources for stating that acupuncture is widely considered to be pseudoscience, but not removal of the description from the lead.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No Kww, IDHT'ing doesn't come with caveats like "demonstrate and I'll pay attention to it". But how about this? If you can demonstrate that it's not reliable, then I will stop asking you about sources like that every time you make a claim about scientific consensus to justify your overly restrictive editing beliefs. And at last count, the "consensus" equaled only one meta-analysis in your favor, but, hey, who's counting anyway? And I do agree with you that the Routledge source is an opinion piece on scientific philosophy. Sure, it's not the best for its claim, but a hell of a lot stronger than a pro-acupuncture source that describes scientists as "naive" for characterizing acupuncture as pseudoscience to back up the claim that "scientists believe acupuncture to be quackery." But I'll make you a deal. If you can find a good source that shows that many scientists call it quackery, I won't contest using it. However, if I find a reliable source that says there's active scientific debate on the topic and that not everyone agrees, we'll add that afterwords as NPOV policies state that we should, for parity. I won't add it in, though, if you are unable to find a reliable source saying that "scientists believe it's pseudoscience" or whatever. Agreed? In the meantime, we should remove the abysmal source from the lede. As Everymorning stated above, it is a bit weird for the article to flatly state that acupuncture is pseudoscience as if it were "an undisputed fact". It is especially weird to do it with a pro-acupuncture source that goes on to call these amorphous and unnamed scientists "naive" for their beliefs. LesVegas (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
LesVegas, the particular review you keep bringing up doesn't contradict Ernst or Vickers: "In general, effect sizes (standardized mean differences) were found to be relatively small" and won't even come to the conclusion that those effect sizes are significant, only that we should ask "more practical questions about whether the overall benefit is clinically meaningful". This isn't a case of IDHT on my part: try saying something that responds to my point. The underpinnings of acupuncture (meridians, yin, yang, qi) fall under the category of obvious pseudoscience. Is there any accepted scientific explanation for the purported effects of acupuncture? How jabbing needles into someone would relieve allergies? How it would have any impact whatsoever on breech birth, tinnitus, or the myriad other conditions it is used for?
As for this particular use of the Wang source, it's a statement counter to interests, which I use as a touchstone of reliability when I analyse something for bias. The statement it supports is "Many within the scientific community consider it [acupuncture] to be quackery." That's both obviously true and supported by the source. Our use of the source is not to make Wang feel better about himself, it's to indicate that even acupuncturists have noticed that many scientists consider them to be quacks. Certainly you aren't saying that scientists now embrace acupuncture and no one considers acupuncturists to be quacks anymore, are you? That would be quite a social revolution, and not one that I see any particular evidence of happening.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a reply to Kww's immediately-preceding comment at 15:00, 16 April 2015. To preserve threading, please do not add comments between that comment and this one. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How do we know that consensus about efficacy has already formed around Ernst and Vickers? Where is the source meeting WP:RS/AC that says so? Your burden. Additionally, trials for efficacy continue (which skeptics hate); this fact indicates a lack of consensus.
Remember that Ernst and Vickers are about acu for pain only; whatever degree of general agreement has formed or will form around pain doesn't generalize to other conditions. Again, your burden; additionally, cf. Cochrane's and Ernst's disagreement on PONV.
Wang, per WP:WEIGHT, should also be used to indicate Wang's disputation of the pseudoscience label and similar dismissals.
While the underpinnings of acu are pseudoscience (systematic, just like astrology), the practice of acu isn't: again, we don't see clinical trials looking for qi, but we do see them for efficacy.
Re mechanism as a criterion for demarcation: A plausible mechanism doesn't have to be proven, but possible (otherwise lots of drugs wouldn't get approved). Homeopathy lacks such, but reasonable hypotheses exist for acupuncture (and even for emergent correlates of meridians &c.), e.g. Langevin's hypothesis re fascia. BTW, the proposed mechanism for UB-67's traditional indications (breech baby, inducing labor; expelling the placenta) is oxytocin release. [13] No idea why stimulating the pinkie toe would do that, but that's consistent with what they see, and oxytocin does indeed cause uterine contractions (that's the mechanism by which breastfeeding helps expel the placenta).
I'm open to rewording to say "the foundations of acupuncture are superstition and pseudoscience, but scientific investigation shows that there is the possibility of an actual mechanism with some weak effects, however, no consensus that those weak effects both exist and have clinical significance exists" or some similar wording. As for it being my burden to dismiss a source: not so much, and I'm not. It, again, agrees with Ernst and Vickers as to the results: evidence of an effect beyond placebo, but so weak that it can't come to the conclusion that that weak effect is clinically significant. That places it closer to Ernst than to Vickers, except for the bizarre conclusion that demonstrating an effect without demonstrating clinical significance was worthy of notice.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's actually pretty good wording re consensus & lack thereof; a good use of what RS we have. On your 2nd sentence, I didn't say you had a "burden to dismiss" any source; not sure what you mean there... you might want to re-read my #3. When you say "it" agreed with E. & V. are you talking about Wang's editorial? If so I see what you mean, but see Jytdog's asterisks 2, 3 & 4 here; we shouldn't depict mainstream use as bizarre except insofar as RS do (not that your wording above does). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I strongly object to the statement, "the foundations of acupuncture are superstition and pseudoscience" mostly because Kww believes acupuncture's underpinnings are based on concepts like meridians and mystical energy. The word, "meridian" has no basis whatsoever in the Chinese language. There are words like jing mai 經脈 and luo mai 絡脈 which these gross mistranslations are based on. Jing, 經 like all characters, has a multitude of meanings at once. It can mean primary, main, or better, trunk-like and also, at the same time, it means vertical, upright or longditudinal. The idea here is that it is seen as patterning throughout the natural world and is shared by trees, rivers or even human beings. Mai 脈 means vessel, or container, although there is a connotation it is still somewhat permeable where essential elements individual to that natural being are allowed to move in and out of. When applied to plants, it is xylem and phloem. When applied to humanity, it is blood vessels. Every respectable sinologist translates 經脈 as blood vessels when applied to humans (although one translates it as "blood rivers" to preserve the permeability idea within the mai radical.) In the human being, jing mai 經脈 are vessels where Qi and Blood move through. Now, the character for Qi 氣 is created from two different characters: “rice” (米) and the character for “steam”(气). "Qi" is the steam which comes from cooking rice, meaning it is the essence of, or the finest matter composing anything. It is philosophical in nature, and if it applied in the realm of physics it is the energy contained in matter. It has nothing to do with the vitalistic notions that have been attached to it. I contend the only thing pseudoscientific about acupuncture is the modern, Western misunderstanding and mistranslations that have been attached to its concepts. I also find these connective tissue concepts Middle 8 brings up interesting from the standpoint of language, ie "Jing Jin" or connective tissue pathways which have been confirmed to exist. But I don't want to say the concept of meridian, or the misunderstanding of Qi isn't pseudoscientific, and perhaps we can distinguish this in the article in some way?
Now, as for the rest of Kww's proposed wording, perhaps I can address it while also addressing the reply above at 15:00? Kww, you seized on "relatively small" yet we don't know what that was in relation to. Afterall, several pain groups showed inconsistent results. How could you miss, "for short-term outcomes, acupuncture showed significant superiority over sham for back pain, knee pain, and headache" for instance? Since when did "significant superiority over sham" get reduced to effect size of small in all cases in your world? So I also contend the term "weak effects" which you seem to apply universally, to all conditions. If we're going to summarize sources in the lede, we have to do so more widely than that. As an aside, I think it's worth mentioning that this meta-analysis showing SSRI's are equal to placebos, except in severe cases is reflected on the SSRI article merely as "The efficacy of SSRIs in mild or moderate cases of depression has been disputed." Perhaps we should start taking a cue from articles like this? LesVegas (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you must replace qi and myridians with "imaginary conduits for imaginary forces concocted as explanations in prescientific times" or something of the like, feel free. The theoretical underpinnings of acupuncture are indisputably nonsense. If someone comes up with an explanation for the trivial effects it may have, it will have nothing at all to do with the explanations that were given when it was originally developed. As for SSRIs, of course there are other treatments that don't do much good, and some of those have certainly come from people that were trying to practice legitimate medicine.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, qi or meridians don't translate as "imaginary conduits for imaginary forces concocted as explanations in prescientific times" either. Again, you're revealing your deep lack of understanding on the underpinnings of Chinese medicine, which can only be resolved with understanding of the language. Jing-Mai (oft mistranslated as meridians) actually translates as longitudinal blood vessels according to the foremost sinologists, and Qi translates as essence of, or most refined matter of any given material, much closer to the notions of physics than vitalism. My point on SSRI's was not that they lacked efficacy, but how editors on that article handle this supposed lack of efficacy in certain key situations, within the lede. LesVegas (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
And if I were to characterize the theoretical underpinnings of acupuncture, I think it's more accurate to say they would be philosophical in basis versus scientific. It's founded more on philosophical concepts like Yin/Yang and the 5 Phase cycle, is it not? The "scientific" term is really too Western in connotation. Why don't we use that term? I mean, it gets around the whole "before science" argument and its more accurate. LesVegas (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't use concepts like Yin/Yang and the 5 Phase Cycle because they are superstitions, not science. Medical treatments are a scientific topic, not a philosophical one. We don't use terms like that because they would serve to promote superstition and pseudoscience, things that we are supposed to avoid.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Kww, I just wanted to comment real quick before I have to take a prolonged absence from Wikipedia (and I can hear your cheers right now) for some family reasons. Anywho, concepts like yin and yang aren't superstitions at all. It's a philosophical principle where everything in the universe can be reduced to being yin or yang relative to something else. And this philosophy, like all good philosophical systems, can be applied to everything, including human beings. So, the bottom of the foot is relatively more yin than the top of the head, which is relatively more yang because it gets more sun. Those underpinnings are the basis for the medicine and is why I was saying it's philosophical. If you're curious to see that I'm definitely not alone in this belief, you should read the Wikipedia article on Yin_and_yang where both the article and all the sources describe it as a philosophy. It's actually a good article for Wikipedia or even internet standards. At any rate, I don't know when I will be able to continue this conversation but I do hope you will one day see the light, and that light is relatively more yang than darkness. Just kidding, I do wish you the best regardless and hope to be back soon. LesVegas (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I was expressing approval of the way Kww's wording handled sci consensus on efficacy. The "founded on pseudoscience and superstition" business can easily be overdone. Just say in the lede that it's based on Chinese philosophy -- that's what Brittanica does. Brittanica and very large majority of MEDRS's use the term pseudoscience sparingly. Does that make them woo-apologists? No, it just means they aren't as polemically-oriented as e.g. RationalWiki. In the body of our article, fine, cite RS's saying it's based on superstition etc., but attribute it, and (following the weight of Brittanica et. al.) don't weight it excessively. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not based on reality, that's for sure. Chiojnese philosophy? Not convinced: modern-day acupuncture is essentially an invention of Mao, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Mao came up with Yin and Yang and Qi and the zang fu and nine needles and meridians 'n shit? Pretty impressive. And even more amazing, the way he then traveled back in time to put all that stuff in centuries-old texts. Saying Mao invented acupuncture is like saying Huang Di himself did. Look to good RS for the history of Chinese medicine. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Round and round we go. The purportedly scientific study of nonexistent concepts such as qi and meridians, is what makes acupuncture pseudoscientific. This is settled long since, and the fact that every few months a believer starts the debate again, never changes the facts or the outcome. There are no sources that demonstrate acupuncture to be effective other than as placebo or distraction therapy, the sources which purport to do so cannot, by their very nature, refute the null hypothesis. All they can do is provide a data point that appears greater than placebo, which Ioannidis tells us is most likely a false positive since (a) there is no plausible mechanism for most of the claimed effects and (b) tests on different conditions and pathologies that should yield similar results, in fact yield different results (a bit like homeopathy having different remedies for pain in the left versus the right hand). The claim that there are conditions "recognized by the WHO" is misdirection. The WHO statements on acupuncture are the result of political lobbying by believers. All that matters is, can scientists reliably demonstrate objective results that are not yielded by an appropriate placebo. The answer to that is: no, they cannot. All we actually know with confidence at this time is that it does not appear to matter where you place the needles, how deep you insert them (or if you even insert them at all), how long they remain in place, how hot or cold they are, whether you rotate them or not - in short, pretty much everything about the needles themselves appears to be arbitrary and irrelevant to the outcome. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Chrissy! Thank you for your contributions! This has been discussed at length before and the outcome of the discussion was that Quackwatch can be used as a source in certain cases. It is certainly not MEDRS, and in case where a source is more reliable than Quackwatch contradicts it, we should use that source and delete Quackwatch. I think it's pretty ridiculous to use Quackwatch to back up how Chinese medicine works, when we have textbooks that do a better job at it and are far more reliable to make those claims. I also think that Quackwatch is pretty much on par with something like Natural News for most claims. Some editors want to see Quackwatch sourced everywhere in articles like this, thinking it is reliable for non-MEDRS claims, but oddly scoff at something like Natural News or Mercola.com being used for non MEDRS claims. I just say, let's use all of them or none of them, but at the very least, let's please be consistent. I'm very busy currently but I'm willing to make some pop-ins to discuss this subject again, and I am glad you raised it. Dr. Chrissy, please feel free to ping me or keep me updated on my talk page. LesVegas (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I had not realised this has been discussed before. Consistency is exactly what I want here (and on many other pages where apparently medic-related editors use their WP:MEDRS scythes to raze an article to the ground). It seems that one rule is used in one context, and another in another context. For a neutral editor, it seems impossible to edit in a way that is not immediately slapped down by someone quoting any number of guidelines/policies/discussions etc. I think that for any medical related article, the very least a reader should expect as that the sources should have been peer-reviewed. This is not necessarily the case with Quackwatch articles. Will let you know what goes on.DrChrissy(talk) 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note the Quackwatch quote is attributed, has been in the article for some time, and the source has not been rejected as unreliable or inappropriate (far from it). --NeilNtalk to me 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know (it's linked above), and I do not think that discussion says what you want it to say. --NeilNtalk to me 18:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Serious silliness
Quackwatch is not a reliable source for health related content. Period. Is this health related content. Yes. Is there research in this area and multiple RS per Wikipedia more reliable than Qw. Yes. The good news is that most reading this article and coming across Quackwatch will have the good sense to question both that source and may possibly wonder further about the quality of an article which parades about a long quote based on this kind of source. Adding such a source merely brings the article and its content, sources, and editors into question. Maybe that's a good thing. Given the edit warring over a non MEDRS compliant source, I'd just leave it in the article where it has the opposite effect of underlining the reliability of the content and of the article. Maybe eventually, some will have the good sense to abide by WP and remove this content in favour of something compliant. Until then we have something seriously silly in this article.(18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
I support Olive by agreeing that the quote should remain. I disagree on everything else. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The source may have been for a long time in the article, but it's a good thing that it's been paid attention to right now. Just the mere fact that "it has been in the article for some time" does not make the source any more or less reliable, though. The question is whether QuackWatch is an appropriate source for this very instance. But no, QuackWatch is not reliable per se, something that has been voiced out by many editors. Should there be any claims on medical efficiency backed up this source, it is strongly advised to remove the material immediately.
I think the first step that we are required to do, is to remove the block quotes given for such a marginal source. Second, it should be considered whether acupuncture is a subject that hasn't attracted enough scientific research. If there's a rich variety of scientific research on the subject, then we don't want to include any claims so poor that haven't been even able to make their way through some notable peer-reviewed journal. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So. This isn't health related content? Bottom line Roxy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
Sticking pins into people to cure them is health related? Answer : No. Actually it is serious silliness. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict
Repeat bottom line. This is a health related article and health related content. We are mistaken in thinking any personal opinion on whether any health related methods work or not, and that means allopathic as well as anything else, or have a place in determining what goes into articles. I have no clue if acupuncture works or not but that opinion or lack of it has nothing to do with what is added to this article. Make it simple. Get opinions out of the way and deal with WP compliancy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
Littleolive oil would you mind combining this with the section above Is Quackwatch a reliable source?? It's difficult when a single topic is split across multiple threads. Thanks... Zad68 18:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You may do whatever you want with this. I doubt I'll comment further. We're dealing with something so incredibly basic here which I outlined. If editors will not abide by WP in this area there's little more here to be said or done. Feel free.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
RS vs. other questions
Let's first resolve that QuackWatch is a perfectly reliable source for quoting something QuackWatch itself publishes on its own website. And that is all the content being challenged is doing, it's quoting QuackWatch with attribution ("Quackwatch states that 'TCM theory and practice are not based upon...'"), it's not using QuackWatch as a source to make an unattributed assertion in Wikipedia's narrative voice. So this isn't a WP:RS issue, and WP:BURDEN is met.
The questions that could follow are:
Is the use of QuackWatch in accordance with WP:DUEWEIGHT?
Can the article be improved by replacing the QW quote with an assertion in Wikipedia's narrative voice, sourced to something better than QuackWatch?
2. Yes, it can be sourced to prominent medical textbooks such as Miller's Anesthesia, which says "A scientific basis may exist for acupuncture" (pg. 1235) and "When compared with placebo, acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy for relieving pain" (pg. 1235)
A1 let's be careful here, the QW quote is talking about TCM theories (qi and meridians); Miller's just mentions that qi exists as part of traditional acupuncture theory, but doesn't make a statement about the validity of TCM theory, which is what QW is covering. Zad68 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well then use Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine , which says "Although based on the theory that needling regulates the flow of vital energy, neuroscience research suggests that acupuncture induces clinical response through modulation of the nervous system" (pg. 266). The first part of this sentence refutes the validity of traditional theory, hence making QW all but obsolete. -A1candidate 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry A1 this is exactly the same problem as Miller's: there's a mention of the traditional theory, and then the text goes on to give a modern explanation. Zad68 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
<
"The first part of that sentence refutes the validity of traditional theory." Can you not read? -A1candidate 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we pick this up again later... have a good weekend. Zad68 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"Let's first resolve that QuackWatch is a perfectly reliable source for quoting something QuackWatch itself publishes on its own website. And that is all the content being challenged is doing, it's quoting QuackWatch ..." The issue is not whether any source is reliable for itself. QW is making assertions attributed or not and we are quoting them. The question is whether that source then can be used where it will influence health related topics. Quackwatch is a step removed from the research on acupuncture. Quack watch admits to its own biases, writes to its own viewpoints, selectively uses research to support those opinions. How is that we are not looking at the research itself and ourselves, and citing it for the information it contains rather than relying on the biased position of an intermediate source, Qw, to do it for us. Can Qw be verified per its own research, and on top of that can it be deemed reliable for another supposedly neutral view and article. This is an issue as to whether a source is reliable in an instance where it can influence health, where it is is being used to support a very specific view point that is health related. Further, the content being suggested for this article is so general that I doubt if we will find another source so explicitly general in nature, and frankly we don't have to do that. No one says we have to match the content being used in the article especially given the nature of its source. Due weight only comes into play after verifiability and reliability. Nothing said here tells me this source is reliable to make claims that edge on health issues, and the verifiability of what QW is attesting is based on its own research. are we ready to verify QW's own verifiability. If we want to narrow down MEDRS from the way it has been used in multiple article that's a different issue but right now. I see no argument that this is a reliable source so Due weight doesn't even come into play at this point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
Be honest Olive, if I did all that, you'd have me castigated through pillar and post for WP:OR, and you'd be right ! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
If the topic has already been covered by significant amount of scientific research, then we shouldn't include any sources of poor reliability that make claims that have not made their way to the scientific literature of today. And if such claims are already covered by scientific literature, then we don't need to use QuackWatch. QuackWatch is a reasonable source when the topic hasn't managed to attract sufficient level of academic interest, and this hardly is the case with acupuncture. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I might have you castigated for OR :O) but I'm not describing OR in that comment. I am describing a source that is dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer. Its the source that is layered in dubiousness (is that a word) not to be confused with synthesis in the article itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
Quackwatch. Please point out the source you're using for "dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer". Thanks. --NeilNtalk to me 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that How is that we are not looking at the research itself and ourselves is a definitive incitement to WP:OR -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't need sources to voice a well-based opinion on a talk page. This isn't article content. And Roxy looking at research or sources is not OR, its a search for verifiable, reliable sourcing. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
Well, we don't discount sources based on an editor's gratuitous opinion. "The NY Times is a dubious source in the extreme, layer upon layer" would go over real well. --NeilNtalk to me 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. We aren't discussing the New York Times or any source but one, and of course all sources are in context of the content they source. Perhaps there are cases where the NYT would be considered an unreliable source. Too bad my cmt on a talk page after all I've tried to explain is considered gratuitous, a dismissive and rather uncivil comment. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
It's gratuitous because you haven't provided any justification for your strong opinion of "dubious in the extreme, layer upon layer", which contradicts what sources are saying in Quackwatch. --NeilNtalk to me 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple editors who have voiced concern about this source over the years, and there is a discussion ongoing at this moment. I also mentioned earlier some general concerns I had with Quackwatch. Since you are involved in at least one of those discussions you know what they are.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
I'm not sure I can say more. This is my position as I see it, and as it would support, in my opinion and per my reading of WP, neutrality, And I've stated it as well as I can. As things turn unpleasant I have an urge to leave it to those who are more invested in the content than I am.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
I really feel an RfC is needed here.DrChrissy(talk) 22:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Iceman tattoo
User:NeilN, there is no solid evidence for the existence of acupuncture points. Until there is, speculations such as the one you're promoting [14] are simply wild hypotheses which are not taken seriously by the scientific community. -A1candidate 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has been taken seriously by researchers. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Which researchers? -A1candidate 18:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Many researchers, including Edzard Ernst. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Another source would help solidify the theory's notability. --NeilNtalk to me 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@QuackGuru - It is still complete speculation, based on an outdated source from 1999. Can you please stop promoting this tattoo hypothesis as an equivalent to "contemporary acupuncture points"? -A1candidate 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There are more sources such as a 2006 review from Edzard Ernst. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
All he did was refer to the 1999 source some time after it was published. I follow Ernst closely and I believe he has never mentioned this in recent years. Correct me if I'm wrong. -A1candidate 19:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources did not say it was speculation. For issues on recent years see WP:MEDDATE. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
So it's accepted by the scientific community? In that case we should elaborate more on these "acupuncture points", shouldn't we? -A1candidate 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Suitability of content for this article
It has become apparent on this talk page that some editors are rejecting (potential) content for a wide variety of reasons. Some of these rejections are perfectly acceptable and well within policy/guidelines that have been carefully considered and written by a body of editors (I am mainly referring to WP:MEDRS). However, it has become apparent here, that some rejections are being made for reasons that are not included in guidelines, idiosyncratic, totally opaque and inaccessible to the new or non-specialist editor. There are cases of double standards. For example, it is widely acknowledged that content must be from a reliable source (e.g. journal) and the reliability of the source depends on the context. However, it appears that some editors dismiss or criticise entire sources without knowing the context of any content to be added. Furthermore, content potential is being judged according to the appearance of the names of the authors, the nationality of the authors, or the identity of the editors of the journal in which the content appears. In other words, it feels like "It does not matter what content you want to add, it will be rejected". In my opinion, this is totally unacceptable and needs to be stopped, or, the guidelines changed so this process is transparent and open to all editors. In my view, this type of misleading editorial behaviour has contributed a great deal to the toxic environment on the article page and this talk page. I have included examples below.
One comment here[17] was "It is a poster session, it is not peer reviewed, therefore it fails WP:MEDRS" I asked how it was known that it is not peer reviewed but there was no answer. I have been to dozens of science conferences where many of the poster sessions were peer reviewed. I have organised 2 international conferences and poster sessions for both those were peer reviewed.
My conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the entire journal (proceedings).
(b) WP Editors are (potentially) being misled about whether a source is peer reviewed or not.
Your conclusion is fundamentally incorrect. See poster session. These are not fully formed research output, they are often tentative, they often provide partial output from work in progress, they are often not peer reviewed at all, and the peer review they do receive is not of the rigour applied by a good journal. Nobody who is familiar with medical research would be unfamiliar with these facts. Ignorance of such basic knowledge is excusable, assertions of bias and malfeasance based on such ignorance, is not. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
One comment here[20] was "The answer is: no, ti is not reliable, because Chinese-authored publications on acupuncture are never negative, so are considered suspect" Guidelines indicate that content should be considered on its own merits.
My conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled by stating that all publications from one nation are suspect.
Your conclusion is fundamentally incorrect. it is an established fact that China, of all countries in the world, has the lowest rate of publication of negative outcomes, and most systematic reviews find a rate of positive outcomes as close to 100% as makes no practical difference. Your lack of understanding of this well known fact was excusable at the time, but is no longer excusable since you have been provided with citations to reliable independent sources that not only back the claim that China essentially only publishes positive results, but which also urge caution in citing Chinese-published studies. We are not qualified to judge the quality of the source, we go by independent sources, and independent sources tell us that Chinese-authored studies are biased. Additionally, JAD has a low impact factor (3.71). Guy (Help!) 13:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
One comment here[27] suggested that the findings were too recent and needed to be confirmed by other studies. However, WP:MEDRS states that suitable content can be found in "...recent, authoritative review articles,...".
Another statement discussed the source as "It's a relatively low-impact factor journal ..."[28] and "Low impact factor is a factor in evaluating eources" was made here.[29] I have been unable to find any guidelines or policy documents that indicate impact factor should be used to assess journals. It is widely acknowledged that low-impact factor journals may contain very high quality articles.
My Conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the entire journal.
(b) WP Editors are being misled that the impact factor of a journal should be used in the assessment of the suitability of a source.
Your conclusion is fundamentally incorrect. The objections are legitimate, this is a Chinese-authored study in a low impact journal that contradicts a much larger body of research showing overall lack of provable effect in allergies. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
One comment here[32] was "Dodgy authors..., dodgy journal,..."
My Conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the entire journal.
(b) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the authors.
Your conclusion is fundamentally incorrect. The problems with PLoS One are identified in external sources, the authors are well known SCAM advocates. Lewith appeared in front of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee advocating for homeopathy despite having authored a study showing that the remedies have no effect, and it's all down to the consultation. He substituted belief for fact when assessing evidence, and that casts doubt on his reliability. Claudia Witt also has a history of promoting homeopathy and promoting "real world" outcomes (code for uncontrolled research that credits the placebo effect to the intervention). PLoS One has a low impact factor (3.53). There is no credible reason for using this source, even if you had presented any proposed text based on it, which you did not. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
One comment here[35] was "I have noticed some of the author's names such as Shin Takayama, Michael Simang, Takashi Seki. See Acupuncture#cite_ref-Ernst2012_77-0 for more information on Chinese authors. Could this be a red flag?" This seems to be implying that the source is unacceptable, or should be treated with caution, simply because some of the authors have names which look like Chinese names. In fact, 4 of the authors (including the 2 most senior authors, P. Baeumler and J. Fleckenstein) are from German institutes and the other 2 are from Japanese institutes, not Chinese.
Another comment here[36] was "Relevance unclear, journal questionable and prone to publishing bollocks" The suitability of potential content has been pre-judged according to the perceived quality of the entire journal. I asked this editor what "publishing bollocks" meant - I did not receive an answer that helped me with this enquiry.
My Conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the entire journal.
(b) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the authors.
(c) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of a source should be based on the apparent (unresearched?) nationality of a minority of the authors and neglecting to balance this with the affiliations of the other authors.
Your conclusions are incorrect. This is yet another example of piling up the heap of equivocal results and trying to pretend that this amounts to robust evidence. The journal has a low impact factor, we have no need of articles in low impact journals when we have more robust sources already. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Impact factor has no bearing on use of a source or not. I have seen that acupuncture sources with low impact factors sometimes heavily use acupuncture terminology that would make the study unfamiliar to those outside that subject. So, for instance, a journal like Pain might not publish such studies or reviews because their readers wouldn't understand these. So these bigger journals have to publish dumbed down reports instead. In a way these sources are deceptive because they are much lower quality, yet have higher IF ratings. This is one of the many reasons impact factor should have no bearing on whether or not we use a source, and I'm not saying anything that hasn't been talked about elsewhere. LesVegas (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to propose an edit. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing that acupuncture is simply misunderstood. Pleading that a branch of knowledge isn't properly understood by the broader scientific community is a telltale that the branch of knowledge is fringe science.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
One comment made here[39] was ": Explore? Are you serious? Being published in Explore is more or less a guarantee that something is false or profoundly dubious. The editor is bloody Dean Radin, for FSM's sake." I have not seen any guidelines which discuss whether the quality of journals should be judged on the editor/s. I feel if editors are going to leave comments like this, they should provide supporting evidence.
A second comment here[40] was "Dodgy authors...dodgy journal..."
A further comment here[41] was "...you proposed Explore as a source - it is utterly worthless,..." Again, this is judging the suitability of content on the quality of the entire journal.
My Conclusion:
(a) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the entire journal.
(b) WP Editors are being misled that the suitability of content should be based on judgement about the authors.
(c) WP Editors are being misled that journal quality should be based the identity of the editor.
Your conclusion is fundamentally incorrect. Explore is not a reliable source. It is edited by a believer in parapsychological phenomena, Dean Radin, and is packed full of abject nonsense. Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.613; SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.307; Impact Factor: 0.935. It has published some [[deprecated source?] hilarious bollocks]. This is a junk journal and it is an abject failure per WP:RS let alone WP:MEDRS, which has a generally higher bar. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
About rejecting articles from China: China has bias in favor of TCM enshrined in its Constitution, the country has no real freedom of speech, it is known for shoddy science unrelated to TCM, the Party may dictate what scientists are supposed to conclude (ideology takes precedence over reality). These are big red flags in respect to Chinese research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this certainly looks like a good justification for a topic ban on DrChrissy, based on extended and ongoing WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT issues. Many editors have made thorough, extensive efforts to explain to DrChrissy
the problems with the sources he has presented;
and the problems with presenting sources he has not read; and
the problems with presenting sources and demanding 'reliability' verdicts without describing how he intends to use those sources in Wikipedia articles.
DrChrissy has firmly established his intentions to ignore that advice. Instead of wasting time and filling up this talk page dealing with what is, at heart, a user conduct issue, this should probably be handled at WP:AE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please. This sentence alone is of significant concern: "However, it appears that some editors dismiss or criticise entire sources without knowing the context of any content to be added." I'm completely baffled at how to respond to that on several fronts. — Jess· Δ♥ 13:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree, this is pretty much an admission that all those "Is this source reliable?" sections were pure WP:POINT and weren't really intended to be about the article. Zad68 13:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear the DrChrissy's inability to judge sources and to comprehend other editors's judgement about sources is a competence issue, at least in the area of complementary and alternative medicine. A topic ban is warranted.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Editor asks if the source is reliable and takes any negative reply as evidence of bias and malfeasance. This displays a fundamental lack of WP:COMPETENCE to edit in this area. Explore journal as a reliable source. Really? I mean, really? I can't remember the last time anyone suggested that. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No. (Catching up.) The tone and many personalized comments in this article are not acceptable in a collaborative situation. I made a couple of cmts and then left for that reason If editors are attacked out of hand because of presumed positions and agendas the result is likely to be that those people feel threatened which will certainly affect the way they edit.
The issues Dr Chrissy is bringing up are the more finely tuned aspects of Policy, open for discussion, prone to misunderstanding and interpretation even with highly experienced editors. Perhaps a tone that does not accuse people of deliberate attempts to create poor content would go along way towards discussion that could reach some amicable conclusion on these issues. There is also a sense of moving the goal posts which can frustrate.
I would agree that some of the concerns with sources are legitimate. For example, Chinese research would have to be scrutinized very carefully per source and per content to even be considered for inclusion. But QW per MEDRS is a equally questionable. Several parties on both sides of the arguments here are making the error seems to me of making generalizations about sources. A source is only reliable per the content it specifically supports. There is no single person that should be topic banned on this article. Dr Chrissy, I do think there are legitimate concerns about some of the sources, but I also think you are trying to collaborate in a difficult situation. I'd think seriously about taking your content concerns to Mediation. But discussions about sources in a general sense can be a waste of time.When looking at sources it can help to look at the source to see if it has the fundamental qualities that would support its use as a RS and the more selective MEDRS but then sources must be considered per specific content.
I may sound patronizing here, and if that is the case I apologize in advance but I am fed up with vitriol. In an ideal WP world we would trying to hold on to editors, to each other, educating each other, listening to each other. It takes years to understand WP and even then there is no end to its nuances. If you don't play nice you can expect the other kids to get their backs up. There are a lot of problems on this discussion and topic banning one editor is an unfair and biased solution. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
You need to look at the specific issue under consideration. DrChrissy proposes a bunch of sources, they are rejected, and DrChrissy then brings the whole lot back with unfounded assertions that the rejections are due to bias. Do you consider that Explore is a reliable medical source? Or a reliable source for anything? Guy (Help!) 15:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider looking at any source outside the context of its use. Guy you just criticized another editor for doing that. I'm not sure what is expected. It looks like every source brought in by a few editors was rejected almost every addition reverted.. Why do you think people won't start to get frustrated. If you reject everything along with pejorative cmts about people and the topic area, you don't breed trust or anything even remotely collaborative. There may be undue harshness in judging some sources and leniency in including others. All of this helps breed a WP swamp. Use of you is not personal to you; its a general you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
It is difficult for any editor to get another blocked, unless their own behavior is impeccable. For example, one could say "hey this guy is a POV pusher" and they may be right, but then other editors would point out "but you're a bully" and they may also be right. Editors are always eager to point out the faults of others in a heated editing dispute, or advocate for a block in order to eliminate those that oppose their edits. Often it is best for editors to simply agree to leave each other alone. Also, from what I've seen so far, I'm not convinced the article-content is actually representative of the source material, but I haven't dug into the controversial aspects as of yet and do not have any particular knowledge of the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Although I think it'd be advisable to suggest some certain content for each source presented, I made few remarks about the discussion above:
"WP Editors are being misled by stating that all publications from one nation are suspect.": As far as I am concerned, nobody has brought up any studies demonstrating publication bias with respect to Chinese sources. This doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't be cautious with these sources, but certainly Chinese publication have not been excluded for good.
"One comment here suggested that the findings were too recent and needed to be confirmed by other studies": I've heard demands that that a source should be omitted if it's been outdated, but I've never heard that a source should be omitted because it'd be "too recent". Unless anything else pop ups, I'd say that feel free to use that source, providing it's applicable otherwise.
"I have been unable to find any guidelines or policy documents that indicate impact factor should be used to assess journals. It is widely acknowledged that low-impact factor journals may contain very high quality articles.": Indeed, I am not sure what kind of relapse some of the editors are experiencing, but's this have been widely discussed even earlier. For example, please see this post where I've quoted many of our regular editors over the subject: [42]
""Dodgy authors..., dodgy journal,...": Don't know about this really, but it's been discussed here earlier: [43]?
"Relevance unclear, journal questionable and prone to publishing bollocks": Not commenting on the peculiar source but generally, comments like this can be ignored straight away since they are more or less bollocks themselves, and carry no weight whatsoever when it comes to concluding the discussion. The quality of arguments, that's what matters in the end.
"About rejecting articles from China: China has bias in favor of TCM enshrined in its Constitution, the country has no real freedom of speech, it is known for shoddy science unrelated to TCM, the Party may dictate what scientists are supposed to conclude (ideology takes precedence over reality).": Tgeorgescu, thank you. I don't doubt it, but unfortunately we can't regard you as a trusty source for claims like this. When you provide reliable secondary sources, then we can proceed with these claims.
"it is an established fact that China, of all countries in the world, has the lowest rate of publication of negative outcomes, and most systematic reviews find a rate of positive outcomes as close to 100% as makes no practical difference.": Again, I don't doubt it but if it's an established fact, could you please provide a source to confirm this? I mean some real sound scientific analysis, not any bollocks like "Publication bias is a possible explanation". So is there any or not? I've asked one editor with access to the source to share the article with me so I can check it myself, but I am still waiting to receive the article.
"The problems with PLoS One are identified in external sources, the authors are well known SCAM advocates. [...] PLoS One has a low impact factor (3.53). There is no credible reason for using this source, even if you had presented any proposed text based on it, which you did not.": Hasn't this been discussed here earlier: [44]? Anyway, are you referring to any sources, are you just sharing your own opinions here on Wikipedia talk pages again? I don't know how to say this any more kindly, but I think nobody cares an F about your opinions. Please refer to some proper sources next time you'll have a chat about it here.
"The journal has a low impact factor, we have no need of articles in low impact journals when we have more robust sources already.": There's been plenty of discussion already on impact factor, and the result has been that IF cannot be used used alone in determining whether the source is unreliable or not. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Kww. I agree, IF is not the only deciding factor, and therefore it should not be used alone to determine whether the source is unreliable or not. At some fields, the impact factor tends to be significantly lower than some other topic areas. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Impact factor is not anywhere on the policy/guidelines of WP as an indicator of the quality of a journal or other source of potential content. I inivite any editor to show me evidence to the contrary.DrChrissy(talk) 22:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You've already established that you do not know enough about the issue to have a valid, informed opinion. Impact factor alone is not the issue: the issue is that we already have much more significant studies in journals with much higher impact factor, so we have no need to use low-impact sources, especially given everything we know about the cottage industry of SCAM studies. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's true but impact factor does indicate reliability and has become a standard gauge on some science/health related articles. However impact factor alone shouldn't disqualify a source from use dependent on what its being used for.The need is for respectful and reasonable discussion seems to me then go with consensus. Sometimes consensus feels wrong and is wrong but that's the model WP operates under. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
Agreed. It's been discussed many times, both here and on MEDRS talk, impact factor has no bearing on whether we can call a source is unreliable. Many sources that cover acupuncture are higher than top anatomy and physiology journals, for example. I've also seen the argument that if a source finds in favor of acupuncture, it's somehow unreliable. That argument is little more than POV pushing, and should be ignored in consensus discussions. LesVegas (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
LesVegas, re impact factor has no bearing on whether we can call a source is unreliable--No, that's not what we're saying, neither Olive nor Jaya nor many others are saying that, please don't "agree" with points people aren't actually making. Zad68 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have read that argument in MEDRS talk and have seen that argument many times on this page as well. Basically, the general consensus is that impact factor isn't exclusionary but can sometimes be used as an inclusionary argument. Zad, you might want to read my comment above again. I said IF rating has no impact on whether we can call a source unreliable (exclusionary) and that is what Olive is saying. I haven't read Jaya's recent arguments but I'm sure he'd agree. LesVegas (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright we can both agree that IF is one factor (of many) that is useful when considering a source, right? Although I'm not sure I agree with your perspective. An IF of near-zero would indicate that the source is very suspect. An IF standard deviations above the pack (NEJM, Nature) would indicate it's eyebrow-raisingly influential. An IF somewhere in the middle wouldn't be dispositive either way, and there's certainly no value in an argument like "This journal has an IF of 2.3 and that one has an IF of 2.7, therefore..." Can we agree on that? Zad68 14:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
But certainly "low impact" plus "fringe claim" plus "claim made by group determined to suffer from bias problems" plus "claim uncorroborated in related journals with higher impact factors" is enough to dismiss the source, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Kww it looks like you're asking for a response from Les but, Yes, certainly, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I'd hope Les agrees. Zad68 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure I would agree. Exceptional claims do require exceptional sources. The whole source of contention seems to be, what is an exceptional claim and what is an exceptional source? I don't think editors here will ever agree where to draw the line on those questions. Maybe this should be decided via arbitration instead of our talk pages? LesVegas (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source?
Is this[45] a reliable source for inclusion in the article?DrChrissy(talk) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly good, why would we add yet another of this type? Guy (Help!) 14:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Why does it not seem particularly good? What does "this type" mean. Please clarify.DrChrissy(talk) 16:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a poster session, it is not peer reviewed, therefore it fails WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
How do you know it was not peer-reviewed?DrChrissy(talk) 22:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I can learn something... The review seems OK to me - what is the problem? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source (ii)?
Is this[46] a reliable source for inclusion in the article?DrChrissy(talk) 13:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean it might be a reliable source?DrChrissy(talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It means: what does the exact text you wanted to use, say?
The answer is: no, ti is not reliable, because Chinese-authored publications on acupuncture are never negative, so are considered suspect. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Is this racist?DrChrissy(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If I remember right, I've been asking numerous times for studies dealing with the possible publication bias. I am not sure if one has provided any, but before that, we are not interested in single editors' speculation or personal findings. Until that, we can use the source unless proven otherwise. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly systemic bias to exclude all research from an entire country. We don't exclude research just because the authors happen to be from a particular country. So yes, we should absolutely add this in and if Chinese research is ever removed because it's Chinese, a tag like this {{SAFESUBST:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__|$B=
needs to be placed on the article. LesVegas (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the sad history of TCM research coming from China. Not only have they been repeatedly caught violating (actual fraud) rules for peer review, their research is generally extremely shoddy, to the point that, for some oddly convenient reason(!), it is always favorable to TCM and never negative. Then, when their positive views don't hold up to examination, we reject them for that reason. This history means that we see red flags, it doesn't mean we will always reject research coming from China. It just needs to be approached very cautiously. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And, just to reemphasize, "scientific sources" is precisely the bias that we are supposed to take. Treating any other perspective as factual is disruptive to the goals of an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I am an East European, by birth and upbringing, and I will gladly admit that the scientific research and scholarship from my country lags very much behind Western science and scholarship, to the extent that anyone from my country willing to have a say in contemporary science or scholarship has to immigrate to the West, or at least publish in Western scientific and scholarly journals. Besides, this is what WP:MEDRS is about: bias in favor of Western scientific sources and maybe of sources who play by the same rules as Western scientific sources. I know that in China promoting TCM it is a matter of constitutional law, so the bias is expressed right there, in the Chinese Constitution (Art. 21). Besides, TCM, effective or not, is a source of money and cultural influence for China, so those who challenge the legitimacy of TCM could be seen as infringing upon the state interests, China is not a liberal democracy, so the "enemies of state" could be fined or imprisoned if they get too critical of those interests. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Kww, what on earth does that mean? "Scientific sources is precisely the bias", what bias? The earlier discussion has been about possible publication bias, and there are statistic tools to evaluate that already, but what is that you are pertaining to here? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, I also believe that has nothing to do with racism, but as I've been voicing out numerous times, we need a study to verify those claims. Less opinions, more sources. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, you said: "I know that in China promoting TCM it is a matter of constitutional law, so the bias is expressed right there, in the Chinese Constitution (Art. 21)." It's good to know that you know, Tgeorgescu, but could you share that specific study with us too? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Article 21 The State develops medical and health services, promotes modern medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, encourages and supports the setting up of various medical and health facilities by the rural economic collectives, State enterprises and institutions and neighbourhood organizations, and promotes health and sanitation activities of a mass character, all for the protection of the people’s health.
The State develops physical culture and promotes mass sports activities to improve the people’s physical fitness.
So, it is not a study, it is simply what the Chinese Constitution literally states. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tgeorgescu, that sure is interesting. So, what do you want to propose with that exactly? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It is clear that it is state policy. How does one implement state policy? Sticks and carrots. Even if there is no immediate persecution for writing against TCM, in totalitarian regimes intellectuals practice self-censorship: they do not want to get in hot water (losing their position at university and ending mining coal or being sent to reeducation camps). Chinese universities are paid by the Chinese state, which also makes a strong case that Chinese scientists may feel compelled to enact the objectives of state policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: You have accused me of racism. Some editors would call that a personal attack and report it. Me, I think it's just cluelessness on your part. I really don't think you know very much about this subject, given the naive questions you are asking.
In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries.
No need to apologise, anyone can make a mistake, but next time perhaps ask rather than flying off the handle?
Incidentally, this comprehensively answers LesVegas' frivolous demand for a "systemic bias" tag. Yes, there is systemic bias - Chinese studies are grossly biased towards acupuncture, our use of reality-based studies is not just acceptable but mandatory. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, I don't doubt that at all but we are already moving in an area where we would need reliable secondary sources for such claims. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:JzG You are very seriously misrepresenting my edits. You stated above ..."but next time perhaps ask rather than flying off the handle?" Here is the edit I posted[47]. This is clearly a question. Please re-edit your previous posting and strike the offending content.DrChrissy(talk) 10:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so did they test for publication bias? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
"Publication bias is a possible explanation.", so they tested against publication bias, did they? What was the result? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I find this dleightfully ironic. You accuse me of racism, in two venues, and I take it perfectly calmly, at which point you take umbrage because I characterise your overreaction as "flying off the handle". You give a pretty good impression of reaching for the Spider-Man suit here. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ironic or not, it is a serious request. Please strike the offending material where you misrepresented my actions to other editors.DrChrissy(talk) 14:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ernst, E.; Lee, M. S.; Choi, T.-Y. (2010). "Acupuncture for Depression?: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews". Evaluation & the Health Professions. 34 (4): 403–412. doi:10.1177/0163278710386109. ISSN0163-2787. PMID21138913.
We already have these two strong sources in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem also includes peer review scams in these countries:
Please the acupuncture page. It says "Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive.[75]" Thank you for your collaboration. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source (iii)?
Is this[48] a reliable source for inclusion in the article?DrChrissy(talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No not MEDLINE listed - confused searchDrChrissy(talk) 13:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect a confused searcher, rather than a confused search ;) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
How does this comment possibly relate to the content? This is a personal attack. Please stop.DrChrissy(talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Remember DocChrissy, MEDRS says that lack of Medline indexing might make it unreliable and that we would want to look into it a bit further is all. And, just so you know, editors here have used that journal in the acupuncture article to criticize it with statements like Between 2000 and 2011, there were 294 adverse events reported in the English-language literature from 25 countries and regions and the most common adverse effect observed was infection (e.g. mycobacterium), and the majority of infections were bacterial in nature, caused by skin contact at the needling site.[6] Infection has also resulted from skin contact with unsterilized equipment or dirty towels, in an unhygienic clinical setting.[6] Other adverse complications included five reported cases of spinal cord injuries (e.g. migrating broken needles or needling too deeply), four brain injuries, four peripheral nerve injuries, five heart injuries, seven other organ and tissue injuries, bilateral hand edema, epithelioid granuloma, pseudolymphoma, argyria, pustules, pancytopenia, and scarring due to hot needle technique.[6] Adverse reactions from acupuncture, which are unusual and uncommon in typical acupuncture practice, were syncope, galactorrhoea, bilateral nystagmus, pyoderma gangrenosum, hepatotoxicity, eruptive lichen planus, and spontaneous needle migration.[6] So it's totally okay to use this journal to talk about adverse events like this, but whenever we pull a positive finding from this journal it's suddenly unreliable. I prefer to be consistent, so I suggest we use eCAM citations since they're already in the article. Oh, and by the way, the eCAM source that quotes all of that information is used in the article 22 times! It seems like some editors here really don't believe it's that unreliable.LesVegas (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, LesVegas, it's more reliable for negative statements than it is for positive ones. If someone makes an interest that is counter to his own best interests, there's less reason to believe that the statement is being made out of bias.—Kww(talk) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
AS Kww says, examples of evidenced criticism of any form of SCAM by its own proponents are rare and highly significant. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source (iv)?
Is this[49] a reliable source for inclusion in the article?DrChrissy(talk) 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No - Not MEDLINE listed.DrChrissy(talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
See above. I'm pretty libertarian with information and I would rather not delete everything from eCAM that's already in the article, so I suggest we use this. The more information the better. LesVegas (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree - as per your comment above about "might be unreliable".DrChrissy(talk) 11:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree: EBCAM is an unlisted journal with an oxymoronic title that serves primarily to advocate "complementary" and "alternative" medicine. We should only use it when there are no better sources available, and when we do, we need to attribute it.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That means in your opinion, it can be used.DrChrissy(talk)
Sources that are not MEDLINE indexed sure do raise red flags. According to WP:MEDRS, though, this does not mean that the source would be unreliable. Instead, it means that one should look further into the source. That's a good cautious procedure we should embrace. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For an extremely limited number of statements in highly confined contexts, yes. Remember that sources and statements always have to be examined together: the question of "is this a reliable source for x?" may have a completely different answer than "is this a reliable source for y?"—Kww(talk) 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a reliable source under certain carefully considered circumstances for what SCAM proponents believe, but never for the factual accuracy of what they believe. Thus it might be a source, if no better were available, for a statement about how acupuncture proponents believe the deqi sensation differs between moxibustion and plain acupuncture, but it would be of no value in describing the objective difference betweent hese two treatments, because there is no objective evidence that either of them is reliably different from the other (or indeed from sham acupuncture). Guy (Help!) 21:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source (v)?
Is this[50] a reliable source for inclusion in the article?DrChrissy(talk) 13:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What does the exact text you wanted to use actually say? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by why you are asking: I objected when this was included the first time, and it's still in the article. My objection is not due to "reliability", per se, it's to including novel results from single studies. Too many editors have spent too much time trying to find positive evidence for acupuncture, and the result is a laundry-list of one-off confirming studies that get placed into the article immediately, before there is time for the medical and scientific communities to react. If there's a real effect here, there will be further confirming studies and reviews and we can include it then.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that it is not reliable because it is too recent?DrChrissy(talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've usually seen editors asking to omit medical sources that are outdated, but never seen one asking to omit a source since it's "too recent". Anyway, aren't we dealing with a MEDLINE indexed review here? We should use that one to replace the outdated ones whenever applicable. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that "reliability" is not a binary issue, nor is it the only issue to be considered when deciding whether to include material. It's a relatively low-impact factor journal reporting a novel result. If the result was more in line with what we see in more reputable journals and you were using it to source some particular detail, I'd be more inclined to include it. If you were using it to support some statement about one of the authors, I'd be more inclined to include it. If you could show that there was some discussion of the study in more impactful journals, I'd be more inclined to include it. Instead, it's just one more obscure study in an obscure journal that remains unsupported in the mainstream. That could change in the future, but we can wait until then.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What size of impact factor are you looking for and what is the basis of this?DrChrissy(talk) 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think that I should have some absolute number in mind. There's no magic threshold like 4.6326133543345234523 that makes an instantaneous leap from "unacceptably low" to "unacceptably high". Do you deny that this journal has a relatively low impact factor?—Kww(talk) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree there is probably not a specific value, at what 'range of values would you start to state a journal as having a medium-impact factor rather than a low -factor. Surely there is some objectivity in your analysis and acceptance/rejection of ptential sources?DrChrissy(talk) 18:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is this journal less reputable than others. What is the basis for this analysis of the source?DrChrissy(talk) 17:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Low-impact factor. Impact factor has a strong correlation with reputation.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, well I guess that we need to sort out the impact factor question then. I had assumed that because this journal is listed in Medline, it is reputable, and therefore on this category of reliability, is acceptable.DrChrissy(talk) 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Feng, S; Han, M; Fan, Y; Liao, Z. "Acupuncture for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis". American Journal of Rhinologic Society. 29 (1): 57–62. doi:10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4116. PMID25590322.
The source is in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not certain why KWW suggests his problem is with "novel results from single studies"? This is not a single study, it is a review of single studies - a secondary source. Also, this source is already used in the article under "Allergies". Moreover, there are multiple secondary source now suggesting acupuncture is effective for seasonal rhinitis, they all seem to be mainstream sources and they all seem to agree that there is value:
The one DrChrissy links originally: "Our meta-analysis suggests that that acupuncture could be a safe and valid treatment option for AR patients." [51]
"There are high-quality randomized controlled trials that demonstrate efficacy and effectiveness for acupuncture in the treatment of both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis."[52]
"Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with allergic rhinitis who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. Option based on randomized controlled trials with limitations, observational studies with consistent effects, and a preponderance of benefit over harm." [53]
I note that the "allergies" section of the article still includes a few older reviews (earlier than 2010) that are out of date per MEDRS and also are not consistent with more recent systematic reviews. The older reviews should be removed in favour of the newer reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.158 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy This is a reliable source but is already in the article. Kww objected to it because of its findings, but its obviously reliable, and up to date, so it went in. If users decide they want to remove it, I suggest they be reported to the noticeboards for disruptive editing. LesVegas (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is especially interesting because there are now objections being raised to a paper that is already in the article. I have long suspected that the analysis and comments/dismisals of references in this article are being done on an ad hoc basis with highly subjective statements and a very binary approach to the reliability of sources. I think this thread has just proved that point. And I am still waiting to hear about the range of impact factors that editors are using to classify WP:MEDRS compliant articles as "low".DrChrissy(talk) 21:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You make it sound as if the objections are new, or somehow not raised before. As I pointed out, I objected when this was placed in the article and it is currently in the article, so I was a bit confused as to why you were asking about it. As for "ad hoc" evaluation of sources, extraordinary claims always require stronger sources, and impact factors are one of the ways that people evaluate the reliability of medical journals. That allergies can be effectively treated by jabbing people with needles is certainly an extraordinary claim, and there's no support for it in higher impact journals.
If you are stating that we should not evaluate sources on a case-by-case basis based on the nature of the claim, I'm afraid that would require a substantial change in policy: sources are always evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Now, if you are saying that editors are looking more skeptically at sources that claim acupuncture is effective than they look at sources that claim it is not, of course we are. The effectiveness of acupuncture is not well established, with general consensus being that if it has an effect, it is a small one. Any study that claims that it has a strong effect is making an extraordinary claim, and thus demands an extraordinarily reliable source.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you deliberately not answering the question? I have asked a direct question about what range of impact factors of journals would you classify as being "low-impact factor". I will help...presumably the lowest value will be 0.1 (I don't think there is a 0.0) You have analysed sources and made statements that a journal's impact factor is low. What is the basis on which you make these statements? What is the upper limit of your range?DrChrissy(talk) 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This page has a number of high-quality reviews and the page is very long. We don't need to use every source on the planet. Sources that have a lower impact factor can be rejected, especially if the text is redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about introducing new content into the article and having this rejected with a binary analysis that the journal has a low-impact factor. How are deleting editors analysing the sources and coming to the conclusion that the journal has a low impact factor?DrChrissy(talk) 22:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The source is not new. It is in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I did answer your question in that there is no fixed number, that it would slide according to the novelty of the claim (among other factors). I note that there are journals relating to immunology with impact factors above 40, which would make this journal's impact factor (between 1.5 and 2.75, depending on the year) "low". As I said, since it's making an extraordinary claim, the real question is what would it take to make the source be classified as extraordinary reliable. Making it to "medium" isn't going to help a bit.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so you say that a journal has a low-impact factor and I say it has a medium-impact factor, how do we decide which is correct?DrChrissy(talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Impact factor is always relative to its field. For instance, there was discussion not to long ago about Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine and editors were lambasting it's impact factor, which was in the 2's. But it you look at CAM journals overall, it ranks in the top one or two every year. A&P journals, for instance, typically are 1.something or less. The very fact that a journal even has an impact factor from Thompson Reuters suggests it's reliable, since they don't assign impact factors to disreputable journals and revoke IF's if the journal is caught doing something sleazy. But above all, MEDRS does not ever suggest not using a source because it's impact factor is low. There is wide agreement on the MEDRS talk pages that impact factor should have no bearing on whether we use a source or not. If a source does have an impact factor, that means it's passed the test for likely reliability, and if it has a high impact factor it should be placed above same-aged sources with lower impact factors, at least according to all the MEDRS talk page discussions I've seen. LesVegas (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this totally. I publish in the veterinary and animal behaviour field - no surprise there. I once had a paper rejected by 2 different journals so I tweaked it and sent it off to Vet Record. They published it. It remains the highest impact factor journal I have ever published in (apart from Nature). The reason - because they circulate Vet Record to all the RCVS members (vets in the UK) and to libraries around the world....It came down to distribution.
With the comments of LesVegas above, can we now accept that because a journal has a low impact factor, this is no reason whatsoever to reject content from this source?DrChrissy(talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. There's been pretty good discussion over the subject at least here[54]. I think user Sunrise put it pretty well:[55] "Again, the point is not that lower IF journals are unreliable, but rather that we cannot use IF to support their reliability" User Famousdog also made a valid point by stating:[56] "There has historically been some absolutely brilliant science published in journals with a very low impact factor for a variety of reasons: because the field is so specialized that the readership is small, or because the research has few (if any) commercial applications, or because certain scientists are sentimentally attached to certain journals" User Roxy the dog has said the same:[57] "I don't believe there is a hard and fast rule on impact factor/reliable sources.", which in turn was supported by user BullRangifer:[58] "Correct. There isn't any." What user LesVegas has said is also consistent with the statements above:[59] "BTW, journal impact factor has no bearing on whether or not a source can be used."
I hope this serves as a small summary for the earlier discussions in regards to the impact factor. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Low impact factor is a factor in evaluating sources. The reason that CAM journals have such low impact factors is that they tend to be poor sources.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You are in disagreement with MEDRS and consensus of editors on MEDRS talk and while you're entitled to your opinion that impact factors is a factor to evaluate sources, I hope you don't remove reliable sources because of impact factor, because that would be disruptive. LesVegas (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, I'm in full alignment with all guidelines. Can you show me a guideline that discourages using impact factors in evaluating sources? Especially when trying to demonstrate that a source making an extraordinary claim is a source of extraordinarily high quality? Or even demonstrate this "wide agreement" you discuss so glibly? I certainly hope you can support that more thoroughly than the pronouncement of "broad consensus" you made that one time: that was so ludicrously false that I still don't think even you believed it.—Kww(talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kww In answer to your question, No, I cannot show you a guideline that discourages using impact factors in evaluating sources. Perhaps you can show me a guideline that encourages using impact factors in evaluating sources. If you can, please post it to the new thread I have started below - "Impact factor and reliability of sources".DrChrissy(talk) 12:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This source[60] seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article.DrChrissy(talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For what purpose, exactly? Above you've noted that you have gone to the individual policy page WP:V, and under Reliable sources that policy page says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Would you please stop throwing up sources without context, as per policy it is impossible to determine the fitness of a particular source without a proposed use. Zad68 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with providing reliable sources for editors to look at and consider for inclusion? If you do not wish to include content from the source, that is your decision. There may be other editors who will thank me for providing reliable sources. What exactly is wrong with indicating to others that a source is WP:MEDRS compliant. I am providing these sources for other editors to use, and it is they who will indicate the context.DrChrissy(talk) 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You stated specifically that, in your evaluation, the source "seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article". Without context, such an evaluation can't be made, per the policy page I pointed you to. Zad68 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, cool. This source is reliable for verifying that Hugh MacPherson has published open access articles. Unfortunately, it's a primary source for that claim, and we try to avoid primary sources. Bummer. That's what you were hoping to include, right? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68 I agree with you totally - we can not evaluate the reliability until it is in context.DrChrissy(talk) 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
OK DrChrissy so you'll either be proposing the context, or renaming these sections to something other than "Reliable source (#)"? Maybe "Here is a source I found" or the like. But better would be to actually go the next step and propose the content change, just like Guy did. Zad68 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jess How can you possibly know what I want to include. The source would be secondary for the material I might wish to include.DrChrissy(talk) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The productive way to solve this problem would be to go ahead and propose the context for the source's use, right? Zad68 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I do not have time just at the moment - I am too busy answering questions about why I am putting forward sources for possible inclusion.DrChrissy(talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
"How can you possibly know what I want to include." Precisely. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Dodgy authors (sources of equally lukewarm supportive studies on the canonical quackery that is homeopathy), dodgy journal, equivocal findings, adds nothing new because it basically shows that th emore convincing your placebo, the less well acupuncture "works" - which we already know. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about the authors, although you seem to have knowledge about them you might wish to share. As for "dodgy journal", is it WP:MEDRS compliant? Yes/no? DrChrissy(talk) 22:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
PLoS One may or may not be reliable, depending on the content. PLoS Medicine is reliable. The authors of this paper are long-time SCAM proponents; their presentation of data is honest enough but they have a tendency to spin the conclusions and abstracts. Their recourse to "more research is needed" for treatments where a couple of centuries of research have consistently failed to produce a robust result, for example. Lewith and Witt are hoemopathy believers, a sure sign of inadequate critical faculties. On the plus sidePLoS is trying to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to send that url?DrChrissy(talk) 10:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
JzG, that might be the case indeed, I don't doubt about that. The talk page is, however, running a risk to turn into a forum instead of discussion about the article content. Anyway, you seem to have a lot of opinions, but mostly you are not supporting them by any sources and there is a risk that someone might mistake those as given facts. Please remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The solution to that is obvious: DrChrissy can propose actual edits rather than simply a list of (mainly junk) articles found via Google or whatever. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source (ii)
Reliable source (ii)
This source[61] seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article.DrChrissy(talk) 15:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Source and content, please. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am under no obligation to provide content - I am simply indicating to other editors this appears to be a WP:MEDRS compliant article.DrChrissy(talk) 15:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not under an obligation, no, but we can all do a google scholar search. You've opened something like 10 sections for these. If your hope was just to list sources without proposing any changes to the article, can you do that all in one section, please? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My hope is that editors will point out that an entire source is notWP:MEDRS compliant before other editors naively use them and perhaps damage the article. I have placed each one as a separate thread in the anticipation that there will be different reasons for why the sources are not compliant. This seems to be working above - note the discussion on impact factors about one of the suggested sources.DrChrissy(talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, this is getting very tiring. It's blatant IDHT behavior. You have been requested many times, including here, to provide context. A source is not reliable or unreliable on a standalone basis. It depends on how it is to be used. We even use blacklisted sources as RS on occasion!
Your refusal to provide context when requested is very uncollaborative. If you do this again, anyone here would be correct to collapse your request as a talk page violation until you provide context. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just why are people so against me providing potential sources...what is the problem with that? Nobody has to answer or do anything about it - the potential sources can just sit there in the Talk page, not affecting content, waiting for editors to come and use them. Is this against any policy or guideline?DrChrissy(talk) 17:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what to tell you. Many editors have asked you not to do this - in fact, it appears in every single section. You can just ignore us all if you want, but that's not a great way of collaborating. Posting some random source without any commentary or content proposal each in a new section isn't an effective way of improving the article, and repeatedly engaging in behavior several editors have told you is unhelpful quickly becomes disruptive. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) What is wrong with people asking you to provide the context for a source you're describing as "reliable", which is something required by policy to determine whether it is indeed reliable? Zad68 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with making the request, but that does not mean I have to do what you and others are trying to bully me into. Please indicate which policy or guideline I am contravening.DrChrissy(talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It is routine for editors to just drop a quick line on the Talk page with a potential source without other editors demanding they provide more information. I have done this many times and in some cases seen editors follow up on a very good source I found, that I knew wouldn't otherwise be found, but didn't have time to incorporate. OTOH, it is pretty obnoxious to create a dozen sections on the Talk page with each one just mentioning some random source. I get the sense there is a strong desire to bully this editor.
In any case, I see that the journal is peer-reviewed and appears to be a secondary source (review article). Does anyone have access to its impact score? This particular study found that 80% of studies found acupuncture reduced pain and 60% found it increased heat tolerance (or something like that). CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed some of the author's names such as Shin Takayama, Michael Simang, Takashi Seki. See Acupuncture#cite_ref-Ernst2012_77-0 for more information on Chinese authors. Could this be a red flag? QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We should document the debate, stating that Western reviews tend to show negative results, while Eastern ones show positive results and why they each dispute the others' results. We do not operate on the ethnocentric assumption that the US is correct. That being said, we would need different sources that state this directly and this source could play a role as part of that debate, with various points and counter-points being aruged.
Personally, I probably won't have time to look at this kind of stuff for a while though. I'd like to work on the Regulation section later this week - currently exclusively cited to primary sources and not in WP:Summary style given there is a sub-article. People tend to focus excessively on whatever is controversial, but there's plenty of boring stuff that needs working on. CorporateM (Talk) 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I am waiting for them to release a paper on this. QuackGuru, please bear in mind though, that Wikipedia is not a blog where we invite people to share their thoughts that have not (yet) been able to pass the scientific process. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Presuming the sources accurately reflect the current article-text, the dynamic appears to be supported by RS', hence the link provided by the OP. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relevance unclear, journal questionable and prone to publishing bollocks. Exclude unless there is reference in reliable independent sources that attests to the reliability and significance of this finding. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "prone to publishing bollocks"...it is not a phrase I have come across in articles regarding assessing the reliability of sources. Perhaps this is OR?DrChrissy(talk) 22:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion here. This is very well known among those familiar with the medical literature. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it would help the discussion flow better if you did not such medical jargon as per WP:Jargon. It could be considered disruptive.DrChrissy(talk) 09:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Bollocks is not medical jargon, it is a British English colloquialism. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source? (iii)
This source[62] seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article.DrChrissy(talk) 20:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Explore? Are you serious? Being published in Explore is more or less a guarantee that something is false or profoundly dubious. The editor is bloody Dean Radin, for FSM's sake.
You appear to be engaging in a dumpster-dive of epic proportions. While you're at PLoS, read this: [63]. It is far and away the most cited and influential paper on PLoS Medicine. It explains a big chunk of PLoS One and pretty much all of Explore. Read it fully. We'll wait. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is the journal WP:MEDRS compliant - yes/no?DrChrissy(talk) 22:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Were the studies were placebo controlled? I can't tell from the abstract. Any citations to the review yet? What's the impact factor of the journal? If you answer those questions you'll be well on your way to figuring out how high on the MEDRS scale it comes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: Chrissy's comment seems civil enough and does not provide any justification to ABF. I'm not sure I understand why you would tell them they are engaging in a "dumpster-dive of epic proportions" or make sarcastic, scoffing comments about whether they are serious. I don't know anything about this journal, but I've certainly seen editors do much worse and be treated with respect, patience, guidance and healthy debate.
Chrissy, you've already been asked repeatedly to stop making a dozen separate sections for every source you want to suggest; can you knock it off? You can always just start a string on sources, then suggest them one at a time in the same section. CorporateM (Talk) 05:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
ABF has nothing to do with it. I am just astounded that anybody would propose Explore as. Source for anything, let alone a medical claim. This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Nobody who is even slightly familiar with the field of pseudoscience or pseudo medicine would make such a proposal. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:CorporateM Thanks for the advice - will follow this in the future.DrChrissy(talk) 09:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@User:JzG Your comment here[64] is inaccurate and contravenes WP:Civil. Please strike this comment.DrChrissy(talk) 10:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggested the source above[[deprecated source?] for the following reasons -
It is relevant to the article
It is an established journal (estb. 2005)
It is recent (2015) (actually it is In press)
It is a systematic review
It is a meta-analysis
The authors appear to have appropriate qualifications
It is indexed to MEDLINE
I believe this makes it WP:MEDRS compliant. I checked these all before I suggested the source.DrChrissy(talk) 10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I pointed out the by now obvious fact that you lack an understanding of the medical literature in general, and the literature on SCAM in particular. For example, you proposed Explore as a source - it is utterly worthless, and well known to be so by anybody with even passing familiarity wiht the subject. This supports my view that your lack of knowledge of the field is contributing to an excessive volume of naive errors. The number of rejected requests you've made should, by now, have alerted you to this problem. I did not call you a racist or anything else unacceptable due to policy, I merely pointed out that your lack of understanding of the subject area is causing you to fall flat on your face pretty much every time. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "rejected requests"?DrChrissy(talk) 11:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I repeat - is this source WP:MEDRS compliant? If it is not, please tell me why not. It is indexed to MEDLINE which according to WP:MEDRS indicates it is a reliable source. I am using WP guidelines when I suggest sources. Please enlighten us why you consider this journal is not reliable. Where on Wikipedia are there guidelines to support your statements, or is this just your opinion?DrChrissy(talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy as has already been explained to you, a source cannot be determined to be "reliable" without the context of the actual content proposed that uses the source. What is the content you are proposing using this source?
Also, are you trying to make a point regarding WP:MEDRS using this source, or do you genuinely believe this source to be "WP:MEDRS compliant" (for an unspecified use, but assumed to be for sourcing biomedical content based on your mention of MEDRS)? This is a genuine question to you, I look forward to reading your detailed answer. Zad68 12:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have already stated that I am in agreement that the reliability of a source is dependent on context. The question I asked above is whether this source is WP:MEDRS compliant? If it is not, please tell me why not. There is no point in me proposing content if this source is not compliant.DrChrissy(talk) 13:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It is an unfortunately popular misconception that "reliability" is an intrinsic property of a given source or publication, rather than dependent on context—how and where that publication is intended to be used on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS compliance isn't a binary judgement, and how a source is evaluated under MEDRS depends on the context. (For example, it is popular to mis-apply MEDRS' five-year rule of thumb as a hard-and-fast criterion, with unfortunate results. In a very active field, a four-year-old review could have been repeatedly superseded by more recent, better-quality reviews; in a less-active but well-established area, a six-year-old review may still accurately reflect the gold standard for treatment and knowledge. Articles published in May 2010 aren't magically MEDRS-compliant this month and MEDRS-noncompliant next month. It appears that you're making a similar sort of binary judgement error above, where you presume that anything indexed in MEDLINE is automatically "reliable".)
Don't be coy, and don't waste the time of other editors by not giving them enough information to make an informed judgement about your question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
What TenOfAllTrades said. This smacks of JAQing off by now. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand the hostility. The proposed content to be added should be obvious - Chrissy wants to add the results of the study. Regarding competence, editors are not required to have any knowledge of the subject to contribute. On the contrary, contributing to subjects you know nothing about is a good way to learn about them and this is a healthy motive for editing. I know nothing about the subject, except that it involves putting needles in your body and is associated with Asian heritage dating back to the pre-BC era. Am I not allowed to edit since I am unfamiliar with the subject? On the contrary, I would say I am an ideal person to edit, because people who are familiar with the subject usually have an opinion already that skews their editing. CorporateM (Talk) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy: I notice you didn't reply to my comment above. Have you actually read the full-text of this review? As others have said, it's not a yes/no decision. You just have to evaluate the quality of the source. I agree with CorporateM that the hostility isn't helpful. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher. Thank you for your civility. The answer is No, I have not yet read the full article. However, I would point out that I have brought the article to the Talk page for discussion. I have not attempted to enter this as content on the article page, and I would much prefer to read the entire article if I was to edit the article using this source.DrChrissy(talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, taking a quick look at this paper: journal has a low impact factor (0.935), article has zero citations, and I'm guessing the studies are uncontrolled. Any one of these would be a mark against using it as a MEDRS reference. We do sometimes use brand new reviews with zero citations, but generally only if we know they are very high quality (e.g. Cochrane review or similar). --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The journal may have a low impact factor but impact factor does not appear in any guidelines/policies as a method of judging the quality of an article within the journal. ...and then you are "guessing" there are no conrols to the studies...is this a robust way to approach indicating to other editors the suitability of a source? I have tried to use Cochrane reviews to edit this article but they have been rejected as sub-standard.DrChrissy(talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No, of course I don't think it's appropriate to guess about the studies -- that's why I was asking you. You're the one who wanted to add this review, so you really should have read it. MEDRS says "Determining the reliability of any individual journal article may also take into account whether the article has garnered significant positive citations in sources of undisputed reliability". It doesn't mention about impact factor, but I see you've already started a discussion on that in the "identifying reliable sources" project talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
At this stage, I did not actually want to add the review, I wanted to bring it up for discussion. That is why the first sentence of this thread is a question. As I am sure you are aware, only the abstract of many science articles on the internet can be viewed. It is permissible to introduce content from viewing the abstract alone, but I think most careful editors would prefer to see the entire article. I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring up the question about the article on the Talk page without having read the entire article. Isn't this one of the functions of a Talk page?DrChrissy(talk) 10:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Not without an indication of precisely what material you want to support with the source. It's impossible to make a specific statement about the suitability of a source without knowing what it's going to be used for.—Kww(talk) 11:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we not even say whether it is WP:MEDRS compliant?DrChrissy(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out above, this source has some problems, so it's probably safe to say it fails MEDRS unless someone has a good argument as to why it should be included. The question is: why are you trying to include studies that say acupuncture works, regardless of quality? Is it because you believe acupuncture works, and you want the article to reflect this? Really you should be looking for high quality reviews that only look at placebo (sham) controlled studies, rather than believing junky science because it fits your preconceived notion that acupuncture works. Any acupuncture trial that doesn't have a sham control is junk science. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
