Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.
I have fully protected the article for two weeks to prevent any further problematic editing. This will allow discussion to take place without a background of edit-warring on the page itself. Any uncontroversial changes to the article (spelling, grammar etc.) may be requested here by using the template {{Edit fully-protected}}. Black Kite (talk)18:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The emerging scientific consensus is that acupuncture is bullshit, as you see by the ever lengthening list of conditions for which it is definitively established to be ineffective. Needless to say the cult responds with more pseudoscience. The experience of homeopathy indicates this will work for maybe a decade. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I see, though, that they have snuck one in there. The reason why acupuncture is a pseudoscience is NOT because its mechanics are unknown or achieved using an alternative model of the human body, but because it doesn't demonstrate efficacy. If there was an effect, we would still be able to use the scientific toolbox refining it even when the actual mechanic was absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.11.207 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost. Lack of demonstrated efficacy is also not enough. Demonstrated inefficacy is, and demonstrated conflict with accepted knowledge is an added bonus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Determined promotion in the face of lack of proven efficacy is what defines quackery. Pseudoscience is when the True Believers then start trying to produce sciencey-looking evidence to support their pre-existing beliefs. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(partial cross-post to COIN ) True Believers like the fringe, unreliable National Academy of Medicine, for example (summary, discussion). This qualified endorsement (which represents the US National Academies' position on pain management) demolishes the idea that there's sci consensus that acu is bullshit, pseudoscience et cetera; it's obviously much more complicated than that. (If anything, a statement by a sci academy of unsurpassed authority represents a sci consensus on the matter, or at least the majority view which should probably be stated in WP's voice, with wholesale dismissals of acu qualifying as a minority view.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it singular how when a practitioner of quackery promotes a source as "unsurpassed" it always, purely by coincidence happens to be an outlier in making confident statements in favour of their quackery, rather than the vastly less confident statements in the majority of sources. The National Academies have been assiduously lobbied by acupuncturists and other quacks looking to sell their bullshit into the VA, for decades. It is hardly surprising that this results in in-universe descriptions of quackery appearing in their publications. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Guy: NAM isn't the kind of source that outlies; rather, it shifts the center of gravity. Except here it doesn't contradict anything, because it doesn't assert efficacy. It basically says no evidence for efficacy (i.e. real acu > sham acu) and then says acu is a "powerful tool" in pain treatment anyway. That stance is fully consistent with the extent of acu's adoption clinically, where the choice is "acu or not?", not "real acu or sham acu?". As for NAM being lobbied, let's see a source for that, and per PARITY it'll need to be strong. Aside re "unsurpassed": On CAM article talk pages, I've used that term for three things: Ernst as a CAM expert, meta-analyses (as a genre) as MEDRS for efficacy, and the NAM for position statements on medicine. In each case one could make a decent argument that rather than "unsurpassed", the better term is "unequaled". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The information in the first part of the NAP source based on research this century seems to be mostly in line with what we have in the article now. Some studies show no benefit over placebo, some find a modest improvement over placebo, and others find the data insufficient to go either way. All of this is using qualifying language like "it has been shown", "studies suggest", "also has been suggested" to make clear that these are observations and not findings. The paper is interesting in this respect I guess but I am not sure what wording we could use. "The NAP notes that some studies sugest" to be honest I think we are fine use that in Wikipedias voice even without the NAP. I'll add my thoughts on the second part later.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it is a good use of time to analyze that source without knowing exactly what you want to use it for. You should start a new section with the wording you want to use if you are looking to build consensus for an edit. I don't agree with you though that the source is an endorsement matter of fact I think it is being very careful not to endorse it. Just look at the paragraph above to see the kind of wording you would expect in an endorsement.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
NAM summary paragraph: Nonpharmacologic interventions for pain treatment, including acupuncture, physical therapy and exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and mindfulness meditation, also are powerful tools in the management of chronic pain. Many are components of successful self-management. While further research is needed for some nonpharmacologic interventions to better understand their mechanism of action and optimal frequency and intensity, they may provide effective pain relief for many patients in place of or in combination with pharmacologic approaches.
Actually I don't think it is a good use of time to analyze that source without knowing exactly what you want to use it for. You should start a new section with the wording you want to use if you are looking to build consensus for an edit. I don't agree with you though that the source is an endorsement matter of fact I think it is being very careful not to endorse it. Just look at the paragraph above to see the kind of wording you would expect in an endorsement.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Nordic Countries
This content (including all five Nordic countries, though less so in Finland.) from the adoption section does not seem to follow from this source and should probably be removed. The source discussing all types of CAM and only looked at patient with Multiple Sclerosis.
I'd exclude this - the fact of being used for a thing where it does not work only adds confusion. And an internet survey is scarcely a robust mechanism. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes we can if it is a reality-based assessment of efficacy. Remember, we are talking here about something that has no plausible mechanism and which doesn't actually work for the cited condition (or indeed any other). Guy (Help!) 13:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As long as we specify it's just MS (and otherwise represent the source properly) I don't believe there's a problem. It's still relevant to CAM adoption even if we don't yet know the fuller picture, condition-wise. (Also, controlling for condition treated can afford more rigorous comparisons across countries. Which is not our goal -- just saying it appears to be a solid piece of research.)
Discussing multiple CAM's is OK as long as the source breaks down each CAM specifically, as this source does (see e.g. the first sentence in the abstract, and Table 2). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem, because it's the argumentum ad populum. The fact that people use SCAM doesn't make the SCAM legitimate, but is often interpreted as doing so by the lay public, with the eager prompting of SCAM vendors. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC) more, 13:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The point is that quacks use the circular and fallacious argument that X is popular therefore X must work, therefore we should promote it so it remains popular, and we can continue to claim it works, even though there is no reason to suppose it should work, no plausible mechanism by which it should work, and no good evidence it does work. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
But we do exclude things if they are superfluous. If the article already says in so many words that acupuncture is used widely although it does not work, why mention that in country X, person Y uses it against Z against which it does not work? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
By that argument we'd be omitting a lot of sources on sociology of religion (plenty awfulness there) just because they lack independent commentary saying it's bullshit. Scholars often refrain from such polemic -- what would be the point? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC); abridge 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC), ce 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of sources make clear that religions deal in myths, there is no special reason to debunk "born of a virgin" in order to call it myth. "Virgin birth is a myth" is WP:BLUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If only there were such sources for CAM. Really? Any source on adoption has to say "oh and it's BS", as if all our other critical sources aren't enough? (note, I agree there may be other issues w/ the source under discussion)--Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a primary source that not only speaks just about MS, but only contacted people in MS societal groups to take the survey. I don't think the entry "one study found some evidence that members of the MS society in Finland are less likely to use acupuncture than other Nordic countries" is a useful addition to this article.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Saying, with a perfectly good RS, that acupuncture is a popular CAM in Europe is not argumentum ad populum. Why? Because we're not also saying "therefore, X proposition (say, acu is awesome) is true". It's just a simple fact -- per source, acu is a popular CAM in Europe, full stop. Hence my disagreement with this revert. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Being true doesn't make it any less a fallacious appeal to popularity. Forty billion flies can't be wrong, and all that. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
That's the point Guy: there is no appeal to popularity in the source (or how it's cited); the report takes a dim view of unproven treatments. (edit: at least parts of it do.) Description ≠ prescription. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC); add "(edit:....)" qualification, 23:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a great way to reduce the drama: suggest edits on Talk and let someone else review them and make them. That is how we handle conflicts of interest on Misplaced Pages. You have a vested interest in the content of this article, so make yourself look better by not editing it directly. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with "the other Guy" on this. Even if you can edit in the area where you have a COI (which is disputed) that doesn't mean that you should. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
(Preceding three comments are frankly out of place; I've commented at my user talk here.) The question is whether this is a good edit. IOW, whether the statement " is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" can be properly sourced to Ramsay 2009, p.45, which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/, and herbal medicine". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
My removal had nothing to do with RS but was based on the content being undue. The source is about Canada and the content is about Europe. That is already a red flag that cherry picking is going on. Second European Acupuncture was part of a list an not even mentioned by itself. Lastly, the wording was almost a complete rehash of the source. If that is the best paraphrasing you can do then probably you are doing something wrong.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, your concern isn't RS, it's NPOV, which UNDUE is part of: specifically, representing all sig views on a topic. How does that bear here?
1) Citing uncontroversial info, Ramsay compares Canada with Europe; how is the Europe info any less citeable than the Canada info?
2) What's wrong with being part of a list in this context -- if a source says the top-selling singers in 2018 were A, B and C, is that inferior to an equally-good source presenting the same info as three separate sentences?
3) And why does closeness of paraphrasing matter as long as it's accurate and not a copyvio?
I don't find your argument convincing for the reasons I have already stated, o I don't see any value in going back and forth with you. As it seems that Guy and Alex agree with me,and so far no one has agreed with you,consensus is to leave it out for the time being. You are certainly welcome to open an RFC or to wait on more input.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned by the accent of the "pesudoscience" aspect weighed in the article. It is a well-known fact that a.p. is a form of alternative medicine but it seems like this article was written as an attempt to disprove it by skeptoscience, pointing out inconsistencies in studies instead of describing its methods and goals (and their means). Reading through the whole article, I barely resist the urge to change the title to "the pseudoscience of acupuncture". kuchesezik 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It isn't skeptoscience. It's science. The science says that acupuncture works exactly as well as any other placebo, that the results are exactly the same no matter where you put the needles, and that the results are exactly the same whether you put the needles in or just pretend to. We aren't trying to disprove acupuncture. We are trying to write an article that accurately reflects what the WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say, which is that acupuncture doesn't work. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
What The Other Guy™ said. We are not trying to disprove acupuncture. Science has done that pretty well, actually, and that is right and proper: the job of science is explicitly to try to disprove a hypothesis - what Huxley described as "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." That's why acupuncturists' studies which set out to prove it, are legitimately characterised as pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You "Guys" are saying that "science says" something that *some* scientific studies have concluded, but not all. It's pretty unscientific to say things like "science (as if it were an entity) has this very simple judgement about this pretty complicated topic". Its silly, and people that come to the article recognize that the tone of the article is cartoonish in its amplification of few voices (Ernst and Novella).Herbxue (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.
