Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 7

Blood and bleeding; Deadman and acupuncture.com
Blood is a central concept in acupuncture, and without a traumatic physical injury, is rarely seen other than in menstruation or coming from the mouth or nose. Sourced by Peter Deadman’s summary at Acupuncture.com, the following illustrates the kind of reasoning in TCM acupuncture, and illustrates how incommensurable it is with western ideas – "”It is believed that liver fire rushes upwards and scorches the lungs, injuring the blood vessels and causing severe bleeding from the mouth and nose, and that acupuncture treats bleeding from the mouth or nose. It is believed that vomiting of blood is caused when heat in the lung causes qi to flow to the stomach, which is also treated with acupuncture. ”" Deadman wrote a text on acupuncture, A Manual of Acupuncture which has these are typical comments about it, “The Bible of Acupuncture!”, “The Deadman text is required by most TCM schools.”, and “This book is not a manual of acupuncture, it is THE manual.” Deadman also wrote The Journal of Chinese Medicine, described as “The premier English language journal in the field of Chinese medicine”. Since Deadman writes for Acupuncture.com, which is easily accessable to users with a link, I propose that, in the case that content at Acupuncture.com is by Deadman, that Acupuncture.com be considered RS (not just a "random website" when Deadman is the author there) about practices, beliefs, and reasoning of some English speaking practitioners when the material posted there is from Deadman. PPdd (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Luke643, I note above that you also find Deadman authoritative as a spokesperson for TCM and acupuncture position. PPdd (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are asking more than one question. Yes, the concept of blood in western terms, and that in TCM is very different. Go to Macciocia, Foundations of Chinese Medicine, p.60. All terms that also exist in western medicine are capitalized in tcm so as to avoid confusion.  Liver with a capital L is not the same as the organ liver, Blood is different that blood, etc.  They are all defined and discussed in textbooks I have listed above.  As far as Deadman's writings on the website being considered an RS, I have no idea, WLU seems to be the person to answer this.  I still need to get the hand of what exactly an RS is.  Are books, that are not available on the internet a RS?  Also, is there a clear directory where one can look up more in depth wiki rules?  I see all the links you are posting for helping me out with wiki rules are not in one directorySoll22 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no central directory that I know of, but there are hundreds or thousands of policies and guidelines. Try WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:MOS, and WP:OR for starters. These are some of the most commonly referred to. I created the directory to WP:MOS specialized guidelines which appears at the top of WP:MOS (which is called a WP:HAT). I called the directory Manual of Style (list of specialized Manual of Style articles). As you can see if you click on it, there are hundreds or more sub-guidelines just for this one MOS guideline! People who read all this stuff are called WikiLawyers. WikiLawyers are generally ignored under the Doctrine of Absurdity, and are about as well liked as regular lawyers. There is also WP:IAR, which, if you use it, everyone will ignore your arguments. PPdd (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question, is Deadman, when he writes @ acupuncture.com, RS for some beliefs and practices? PPdd (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @PPdd - yes, certainly. The situation is similar to the one described in WP:RS (or a related page) where an expert writes something on a blog. Deadman is reliable for TCM theory and practice, yes.  Not for stuff like history or biomedicine. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The total list of policies and guidelines can be found at WP:P&G. WP:SIMPLE is probably a good starting point.  Both are linked in my signature.  The essential criteria for a reliable source is the reputation of the publisher for fact checking and accuracy.  Specific questions and disagreements can be addressed to the larger community at the reliable sources noticeboard.  For any medical claims, WP:MEDRS applies.  Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources - primary sources are first-hand accounts (the standard examples are witness statements, and for scientific papers, a single, or set of experiments reported in an article).  Secondary sources summarize primary sources to come to a conclusion (review articles, books, meta-analyses, probably most non-scientific peer-reviewed articles would count, but would be more limited in scope than, say, a scholarly book).  Tertiary sources are things that summarize secondary sources - encyclopedias.  They are useful for extremely basic information, but otherwise are generally not considered a good place to seek more detailed information.  Individual experts publishing on website and other areas where they are the sole arbiters of the content are not normally seen as reliable sources because of the lack of oversight.  The exception is for fringe claims, things like "UFOs are real", "HIV doesn't cause AIDS", "the world was created in seven literal days by YHWH and dinosaurs were placed by the devil to lead Christians astray".  For FRINGE articles, web postings are more acceptable, particularly from reputable scholars.  I would consider it extremely unlikely that on this page a personal website, even of Edzard Ernst, would be considered appropriate or even useful.  Expertise is seen as localized or focused - historians and history journals tend to carry more weight for history, doctors and medical journals for health, and for criticisms of fringe concepts like much of CAM there are specific journals that critically examine the issues.  CAM is itself problematic because there are a large number of "peer reviewed" journals whose standards are low and there is no challenge to much of the credulous baggage that tends to accompany CAM.
 * It doesn't matter if a book or article is freely available or not (see, for instance, WP:PAYWALL). Information must be reliably sourced, not easily accessible.  For many of these points and sources, a trip to a university library may be required.  I do most of my book reading in physical books, and if I can find a google books preview, I like to include the page number and url as part of the page = field in the cite book template.
 * There are not hundreds of guidelines, but there are a lot of them. Many do not apply because of the nature of this article.  The core polices and guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:ENC and WP:NOT are "must reads" for this page, and the secondary of WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:PSTS would probably help.  Acupuncture is not as simple as many pages because it is based on unsubstantiated mysticism, but is taken seriously by medical researchers.  There are always ways to mediate disputes - there are noticeboards, requests for comments, actual mediation, even arbitration.  There is a lot of wasted space spent on debate here, when it should be about sources.  However, if someone comes up with an unsourced, illogical propaganda point - i.e. "big pharma, therefore acupuncture works" - I make a point of illustrating that it is stupid and wrong.  But we would save much time by not having those debates - instead, contested points should be identified, the sources reviewed, the wording adjusted to ensure it is fair and accurate, and then move on.  Rarely would it be acceptable to remove a source for "ideological reasons" (i.e. an editor doesn't like it), but they can be qualified, supplemented, and in rare cases eliminated because further information renders the point moot (i.e. research from the 1980s is often irrelevant because newer information is available).  I quote as many policies as I think apply when I post on the talk page, I do this for a reason - it should save time if ultimately everyone is working from the same understanding of how wikipedia functions.  Please refer to them and base arguments on them, and on sources.
 * No, a website even written by Deadman would not be a reliable source in my opinion (per WP:SPS). The thing about experts is, they tend to get their information from sources, and write about them.  If Deadman believes something enough to write a blog article about it, he has probably written a book or journal article about it.  If a webpage can be replaced by a book, it should nigh-always be replaced by a book.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @WLU -- WP:SPS has an explicit exception for authorities like Deadman: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't think that could be any clearer: Deadman, writing on a website, is an RS for TCM.  Besides, the page in question says at the bottom:  "The material presented in this article is taken from the textbook A Manual of Acupuncture and originally appeared in The Journal of Chinese Medicine."  So, yeah, he did write a book about it, and ideally we should cite the book, plus the website as a convenience link.  --Middle 8 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The deadman book is authoritative for the theory of Acupuncture in Chinese Medical terms, and for how Acupuncture is taught in America. What was the question though?Luke643 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are reliable source and can a webpage be used. Deadman's book is probably OK. Reviewing the actual webpage, it's making medical claims about how to treat nosebleeds, coughing blood, irregular menstruation, vomiting blood, blood in the stool. You need a better source for that, and to claim effectiveness, you need actual research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about for what it believes it treats, and the theory of why it believes so (e.g., "liver fire shcorches lungs, and that's why some acupuncturists think you get nosebleeds, or are vometing blood", if Deadman wrote it, but put what he wrote at a major website like acupuncture.com? PPdd (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, and this is a personal opinion based on experience, not something I can justify through a clear reference to a policy, that comes across far too much as an implied "look how stupid practitioners are" example. Irrespective, the website would be insufficient even if it's called acupuncture.com.  There's no world-wide authority or governing body that establishes universally-recognized, authoritative guidelines that I'm aware of (how could you when your practice is not evidence based?) meaning we're stuck with books.  That's also a lot of detial on one particular condition or set of conditions.  Acupuncture may have a set of diseases it thinks it can treat, that doesn't mean we should note every single one of them and the specific explanation for each.  Particularly since the explanation makes them look bad, makes no sense in terms of knowledge of modern anatomy, and is just justified by reference to a webpage.  I think it reads like nonsense, reflects badly on the person saying so, is excessive detail, is an unreliable source, but overall I can not point to a clear rule that forbids it.  I would much rather leave it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By not putting things in the article that describe standard thinking practices, one is left with a misleading air of scientific legitimacy after reading the article (I was when I first read it). When I read the article, then read the following in the Journal of Chinese Medicine, I was surprised, indicating a defect in the Wiki article in describing the thinking that goes on in TCM acupuncture. "Liver fire rushes upwards and scorches the Lung, injuring the blood vessels and giving rise to reckless pouring of blood from the mouth and nose." The wiki article as it is gives a reader the impression that acupuncture is 95% about treating psychological conditions like pain or nausea, that there have been a huge number of (poorly designed) scientific oriented studies on acupuncture, yet no conclusion can be drawn about whether acupunture works. In the literature, there are two classes of claims, one psychological, the other physical, and the latter is much more commonly treated. Also, blood seems to be the central objective term universally appearing in each diagnosis (unless one translates qi as "breath"). Breath, blood, food, and excrement are about all one can objectively see going in or out of the body. In the absense of of dissection, about the only things left to look at are pulse, breath, skin, in the mouth (toungue), eyes (which do not change much), and behaviour. I think the practices section should be kept concise, but include objective and easily measured physical claims and their bases, in addition to the overwhelming discussion on psychological pain, or things that are among the most difficult things in medicine to measure. PPdd (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to admit, I'm making the best case I can but it's not unambiguous. In my mind we should illustrate what is scientifically legitimate by citing reliable sources that support, and fail to support or criticize TCM and acupuncture.  I still think that webpage is not reliable.  If you can find an alternative, better source I would have less problem, but again, overall it's a case of editorial judgment.  If we are the only ones who feel strongly, we can seek a third opinion.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a much better source, as good as can be found for a modern source, and I highly qualified the sentence as to where the quote was coming from, and I did not bog things down with a new section for it. PPdd (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PPdd and WLU, I cannot find the page you are talking about at acupuncture.com, and PPddclicking on your citation does not give me a link. In any case discussing something that is not directly linked to the wiki entry seems to be filling up space and making this harder and harder to navigate.  I think Deadman's personal contributions to one website or another should not automatically be a RS.  Even experts can write poorly or from a personal standpoint, which is not necessarily what you want as an RS.   Deadman's book which is actually co-authored by two others, Kevin Baker, and Mazin Al-Khafaji (the  guy whose name no one can remember or pronounce) is industry standard teaching manual for master's level courses, therefore should clearly be RS, as per wiki RS, or even MEDRS.Soll22 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The link works fine for me. Try going to the journal itself, the then to its free sample articles, then a few pages into the lists of sample articles. Note that all articles in that journal either support acupuncture, or conclude that further research should be done, never that it did not work. And that confirmation bias to the hilt selectivity is the kind of study base Cochrane includes, if it asserts proper placebos or controls, there being such a paucity elsewhere. PPdd (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding questions about whether or not TCM is biomedical: obviously there is some overlap, but a fair treatment certainly involves delving into TCM-specific ideas to a far greater degree than we do on other pages. This would be true even if TCM acupuncture was only of historical interest, and is an issue that has come up with homeopathy and other alt-med topics that need to be properly depicted with respect to (bio)medicine. The second paragraph under WP:WEIGHT is key:
 * "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. ..."

The whole thing is a good read, but that's probably the most relevant part. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Middle 8, I am not sure that treating common symptoms, such as back pain, headache and nausea is enough to qualify tcm treatment as overlapping into biomedical.  I don't think these are specifically biomedical conditions they are symptoms.  I believe that a biomedical diagnosis, and a claim to treat biomedical diagnosis refers to a specifically medical diagnosis such as: herniated disc,  impeded cerebrovascular flow,  gastritis, etc.  Headache is a symptom, not a diagnosis.  It's very important that we clarify terms here through objective sources.    TCM diagnostics as they are charted can include  symptoms, but are never defined by symptoms.  A TCM diagnostic is strictly described  in terms of the organ/channel affected (the organ/channel as defined in TCM terms and Capitalized so as to not be confused with the biomedical term with the same name)  and the pathology of the organ/channel also in TCM terms (vacuity, excess, Fire, Heat, Damp, Cold, Wind).  TCM always treats the tcm diagnosis, and the same symptoms, such as headache can correspond to different diagnoses.   Therefore TCM does not treat biomedical conditions.   This is clearly stated in the scope of practice under licensing laws of each state.Soll22 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the legalisms are semantics, to a large degree, so that there's no technical "practice of medicine" by acupuncturists. We still are licensed (in some states) by State Boards of Medicine, we receive several hundred hours of training in basic biomedicine, and we are taught proper needling including anatomical contraindications and Clean Needle Technique, for which there is an exam (as you know if you're an acupuncturist).  It's a semantic issue; there is some overlap since anatomy and Clean Needle Technique enter into the practice of acupuncture (TCM or otherwise).  Why does this matter?  Even given the overlap, we don't need to use MEDRS's for TCM-specific issues.  I think what we (should) do is use WP:RS, and work out a de facto "TCMRS" standard, e.g., relying on stuff the NCCAOM cites for its exams (hence Deadman etc.).  What issues am I missing? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Middle 8 that is a genius idea. We should try to define TCMRS standard, as RS's specific for TCM, as something distinct from MEDRS, or RS of other alternative medicines since TCM has this specific problem of using some common language to the medical profession, yet, diagnosing and treating in complete TCM language.    Yes, that is what I have been trying to say that we don't need MEDRS's for TCM specific language.   Like Luke said yesterday, I also don't have a problem with discussing biomedical clinical trials - but not  woven in the context of parts that are strictly TCM.24.215.187.94 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC) that was meSoll22 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Science or marketing?
The chief editor of Acupuncture Today also happens to be the current director of marketing for the American Acupuncture Council. PPdd (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, PPdd, but I don't see how this relates to the article -- can you clarify? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Acupuncture in Lede
It is currently cited as both Medline Plus, and Dorland's. However, the text is the same as that which at least for the past two weeks has been cited as solely Dorland's Medical Dictionary from 1995. I introduced the Medline citation yesterday, but my text was removed, while the citation is still there. I believe it's a completely valid MEDRS, more valid than a MEDRS from 16 years ago, for those who wish to use MEDRS. I propose we use this text as a base for our introductory statement or definition:

"Acupuncture is the practice of inserting thin needles into specific body points to improve health and well-being. It originated in China more than 2,000 years ago. American practices of acupuncture use medical traditions from China, Japan, Korea and other countries. In the United States, the best-known type involves putting hair-thin, metallic needles in your skin.

Research has shown that acupuncture reduces nausea and vomiting after surgery and chemotherapy. It can also relieve pain. Researchers don't fully understand how acupuncture works. It might aid the activity of your body's pain-killing chemicals. It also might affect how you release chemicals that regulate blood pressure and flow." Medline Plus. Soll22 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be very careful about such attribution. That is indeed available from Medline Plus, but it is attributed there to the NIH: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It seems to be a two paragraph resume of this introduction. According to Medline Plus, that resume was written by the NCCAM, not by Medline Plus. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, the NIH has subsections. Each one deals with it's own fields of interest.  The NCCAM is the "The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on the diverse medical and health care systems", etc, etc..  Is there something wrong with the lead agency for "scientific research on the diverse medical and health care systems"?  It's an official definition accepted by the National Library of Medicine as an entry in Medline Plus Soll22 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is Veeeeeeeery long
This article is quite long. I like all of the content, so cannot suggest any proposals for deletion. One suggestion is to start a "Acupuncture History" article, but the problem with this is that it could become a WP:CONTENTFORK for POV stuff. If this could be controlled, then a very concise history section could remain in the article and it would reduce the size by 25% (alterntatively, with the history section, it is 33% longer <- how to lie with numbers). PPdd (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, so why are you proposing merging topics above? Seems like that should wait. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by acupuncture journals
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by acupuncturists is being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * PPdd, I don't think anyone on this page wants biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by acupuncturists. On the contrary, what we don't want is TCM conclusions "peer reviewed" by medical doctors with no training or understanding of TCM diagnostics and treatment.  If the rules work one way, it seems the the same logic should apply in the other direction.  A TCM or general conclusion would also include  general health which is not the exclusive domain of biomedicine, as we can tell from many dictionaries, both medical and non-medical.Soll22 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's be a bit more clear. "Peer review" means exactly that the reviewer is a member of the same group as the author, as opposed to "Board review" or "Expert review". "Traditional" means exactly that it conforms to an inherited tradition. The idea of applying peer review to traditional practice is a chronological impossibility. I can never be my great-great-grandfather's peer. However, in the sense that it is meant, we would expect that papers in TCM journals that are reviewed by fellow practitioners of TCM are RS for description of TCM practices and doctrine. We must, however, be very careful that we do not imply that doctrine to be based in physical reality without evidence based RS publications to back up those implications. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is the problem we are having. Some editors believe that simply stating TCM theory implies that it is verifiable in biomedical terms, and that it is a subtle POV issue, correct?  I believe that is a misreading of the NPOV idea.   When multiple, not just one source, but hundreds of sources, historical and modern talk about qi, channels and points and their applications for treatment for health and well being, this constitutes a significant field and the accepted definition of the field.  It is not POV in the sense that it shifts or skews the argument to any side.  It is NPOV in the objective presentation of a specific theory.  Simply presenting a theory does not endorse it.    Just as by saying United States is a democracy does not endorse the concept of democracy, does not endorse the United States, does not make any comment about the validity of being a democracy.  It  simply states  a fact.  I believe TCM theory and clinical practice should be presented as it is, according to it's foundation principles and current accepted practice modalities.  Simply presenting it does not constitute an endorsement.  Unless someone writes about qi in specifically biomedical terms and makes an assertion,  there is no conflict.  This subtle POV that some have implied comes across with concepts like qi, is excessive, and the  ramifications lead to the opposite of an NPOV, where you are stating what qi is not, and what acupuncture is not, in order to defend what anyone "might" misunderstand.Soll22 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Minority opinion?
Above talk page discussions have claimed that Matuk's paper is "opinion", and a minority opinion. As per the two other sources cited in addtion to Matuk, acupuncture meridian and point location is based on 12 rivers and 365 days corresponding to the human body, and that this corrrestpondence is, basically, superstitious numerological bunk. One source cited is the American Cancer Society, certainly not a "minority opinion". PPdd (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The blood circulates by mechanical action of the pumping of the heart, and is in no way "propelled" by a supernatural "spirit" (breath, or qi). That is not an opinion, but a fact, and is a fact believed by a majority, not a minority. PPdd (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. And what causes the heart the pump? Electrical impulses amongst a network of nodes, exactly the sort of thing that acupuncture is believed (by scientific research) to affect. Separately: anecdotal cases are common, of people 'holding on to life' or 'giving up the will to live' and their heart stopping. Sounds more like a 'qi shutdown' than a broken pump, to me.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no correspondence between anything in the human body and the number of rivers in China, no matter how they are counted, nor with the "number" of days in a year (which is not even a whole number - 365 1/4 acupuncture points? what is a 1/4 point?), and to believe there is is to hold a "mystical numerical association", "numerological", or "superstition". That is a fact, not opinion, and the belief in this fact is held by a majority, not minority. PPdd (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no super natural "qi energies" or "qi spirits" above or beyond natural laws of physics. That is a fact, not a "minority opinion". PPdd (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The currently known laws of physics, are well understood to be incomplete. (Relativity and quantum mechanics, are divergent in their formulae & predictions). Though "qi energies" do not appear to be highly relevant when engineering a bulldozer or a hydroelectric dam, their non-existence cannot be proved; nor can the laws of physics be stated to definitively exclude such. This is utter logical fallacy. Furthermore, reknowned physicists such as [Roger Penrose] have speculated that [quantum gravity] may be involved in the brain & consciousness. This would be almost directly analogous to "qi energy".Twhitmore.nz (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and stating what something is not, especially from a scientific perspective - also needs a clear citation and demonstration of proof. Qi has not been proved or disproved. Soll22 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Matuck's paper is not a minority opinion. It is actually well written and researched.  I made that statement when I had taken your citation in good faith.  It is actually incorrectly cited and misused in the entry.Soll22 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a summary sentence in the criticism section, with three sources, not one, which provide the context of Matuk's words. PPdd (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Matuk paper is an opinion, and among the total number of scholars discussing acupuncture, or even history of acupuncture, whether the specific fact of acupuncture points and meridians are related to numerology and rivers versus some physiological reality is probably an unsettled question. I've started reading Celestial Lancets by Needham & Lu, and it makes the point that the body was seen as a microcosm of the macrocosm, thus meridians were linked to and analogous with the rivers of China.  Needham & Lu mention one ancient source (Nei Ching) which said there were 365 points to correspond to the days of the year and degrees in the celestial circle, going on to say "...after the Han there was little emphasis on any theoretical total, and the idea lived on mainly as a venerable statement."  In other words, though it was often said the number of points was 365 to correspond to the days of the year, this was an abstract statement - N&L gives an actual number of 295 for that source.  Further, Matuk's point is less that the points and meridians were exactly correspondent to days in a year and rivers in China, and more that how the body was depicted diverged between China and the West due to the allowability of dissection.  In fact, Matuk states that there are 365 parts of the body, and  not  365 points.  Matuk can be used, but not to say, unequivocally, that the Chinese believed X.
 * How many times must I repeat that we edit with what the sources tell us, not our preconceived notions? This goes for everyone - the purpose of the page is not to debunk acupuncture, neither is it to promote it.  Science has not supported the existence of qi, meridians or acupuncture points, but that does not mean we do not give the best summary we can of what these beliefs mean.  History and medicine are different topics which require different expertise, this is a page that must be written carefully and without the grinding of axes.  I'm very tempted to simply walk away from this page for a couple months, then rewrite the whole damned thing when every one else has gotten bored or quit in disgust.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any other way of reading “There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints (or acupoints)... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – Ling Shu, other than that the number of points and meridians are based on numerology. The only alternative is that by coincidence, 365 came up some other way.
 * You should add on what you just found. I can't do it because I don't have your source. PPdd (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that if you're essentially continuing a previous comment, there's no reason to add another level of indent - it looks like a new reply someone forgot to sign.
 * There are many, many sources that discuss these points. I've only started reading the book.  I'm not putting anything else in unless I can clearly understand the content and context of the statement.  Needham would be seen as authoritative, and thus a great starting point - particularly because rather than simply throwing out comments, the book interprets, contextualizes and draws in multiple primary sources (in this case, ancient manuscripts).  Unlike A Study of Daoist Acupuncture & Moxibustion which you linked, Celestial Lancets is a primary study which attempts to interpret the meaning of texts within the context of the original culture (though there is some unfortunate attempts to map to modern understanding, which I will not be integrating).  A Study in contrast, is a look at acupuncture and moxibustion from a specific, daoist viewpoint.  In my mind there is a substantial difference between the two sources, with Needham & Lu being far more preferable.  I would only use A Study... for basic information that wasn't controversial, or for the daoist perspective.  Routledge is a respected publishing house, Needham is seen as the scholar of choice for Chinese history, making the book a better choice overall.  While A Study lays out that quote, Needham removes the need to interpret.  These are maddening issues to try to get across, and unfortunately a lot of it simply falls into the flawed bucket of "editorial judgement".  In my judgement, which is imperfect but experienced and informed in parsing multiple competing sources on contested pages, Celesital Lancets is almost certainly the best place to look for the basics of the history of acupuncture.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're actually reading that stuff, you have a much higher pain threshold than I. PPdd (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with WLU's reading of the correlation stuff... and I entirely concur with Needham being the "the" scholar. He had his flaws of course, but undeniably a great scholar.Luke643 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed conventions for using the term "acupunture" in the article

 * Per MOS, the lede fourth paragraph is straight out of the line cited RS material in the body.
 * To eliminate talk page arguments over semantics, I propose never using the term "acupuncture" in the article body; instead always qualify it with its usage per the RS inline citation.
 * (1) Use "traditional TCM acupunture" to refer to TCM based points.
 * (2) Use "penetrating needling" to refer to random points.
 * (3) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of TCM acupuncture point" when the RS uses "acupuncture" in this qualified usage.
 * (4) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of random points" when the RS talks about this.
 * (5) Use "placebo for traditional TCM point needling" for "random penetrating needling" as placebo, per the RS.
 * (6) Use "placebo random nonpenetrating needling as placebo for randon penetrating needling" per the RS.
 * (7) Use "placebo non-needling control" per the RS.
 * (8) Use "efficacy for all TCM claims" when appropriate.
 * (9) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of nausea)" for that specific kind of nausea.
 * (10) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of pain)" for that specific kind of pain.
 * (11) Use "significant efficacy" to distinguish from "minor efficacy".
 * (12) Never use "further study is needed".
 * Instead use "have an opinion that expenditure of limited medical research funds is merited" when the cited entity expresses a subjecive opinion and thinks further research funding is a good idea for limited available medical research funding.
 * Use "further study would have to be funded to draw conclusions" to express an objective fact from a MEDRS entity, when there is no opinion on the merits of spending limited medical research funding, but when no conclusions can be objectively drawn from what has been spent so far.


 * That is alot of conventions, but there are at least that many ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk. PPdd (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk.
 * Please suggest modifications to the list by number, or add to the list other ambiguities you have found in the article, which I have overlooked. PPdd (talk)

Size Conversion Error (I hope)
In the needles section of the page it states: "Needle diameters vary from 0.16 mm (0.63 in) to 0.46 mm (1.81 in), with thicker needles used on more robust patients."

I sincerely hope that 1.8 inch diameter needles are not used for this. I do not correct it myself because I do not know what the correct sizes are, at best I could only reconvert them.

Thank you 24.97.209.5 (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an error. I'll try to get the exact info.. thanks for pointing (excuse the pun) it out. I think 1.81 " would be more along the lines of an industrial rivet : o Soll22 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it to this "0.16 mm/0.0063 in to 0.35 mm/0.0137 in" based on the chart on this page  which I did not cite since it's a mix of informative and commercial.  I also did not preserve the conversion links but used the chart and a calculator. The needle guage chart is available on some needle boxes, and on all websites that sell needles.  The original citation, of 0.16 to 0.46 mm is not really accurate in terms of commercially available needles.  The lowest commonly produced commercial gauge is 0.35 mm.  I can't find an online reference site to cite for the info, besides browsing all the  acupuncture supply sites.Soll22 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the insertion of a 1.8 in needle painful? :) PPdd (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Other injury section lacks RS
There are several potential injuries cited, only one of them has a citation, the pneumothorax. The citation for sternum puncture is not a citation that has to do with acupuncture, but with sternum malformation. I don't want to take this down not sure of the protocol. The paragraph is also half accurate. What it doesn't state is that these types of injuries can only be due to improper needling technique. Needling technique in those areas is such that injuries in most cases are impossible. Deep needling at the base of the skull towards the skull and not downwards towards the cervical vertebrae is forbidden, contra-indicated, etc, so is perpendicular needling on the sternum. In these areas needling is oblique /subcutaneous not perpendicular in the flesh. All discussed in CAM, Deadman etc.Soll22 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a couple options, you can place tags around the unsourced statements, or - if you have reason to believe the statements are controversial or inaccurate - you can delete them using an edit summary like "unsourced". If possible, it's generally good etiquette to try and look for a source first prior to doing either of those. As for the other information, anything we have a source on which is relevant can go in that section, so if you have one, put it in. If there are problems with it, another editor will revert and discuss the issues. All the best,   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ok. what's the policy with making wiki links? I see that several terms like "nerve" or "stroke" are  linked.  To me that just makes the article harder to read - color change, slip of the fingers and you're off to another page. thanksSoll22 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Use of linking has its own mass of policies, guidelines, and essays. In general, if the term might not be known to a reader, leave the link, or add one if you think it is needed. In this case, if a middle school student was reading the article, they might not know what a nerve or a stroke is, but it is really just a matter of taste. More importantly, if a term is truly technical or not in common English usage, provide a quick plain English explanation of the term, in addition to the link. I found the excessive linking disrupted the flow of my reading when I first started reading Wikipedia. PPdd (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, the unspoken (maybe spoken?) rule is to link terms once in an article, but to leave the other references to it unlinked. More than that is typically seen as overlinking. Of course, there's no hard and fast (you will be jailed if you disobey) kind of rule for it, so if you run into a case where a term isn't properly described and should be linked, go for it. Just try to be conservative.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Adverse Events
I changed this sentence to :" "A 2010 systematic review found that acupuncture has been associated with a possible total of up to 86 deaths over the years surveyed, most commonly due to pneumothorax."

The original sentence was this: "A 2010 systematic review found that acupuncture has been associated with total of  86 deaths over the years surveyed, most commonly due to pneumothorax."

The abstract statement:

Results: Reports of 86 deaths after acupuncture were found. Many are incomplete and causality may therefore be occasionally uncertain.

It also states this, which in the abstract is given no evidence, therefore appears as the author's personal perspective and speculation and was not included: "Due to under-reporting, these reports are likely to merely describe the tip of a larger iceberg." Soll22 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like your change made it better and more accurate. PPdd (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also want to add a mini-"plain English" definition of pneumothorax, or at least create a link for it. I don't know what pneumothorax is. PPdd (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I noticed that pneumothorax is not mentioned in the abstract. Until we see that it's actually part of the article text, I'm not sure it would be ok to even leave pneumothorax in there. Anyone have a copy?Soll22 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a primary source for most of the above wording:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-9294.2010.01075.x/pdf

Most people associate pneumothorax with a big gaping wound to the chest, but apparently, at least according to this source, small acupuncture needles can result in a form of the life-threatening problem. A review would be better, for sure.Desoto10 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion from lead
I'd like to delete "No force corresponding to qi (or yin and yang) has been found in the sciences of physics or human physiology" from the lead as this is implicit in the earlier "...metaphysical energy known as qi." I know the latter doesn't cover yin and yang, but this is an article about acupuncture, and I'm thinking yin and yang are a bit tangental to acupuncture. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that. Believers won't notice anything that is implicit. Such a statement ("metaphysical energy") will only be understood by science-based thinkers (metaphysical=unproven=a red flag), and many laymen won't notice it either. Believers, by the very nature of belief, will usually equate their metaphysical beliefs with objective reality. It's common for there to be no sense in their minds of "I believe this, but it's not proven". To them it's the same thing, which is why they often make statements that are pseudoscientific in nature, which they will vigorously defend as scientific and proven. The phrase in question is very well sourced (5 refs) and I think the explicit statement is necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought yin and yang were central to acupuncture, not tangential. Its why qi meridians are poked at, in a belief that this will restore the balance of yin/yang. Isn't yin/yang imbalance that the whole idea of what acupunture is up to? And as just pointed out, how is a layperson who never took a physics class supposed to know what "metaphysical" refers to (even an expert may think it refers to ontology or epistemology, not the "supernatural"? PPdd (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. If it's not based on yin and yang, and on meridians, it's not "acupuncuture", but just needling. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shows how little I know about this belief system. I thought yin and yang was a fundamental of TCM, not peculiar to acupuncture, and this is an article about acupuncture. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to remain explicit. Per Celestial Lancets, yin and yang are quite central to acupuncture.  Acupuncture is a subset of TCM and the needles are used to manipulate qi, which is comprised of yin and yang.  The whole thing is confusing and unscientific, but there is definitely a relationship within the system.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthonycole, let me further clarify. There are the five Shen spirits - (Emporor, Will, Intellect, Etherial Soul, Corporal Soul), and the Emperor rules over the others as vassals. Because of this, there are five associated yin organ systems (Heart, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Lungs), and half of the 5 organ systems are yin-Solid, so the other half must be yang-hollow, and thus Five Phases for Five associated elements that make up everything (Earth Fire Water Metal Wood), all because there are Five associated planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), and of course, Five associated directions (North, East, South, West... ... uh, er, oh yeah, and Center of course), thus because there are Five Tastes (Bitter, Salty, Sweet, Sour, Pungent), they must all tie together, so because also there are 4 natures – (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool), and there are 12 rivers, 365 days so there are 12 meridians and 365 1/4 acupoints... or ... or ... lets make that 20 meridians, because of the number of organs systems, which is 5. There is also of course Blood, which sometimes flows in the wrong vessels so acupunture is needed, and the blood is self propeleed, not by the pumping of the heart, but by Qi, which balances the Yin and Yang that hold this sentence together, unless attacked by Pathogens with Toxicity, etc. Then there are relationships between each and every once of these things, and I will let you do the math on that. Anyway, all this gets figured out so you can tell if you need to ingest human feces decocted in licorice, or mercury, lead, strychnine, arsenic, and aconite with tiger's penis, or if you need to add some spirit of hanged criminal with unbrushed tooth scrapings and a some human breath, make sure the aconite was planted on the solstice so that it only grows while yin is ascending, and that your door to your house opens in the right direction, and don't go thinking a "point" is not 3-dimensional, or you might get confused again, and the acupuncture won't work.
 * There. Now its as clear for you as it is for me. (and I almost got it all exactly right, according to the ancients. How could knowledge that is 5,000 years old possibly be wrong?) :) PPdd (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And don't forget when yin and yang indicate acupuncture point 365 1/4 have mugwort burned on it until your skin blisters, that the Chinese Medical Herbology and Pharmacology notes that - flying squirrel feces has a "distinct odor" that "may decrease patient compliance" with ingesting it. :) PPdd (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing from the article - "wearing gloves is not mandatory"
wearing gloves is not mandatory, though they should be used when there is anticipated risk. Anyone know of an RS for this? PPdd (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! The UofM should be notified that their noticeboard is being misused to push pseudoscientific BS. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone is not professionally dressed. Too much skin showing. The emperor’s new clothes.

 * Some new editors at TCM/Acupuncture related articles only became editors because they contend the new age dress style of the moxibustion provider showed at right showed too much skin. One described the woman as “alluring” as his edit summary to delete the image. Another deleted it as "unprofessionally dressed". Another said she “should be wearing a lab coat”. She is performing moxibustion on an already inserted needle.
 * Why has no one noticed or complained about the real obscenity? Which image is best for WP to portray?
 * The WP acupuncture related articles cite reviews finding acupuncture is “safe”. But they are all qualified with “if properly done.” How often is it properly done?
 * I contend that there is an obscenity in one of these image at right. It is the image of male to male contact and penetration. The male acupuncturist is not wearing his latex. Who is it that is unprofessionally dressed and underdressed with too much skin showing? PPdd (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a proposed edit in the above. Please remember that wp:NOTFORUM.LeadSongDog come howl!  08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a subsection. The proposal is implicit in the context of the supersection and previous discussion at the TCM talk page. An an army of SP/MEAT SPA protesters suddenly all opened editing accounts, and objected to the image of the woman on the grounds that she was "unprofessionally dressed", "showing skin", and "alluring", and that she should be "wearing a lab coat". Thus it was claimed that "WP was giving acupuncture a bad name". To respond to the protests and avoid the SP/MEAT edit warring, the image was reasonably removed from this article and at TCM, and the male on male picture kept here and added at TCM. Now read the supersection above and the proposal should be clear. :) PPdd (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So to summarize, you are proposing a new caption for the upper photo, to read "Practioners do not consistently wear gloves"? And you needed four paras to say that? LeadSongDog come howl!  15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not sure what my exact proposal was. It was nonverbal, based on the pictures. I just knew there was one in them. I like your proposal if we can find RS for it. But that might be too extreme for an image caption at the very top of the article (it would be a good caption for the very top image if this was a skeptic's web page), which would be UNDUE. So expanding your idea (1) Find RS that gloves are not rquired as in real medicine. (2) Find a good representative image (maybe similar to the one with the woman but less controversial). (3) relabel this image as you suggest and move it down to the "safety" section. PPdd (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit! Is this dead horse still being kicked around? Seriously PPdd, you're really damaging your credibility here. Drop this crap and move on. You're going to end up in arbitration over this and I can guarantee you you'll lose big time. This isn't the kind of stuff to joke around with. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, one can get tannic acids by beating a dead horse hide. The dead horse is the new age lady doc pic. I was half joking, and half thinking there is something to the irony here, but couldn't put my finger on it. But LeadSongDog seems to have pulled the essence of the irony in his suggestion. I modified it to be to put some other acu-photo at top, and caption this hand-hand photo with a "they don't wear gloves", if it is both true and has RS. PPdd (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'
Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy.

It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anasthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/newsroom/press-releases/2010-08-09-med-errors.aspx
 * 195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
 * up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US:
 * [Iatrogenesis]
 * $19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group & edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Thankyou.

Twhitmore.nz (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is an article written from a skeptical viewpoint. The 'criticism' should be placed in a subsection. The bulk of the article should just inform about acupuncture and its principles and practice in a more neutral way. It is hard to know where to begin to put this right (I have very little experiecne of editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaprescott (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Twhitmore.nz and Aaprescott, If you think that you have evidence to counter any of the "POV" claims in this article, or evidence to show that medical procedures or pharmaceutical treatments are dangerous or ineffective then please add them to WP in order to redress the "imbalance". If there are "dozens or hundreds" of studies showing that acupuncture works, please add them. Myself and the other editors can then assess the quality of these studies. Otherwise, stop whinging. WP is not a "conspiracy" of "skeptics". This page has not been "hijacked". You are free to add any information you want at any time, since WP is an open-access encyclopedia. But be warned that it is one in which claims (especially those pertaining to health and medicine) require evidence - if this presents an insurmountable problem for the alternative "therapies" that you believe "work" then tough luck. You'll have to post unsupported claims on your own websites. Famousdog (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The above response is itself problematic. Characterising the criticims as 'whinging', and such like comments, amounts to making this personal. You have missunderstood the nature of the criticism and shown yourself to have a particular viewpoint. I added my comments to the previous one, and do not necessarily agree with all of them e.g. I make no claim of organized conspiracy.

Neutrality would explain the theory of Chinese medicine and include an evidence based medicine criticism. Not make such criticism the prevailing tone of the article. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaprescott (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS, we require recent secondary sources. Particularly since the development of adequate shams in the form of nonpenetrating needles (around 2002) the evidence base for acupuncture has eroded.  Also, what on earth does the number of surgical procedures have to do with acupuncture?  Even if surgical procedures aren't justified by an adequate evidence base (which is more of a CAM talking point than a real concern) how does that magically make acupuncture more effective?  Does the Toyota acceleration problem make the Yugo a better car?  No it does not.
 * Evidence based medicine doesn't support TCM, and it barely supports the idea that poking people with needles can help with pain and nausea (which is the only part of acupuncture that's really got an evidence base). Neutrality means "within the expert opinion", not "extremely positive".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

17th March 2011 I tried to make some fairly small changes that would make this article more neutral. But I did not remove any of the critical perspective. I was originally a psychiatric nurse and so I recognize the orthodox perspective is important. I also made some changes to incorect information. I am a practitioner of 30 years experience and the introductory section contains factual inacuracies. The description of the cause of disease is incorect it is desecribing mechanims (systems) not causes per se. The idea that their are 12 channels because of the twelve rivers of China could have been true at one time, I don't think that even that is certain, but is probably a redundant idea except as an historical note - presumably this is here simply to ridicule. My edits have all beeen removed. I recognize that there may be some technical deficiencies in my contribution especially in terms of sources, but undoing all of them seems to confirm a strong bias. There is clearly an attempt to maintain an 'evidence based medicine' perspective front and center, and this contravenes the Wikipedia policy of absolute neutrality. I attempted to report this non neutrality to wikipedia, but I could not find an easy way to do this. There seems to be no other mechanism than a war of editing! This is going to make me more cautious in my reading of Wikipedia articles in future. It seems that right would probably not prevail as caring form my patients probably does not allow me the time to devote to such a concerted effort. Andy Prescott B.Ac. (UK), Dipl.Ac. (NCCAOM) L.Ac. (NC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaprescott (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy, I looked at your changes and you do not provide sources for your changes. For example, your changes to the lead don't seem to be supported by the source as it currently stands (the acupuncturetoday.com article). For example, your comments about causes being "a lifestyle that is not in accord with the Dao" are not supported by the current source, so you would need to add a new one to support this view. Your edits that TCM has "three classifications of causes" are similarly not supported by a citation. Your comments on metaphysics, empricism and syncreticism seem to reflect your own opinion, which counts as inappropriate synthesis or original research. You are not being unfairly treated here. I would be expected to provide similar citations for my own edits, as would anybody. And if we're fishing for credibility by posting our credentials, then you can call me Dr. Famousdog BSc(Hons) PhD. Famousdog (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, we need sources. Since I'm just an editor, I'm just going to put my usual signature.  Note that it has links to the full and abbreviated lists of policies and guidelines, feel free to check out both since they determine page content.  For instance, per WP:RS we are supposed to use the best and most reliable sources available.  I see the insistence on using peer-reviewed material from medicine, history and related fields as an effort to maintain a "high quality" page; it's certainly worth noting that actual evidence doesn't support the use of acupuncture for anything but pain and nausea.  I don't know why we'd prefer the opinions of practitioners over opinions published in peer-reviewed journals where methodological rigor has been applied to the investigation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Again, I'm just an editor

I agree, I came here to read about the mechanics, and with the opening statements such as, "Traditional acupuncture was developed prior to the understanding of human anatomy and cell theory upon which modern biology is based", "there is no anatomical or scientific evidence for the existence of qi or meridians; concepts central to acupuncture theory", "The evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness for anything but the relief of some types of pain and nausea has not been established", "Evidence for the treatment of other conditions is equivocal", "a 2011 review of review articles concluded except for neck pain acupuncture was of doubtful efficacy and accompanied by serious risks and adverse effects, including death"-- I didn't even feel the desire to continue reading. As for WLU, "opinions of practitioners over opinions published in peer-reviewed journals"-- Because peer-reviewed journals, unless it's a journal dedicated to acupuncture is just that-- an appeal to authority regardless of the authority's experience in the field. I don't go to a zoology journal to read about nutrition or neurology-- even though all are biological sciences. Each discipline specializes in different fields under the same biology umbrella, and this applies to medicine as well. I went to Britannica instead; the article there is much more objective and descriptive. I recommend it to other researchers until this article is a. cleaned up, and b. treated as description, not prescription. TheObserverEffect (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPOV. A neutral article doesn't mean we write an article that just talks about a fringe idea and not give it the balance of what it really is.  There is NO scientific evidence that supports the efficacy of acupuncture beyond a placebo, and even then the evidence is mitigated by the lack of sham controls.  Moreover, given that there is no efficacy, the fact that there is a safety issue makes it worse.  You risk your health to get no benefit.  Sounds perfectly neutral.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not at all what NPOV means. we should strive to give a proper and neutral description of the topic without allowing editors to make 'factual' judgements about it one way or another.  I haven't read this article yet, but I'll do that as I get a chance and see if any revisions are required to better the topic.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course Ludwigs. Yours is the ONLY interpretation that matters.  And of course, your revisions to this article is the ONLY one that is the truth. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OM - lol - going straight to the insults without any preliminaries? whatever happened to foreplay?


 * I think we can all safely ignore that last foray into argument-by-sarcasm. Do you have anything that's more relevant to the topic, or would you like to talk about me some more?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is not neutral and is factually inacurate. As a begininer to Wikipedia I am very frustrated by the unrelenting resistance to change that I am encountering. This in itself I believe is contrary to Wikipedia policy that is supposed to be cooperative. People should be helping to make the article neutral, and accurate, and helping resolsve any technical inadequacies in my entries, not just hitting 'undo'. Whether intended or not this just conveys the impression that some editors are determined that no one will change thei 'point of view' of these entries.

The introduction is not a neutral statment. It is critical from an 'Evidence Based Medicine' point of view.

The statement about 'TCM' is inacurate. Japanese, Korean practitioners woudl not identify themselves as practicing TCM, 38% of British practitioners do not practice TCM their approach having more Japanese origins. (I can quote a source for that). TCM is identified with modern Chinese practice. On the TCM page it also fails to make this clear, and in fact treats Classical Chinese Medicine and TCM as synonymous - which is also inacurate.

The statement about what produces disease is inacurate it compares 'mechanisms' of Chinese medicine with 'causes' in Western medicine. Turn this round and I would say that Western medicine beleives that illness is 'produced by disturbances of lymph cells, and circulatory systems, and Chinese medicine beleives that disease has physical causes in climatic exposure, parasites, emotional disturbance.'

The statement that the meridians are based upon the 12 rivers of China comes from a quote in the Ling Shu - it does not prove this. Simply that the Chinese at one time made an anaology. Given that there were originally only 11 meridians this anaology may have come later. In the Ling Shu it is simply a mmnemonic device. And most practitoners would have never heard of this. If the Chinese had found through experience that there were 14 channels they would have changed it. The only purpose of this information in context seems to be to portray acupuncture in the worst possible light.

I notice the TCM page is under a dispute resolution process. If I knew how to initiate this I would do. Isn't there anyone else out there who knows how to do this? 66.57.104.142 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I refer you to this thread and my responses. If you think there is a problem with the article stop huffing-and-puffing and do something. Just remember that you will be expected to provide reliable sources for statements that you make. Famousdog (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only interesting thing in that post was the allusion to an actual source, please provide the source that many practitioners do not adhere to the meridian/qi theory (I'm assuming what the "TCM" bit is referring to) so we can integrate it into the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This quote from the page is hilarious:


 * A prominent example of this difference appears in an article appearing in the Journal of Chinese Medicine, which describes the cause of bleeding from the mouth and nose as "Liver fire rushes upwards and scorches the Lung, injuring the blood vessels and giving rise to reckless pouring of blood from the mouth and nose."[68] Science based medicine would look for some other cause, for example, a tuberculosis bacterial infection, and not consider other causes.

Wtf does that last line have to do with acupuncture?! ArlenCuss (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can "Evidenced-based medicine" or evidenced-based anything be a bias? Someone is either biased or is basing their conclusion on evidence. It certainly would be POV to treat approaches to health based on superstition or tradition as equal in validity to approaches based on analysis of data, as the former is a demonstrably inferior way of understanding the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.63 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

new meta-meta analysis

 * On-line
 * Editorial
 * Sciencebasedmedicine post
 * Sciencebasedmedicine post

I'd like to take the time to integrate this, but I may not. Obviously anyone who wishes is free to do so, here they are! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got full text (and the Pain commentaty) on my desktop if anyone wants it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also another one from 2010 which I'm not sure if it's included or not: . WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the new Ernst review and editorial (and made some bold changes). Not sure whether its worth adding the other post. Famousdog (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

frequency of deaths & other adverse events?
I put a tag on a statement in the lead. (Please leave the tag until discussion has run its course, per WP:TAGGING.) The abstract for this paper says "Ninety-five cases of severe adverse effects including 5 fatalities were included", but it doesn't mention the frequency. Needless to say, a raw number of outcomes doesn't mean very much without knowing their frequently. Does the full text address this? (The abstract doesn't, and the full text requires a subscription.)

We should cite sources that mention the frequency -- ses this, and also an earlier Ernst paper that said: "According to accepted criteria, none (0/10,000 to 1.2/10,000) of these events was serious").  We should also cite sources comparing acupuncture with other therapies, such as this one, and NIH: "One of the advantages of acupuncture is that the incidence of adverse effects is substantially lower than that of many drugs or other accepted medical procedures used for the same conditions.") There is also a multiply-sourced statement in the lead that we can tie into:  "There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles." Middle 8 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears you are conflating two authors named Ernst. Gernot and Edzard are very likely different people. The G. Ernst et al paper is of no use to us, it is a primary study, and a feeble one at that: a questionaire survey of a small group of practitioners in one country. The E. Ernst et al paper is somewhat better, but still based on a subset of practitioners in one country, all of whom were MDs or Chartered Physiotherapists in addition to their accupuncture training. This group would be expected to have a safer practice than another group trained solely in a traditional form of accupuncture. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @LeadSongDog: I noticed two different Ernst's, but didn't conflate them. Please re-read: that first quote I cited was correctly attributed to E. Ernst.  I understand the problems you point out with the papers I cited, but it's even worse not to give the sample size at all.  Did Ernst et al. (2011) provide it in the full article, or even give an estimate?  As I mentioned, it's not in the abstract.  It would be great if someone with access could post  the relevant parts of the article so we have some context.  --Middle 8 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this review, which also lacks a sample size, found 202 adverse events in 35 years. Ernst et al. (2011) found 95 events in 10 years.  While inclusion criteria for the two papers differed, the numbers aren't that far apart.  But without sample sizes, those numbers don't mean much. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, "95 cases of severe adverse effects" is a meaningless number without reference to the sample group used. It's also likely to be insignificant - I mean, aspirin has a chronic overdose mortality rate of 25%, which had to rack up a lot of people before warning labels were required on bottles, but our article doesn't see fit to dwell on that fact.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strawman. False dichotomy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that? -- Ludwigs 2 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all there. I try not to be as verbose as others around here. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent)@Ludwigs2: you hit the nail on the head when you said: "Still, "95 cases of severe adverse effects" is a meaningless number without reference to the sample group used.  It's also likely to be insignificant..."  See this for comparison of total deaths annually. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy. False dichotomy once again.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Middle 8: wow, I would have guess a few hundred deaths a year from NSAIDs, not 7,600. that's somewhat disturbing.


 * @ OrangeMarlin: repeating the same point without explaining it does not help in understanding it. what makes you think this is a false dichotomy or strawman argument?  You surely cannot be objecting to the request for a baseline figure (which is essential to any statistical statement...)  -- Ludwigs 2  00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC/U? --Middle 8 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, so because you push a set of POV edits, your choice is to proceed with a drama inducing useless activity instead of actually editing? You amuse me Middle.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you just suggest that my two sentence (45 word) comment was too long for you to read comfortably? -- Ludwigs 2  01:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA. Any further personal attacks and I'll request, what is it?  Block #15, most of which are for continued personal attacks?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the fish is baiting. Why? Because he cannot form any cogent argument here.68.122.51.169 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur that a count (95) without a sample size is meaningless. Gerardw (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The important point that Ernst made is that an intervention with no specific effects is not worth any adverse effects. If acupuncture is naught but an elaborate placebo, what must be sought or used are similar interventions that are as effective as placebos but present no risk to the patient.  The point is not "acupuncture has few adverse effects", the point is "acupuncture presents known risks while offering benefits that are not yet clear".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nausea and tagging
I just tried to update a Cochrane reference for nausea; as anyone can tell from reading the 2008 Cochrane review, the conclusions have change from 2004 and are unambiguous: "P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs." (PONV = post-operative nause and vomiting.) My edit removed the 2004 Cochrane review and put in the new one, with a summary reflecting its contents. For some reason, User:OrangeMarlin removed the edit, saying it was "horribly POV". It's not POV to reflect the literature. I wonder if the editor even read the source? Looks like a case of reverting based on what the editor thinks should be true rather than what the source says; we've seen this before.

Note - the same editor twice violated WP:TAGGING by removing a tag, and after I twice reverted, posted on my talk page falsely claiming I was at 3RR -- which his reversions were likely meant to provoke, in a clear case of baiting.  This sort of editing, combined with the plainly unproductive use of the talk page above, is disruptive and harassing. I wasn't born yesterday, and I know why it's being done: to make the editing environment so hostile for editors with whom OrangeMarlin disagrees that they'll grow discouraged and leave. I've seen it before from this editor and others, and I no longer AGF about it. OM, your recent string of edits is indefensible. Knock it off or you'll likely find yourself sanctioned for this ridiculously noncollegial behavior. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's best not to talk about editors on the article talk page. If there's an administrator present who can comment on the issue that would be best, otherwise we should just leave this be until/unless we decide to pursue something administrative elsewhere.  In the meantime, let me review the last round of article revisions.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He'll likely delete it from his talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Article fixed  <--Appropriate amount of verbiage required to respond to such comments.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @OrangeMarlin: That's not even close to an adequate discussion, especially for an edit summary that said "Reverting highly POV edits per talk page discussion".  That ES is highly misleading; you haven't engaged discussion at all.  And you're removing a more recent (2008) Cochrane review in favor of one from 2004; that is flagrantly against MEDRS.  My summary, which you reverted, said:
 * A 2008 Cochrane review found that acupuncture treats post-operative nausea and vomiting as well as anti-emetic drugs, with minimal side effects. It was found to be equally effective in adults and children. Publication bias was found to be minimal in studies analyzed in this review.
 * The review itself said (omitting statistics):
 * "There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea, vomiting, or the need for rescue antiemetics. The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots.  Authors' conclusions: P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs."
 * Now please explain why my summary of the 2008 review is "highly POV", and why the 2004 review is a better MEDRS than the 2008 review. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the tag on Ernst (2011): per WP:TAGGING and general consensus, it should not be removed until there is agreement on the talk page. Restoring. In this edit, the tag was removed and the wording changed. The wording that was removed was relevant and I disagree with its removal, another good reason to keep the tag. I'm surprised that the authors said that the adverse effects were statistically significant, since they're anecdotal. What was the confidence interval and the sample size? --Middle 8 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More to the point, 'significant' has a particular meaning in statistics: i.e. that an observed effect is likely not due to random chance. However, this edit does not say what the observed effect in question is, nor what it's being compared to, and so 'significance' is totally meaningless.  that needs to be clarified or removed.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like there were more disputed changes than just the nausea one, there were also changes to the lede etc. Can we see a clear set of proposed changes here please Ludwigs2 -- Snowded  TALK  18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be highly critical, but I've been around this block before with Ludwigs. He believes others have to explain why they revert him, not that he needs to explain why he made the changes in the first place.  And the changes are highly POV, making it appear that Acupuncture actually has some usefulness, which, based on tons of reliable sources, it certainly does not.  Moreover, several of the edits give undue weight to fringe ideas. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cochrane (2008) says acu works for nausea; Cochrane isn't fringe; therefore the idea that acu works for certain things isn't fringe. I summarized Cochrane (2008) and put it in the article, replacing the older Cochrane review on nausea.  There was no good reason to revert that.  What Orangemarlin seems to be doing is reverting anything that suggests acu has efficacy beyond placebo, no matter how well-sourced that is.  Obviously, that's unacceptable.  Do any editors have an objection to my restoring the edit, per the 1st paragraph in this section?  --Middle 8 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * go ahead, it seems reasonable. -- Ludwigs 2  21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The link in your edit doesn't work for me. ("Sorry an error has occurred") Maybe try PubMed? (Also, review is misspelled in the last sentence, and I am not sure if changing the sentence makes sense or if it's a case of hyperprecision. And it removes footnote pmid15266478, which is reused elsewhere, but citationbot will take care of that.) As the article has been protected, you will have to do it by edit request anyway. Hans Adler 04:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent)OK, here's a link that should work:  And I agree, let's just focus on updating the review and not worry about the rest of the edit for now. At any rate, I'll probably have to repost this in a condensed form below, which is ok. --Middle 8 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

side-by-side comparison of ledes
the revised version isn't missing anything significant, is better written and more focused, and more clearly describes both the practice and the critiques of acupuncture? Can anyone point to specific problems or general trends in it that are troubling?

Note further that I didn't actually get to the last paragraph (before the edit warring started, but it will have to be revised as well. The revision I intend to make there is this:

This does the following: are any of these changes problematic? -- Ludwigs 2 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * removes numerical referents that have no statistical baseline, as discussed above.
 * removes a comment about 'statistical significance' which is statistically meaningless as written
 * removes an off-topic statement about publication bias (probably true in general, but not specific enough to acupuncture to appear in the lead)
 * removes a vague statement that various organizations have 'studied and commented on' acupuncture (the line adds nothing meaningful that I can see).


 * Clearly the latter change, which whitewashes the discussion of the adverse effects, will not fly. The existence of those effects can easily be cited to high quality review sources, e.g. . For editors who are interested, the historic inconsistency in reporting adverse events is discussed at, though I don't suggest that discussion belongs in the lede. The point is that asserting the absence based on analysis of old data is not diligent. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Whitewashing'? What absolute nonsense. Ill-effects of acupuncture are exceedingly minimal, and almost certainly insignificant comapred to Western medicine. Aspirin and paracetamol both have complication/fatality rates between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 8,000.. it's completely illogical (and outright false) to decry acupuncture ill-effects, at rates of 1 per 100,000, 1 per million or less. Twhitmore.nz (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to by 'whitewashing'. I explained quite clearly why I removed the bits I did, and all the explanations had to do with sourcing and relevance issues.  any of these points might be redeemable with better sourcing or clearer explanation, but as they stand they are senseless and irrelevant to the topic.  Just to take the first point (which is what you linked to) - 95 cases of severe adverse effects out of what number examined?  95 cases out of 100 would be horrific; 95 cases out of 1000 would be bad; 95 cases out of a million would not be worth mentioning.


 * LSD, the problem you're having is that you're pointing to abstracts rather than articles. you need to go to the actual article to substantiate this claim, because the abstract does not present a clear picture of what the authors were doing.  find a copy of the article that we can all see, so that we can examine the study properly, or face the fact that we need to limit how we reference this study in order not to misrepresent it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with LSD, and oppose the proposal to the last section. However, I do think the sentence quoting specific numbers can be omitted. Citing so much from this individual study in the lead doesn't properly summarize the weight of the study presented in the article, and Ludwigs is correct about the statistical significance, at least in part; Saying "the authors found it to be significant" is okay, per se, but unnecessary. I do think a list of adverse effects in the lead is warranted, but perhaps we could sum up those effects as a list with no numbers, instead combining all the reports from various studies we're already presenting within the article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You agree with LSD on what? Neither of you has said anything meaningful enough to agree with.


 * Also, 'significance' has a particular meaning in statistics, and it should never, never be confused with the colloquial meaning of he word (it means 'likely not due to random chance', not 'meaningful and important'). we cannot simple state 'the authors claim it was significant' without clarifying which of those meanings is being used.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reread both LSD's and my response, and I'm having trouble understanding your confusion. Both seem to be fairly clear. Perhaps I can summarize them in a different way. LSD is saying that your proposal removes the list of adverse effects from the lead, which is unwarranted given that they can be cited to high quality sources. I agree that this is unjustified, given that the sources are present and that the information is being presented in the article, and is pertinent to be summarized within the lead. Furthermore, I provided an alternate suggestion, taking into account your concerns, suggesting that the numbers and statement of significance should be removed as they are unnecessary and provide undue weight to a single study. In other words, I object to the proposal on a high level, but I think the individual concerns might be addressed through alternate changes. Is that clearer? All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * perhaps I am being unclear. Let me sum this up in three points:
 * the list of adverse affects can be discussed in talk - I'm not averse to including it - but it is currently sourced to an abstract, not an article. we need to see the article itself to understand the claim properly
 * we agree on the numbers and significance points, so that's not a cause to revert my changes whole cloth
 * nothing has been said whatsoever about the remainder of my edits, so reverting everything in bulk to address one discussed issue is entirely uncalled for.
 * You have in no way made an effective justification of broad-scale reversion. I'm going to take a short break and consider my options for moving forward on this - I suggest you take that time to undo your revert and make a more effective argument for your position here in talk.  Up to you, however...  -- Ludwigs 2  02:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to keep arguing about the edit war, that's up to you I guess... but I just gave you solid criticisms of your proposal, and your response to me was effectively "We can talk about it". I know we can talk about it... that's what I'm trying to do, as clearly as I can. Regarding sourcing, your objection that you can only see the abstract is a weak one, since it doesn't address the content which is summarized in the abstract, nor does it imply that the paper is wholly unavailable to you or other editors. I also see a variety of other sources regarding adverse effects already present in the article. Quickly skimming the criticism section, I'm finding cite 19, 25, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 cover the topic. To be clear, is your contention with this content that it is not properly sourced?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jess, the problem with using the abstract is that the abstract is not making clear statements - it's impossible to determine what the authors are referring to without reading the full article, and therefore the material cannot be used carelessly. Abstracts are intended to be teasers, not analytical statements in their own right.


 * So here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to recover the revision I made, modify it to address these concerns (meaning that I'll re-add in the bits that you're commenting on, with verification tags until we get access to the full article), and then reinsert it in the lead. I'll also remove the numbers that you seem to agree with me about deleting from the third paragraph.  ok with you?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a solid whitewash per both Jess and LSD. This is why I reverted originally. I won't spend an hour rewriting, when, per WP:BRD, the editor that adds POV must defend his or her edits, so it's easier with one click to keep the better version. Luddie has not defended it to the point where it receives a strong consensus to change. And this is why I cannot stand the hostile editing environment pushed by Luddie and his pals. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions


 * There's a certain group here, pushing an aggressive partisan POV onto other people's articles. You've been angry, irration, hostile & aggressive in your comments and interaction -- both with me & others. Don't accuse others, of your sins.
 * I made a sound, logical & reasonable proposal, to address the excessively negative & biased tone which had been introduced into the article.
 * You attacked this attempt to seek reasonable neutrality, as "POV pushing" and "soapbox" -- without being able to at all address the major logical points.
 * 1) Acupuncture is not within Western science; and is not yet fully understood or encompassed, by such a framework;
 * 2) Primary scientific investigation & research, has yielded significant results, and is more likely to be on the basis of "understanding" rather than "debunking";
 * 3) Much-touted reviews, manage to find negatives by omitting *all* Asian research results;
 * 4) Issues of complications, are probably much lower than Western medicine.

Twhitmore.nz (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support removing the numbers, phrasing it as something like "it is generally recognized as low-risk, though infection, trauma and death have occurred due to acupuncture treatments." I don't think the numbers are that meaningful but it is worth noting these serious direct outcomes.
 * I'm not sure why publication bias would be removed, as it is indeed a concern regarding acupuncture research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WLU, I added those numbers because Luddie was hostile towards my original changes. I think they're kind of silly, because, as the article states, the adverse reactions are statistically significant.   It's always nice to have access to the full article.  I wish they would be linkable to Wikipedia, instead of costing.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OM, it's Ludwids2, not Luddie (or else you're going to be Marliebaby from now on; I'm good either way. )-- Ludwigs 2  01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ludwigs2 Regarding your comment above (01:04, May 6), I've made a number of criticisms of your proposal which should be addressed. There are others, but I'd have to address those after seeing how the content is affected your updated revision. Given the opposition to this recent edit, reinserting it into the lead without discussion first would be preemptive. The most appropriate course of action at this point would appear to be revising the content to address the concerns listed here, and then proposing the change on the talk page. If it gains consensus, then it should be okay to reinsert. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, I would prefer you present a mock-up in a sub-page than inserting it directly into mainspace which also strikes me as pre-emptive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am new here. Not sure if my opinion counts for much. For what it is worth, I think there is too much detailed business going on in what you people refer to as the "lede". (Or is that the Wikipedia spelling for "lead".) I prefer the edits suggested above as it is more succinct and has less specific details. I am purely about aesthetics, but giving specific numbers and details in that third paragraph particular looks clunky and is not what I consider to be a good "introduction" or lead or lede to an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.100.144 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WLU: I see no reason to edit on a subpage. the proposed edits have been presented here, they are largely non-contentious (except for a couple of points that are open to discussion), and moreover no one offered any meaningful objections to the revision as a whole, so there's really nothing to stop me from going ahead with them.  offer suggestions or objections with respect to what I have written here already if you like, but please don't obstruct page development for no readily apparent reason.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If "non-contentious" means two large sections devoted to editors lodging objections, then I think we're using very different definitions. Asking you to seek the input of other editors before making changes which have been the subject of this much discussion seems quite reasonable, and ignoring those requests would appear to be erring on the disruptive side. Please just propose the change you'd like to make, and see if it garners support. I'd be happy to provide input once you've revised your proposal.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Subpages offer a distinct advantage over both mainspace and talk space - you won't get auto-reverted, yet people feel free to edit over other people's work much like a mainspace page and allows for a diff-by-diff comparison which is often much easier to parse, particularly across multiple differences. I can't help but agree with Mann jess that your interpretation of "noncontentious" may be idiosyncratic, at least as far as this page goes. My suggestion would be, use a subpage and if I think the section has merit but needs improving, I will edit that. It's often easier to incrementally improve a proposed lead in a subpage simply because it can be incremental. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Collaborative editing works by different editors making revisions to the article and discussing differences of opinion in talk. The changes I edited in - despite the extreme over-reaction of some editors here - are relatively minor, and any problems with them can easily be fixed with short discussions, assuming that the other editors here choose to discuss them.  So far, almost no one has shown any interest in discussing the changes.  That's fine.  However, none of you are entitled to stop me from editing the article simply because you have some vague, inexpressible fear about the outcome, and I am not inclined to go out of my way making subpages and etc over what amounts to (again) relatively minor revisions.  So, I am going to be editing the article.  your choices are (as always):
 * you can make clear and reasonable objections or clarifications to specific revisions I make in the article, so that we can discuss them and improve them after I've edited them into the article
 * you can read over my proposals here and make clear and specific objections or clarifications to the proposals I've made, so that we can discuss them and improve them before I edit them into the article
 * you can continue to revert me as I make changes, and continue failing to give clear and specific explanations for doing so, in which case we will quickly end up at ArbCom enforcement.
 * Now, as I said, I am going to reinsert my improvements to the lead, making adjustments for the valid complaints that were raised above (which is the way collaborative editing should work). Please read over the boxes above and offer any further suggestions that you care to.  With luck, we'll find that we quickly resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but it is still very clunky, sloppy and redundant. For instance, that there is a lack of scientific support for acupuncture is mentioned in all three paragraphs. I think the reader gets it after the first mention. Then the first paragraph jumps from a basic definition to the lack of scientific evidence to some detailed information about how the practice varies from country to country to a basic definition to a brief bit about its ancient history to once again describing how practices vary around the world. What a mess! And that's just the first paragraph. How about a little organization?


 * The second paragraph begins with a very vague statement which doesn't seem to be about acupuncture specifically and then talks about the lack of scientific evidence again. That there is a lack of scientific evidence is quite obvious now that this opening has stated it twice.


 * And yet the third paragraph is devoted entirely to the lack of scientific evidence and risk. It contains such esoteric details that it cannot be proper for an introduction to this encyclopedia entry. Save the point-by-point for the rest of the entry. Just a concise overview should serve the opening. There's nothing wrong with discussing the scientific invalidity of acupuncture, but the degree at which this invalidity is addressed in the opening comes off as argumentatively skewed and combative in nature. The way I read this, I would think that the entire entry - or at least about eighty percent of it - would be about this lack of scientific support. However, reading through the rest of this entry, I know this not to be true. Thus, this opening does not provide the reader with a very accurate depiction of how the rest of the entry reads. "Scientific basis" is just one of the eight main headings of the article


 * Reading through this hostile discussion, I confess that as neophyte I am somewhat timid about doing what I know needs to be done. That would be gutting this whole "lede" entirely and converting it to something with a logical structure which works with the flow of the rest of this page's entry, and a more economical writing style. My gut estimation is that this opening should be about half the size of how it stands now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.100.144 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IP I fixed the indents on your post. are you talking about the current lead, or the revised version presented at the top of this thread?  Sorry, it's not clear from what you wrote.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @67.127 Please don't feel put off by the current climate. Some editors are having trouble communicating with one another, but it seems we all recognize that changes should be made to the article, and we're working to implement those changes. If you see something that should be fixed, please either propose it here, or (if you expect it won't be controversial) make a bold edit to the article, and see if it's accepted. WLU's suggestion to make a subpage with a new proposed lead is a good one. If you're timid about editing the article directly, making a subpage for your proposal would be a great way to get your ideas out there without butting any heads. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make a subpage. Though I just figured out how not to lose my prior comment to an edit conflict.
 * Ludwigs, your assessment that these are minor changes has been opposed by every editor who has weighed in, as far as I can tell. I'd just like to point out that you've been given large criticisms from a variety of editors, and you've been asked to proceed in a specific way to collaborate with those editors. That is a reasonable request. Your response thus far has been to dismiss the criticisms as "not meaningful", and state that you intend to proceed in opposition to that request, saying things like "none of you are entitled to stop me from editing the article". This is not going down a good road. I'd like to work with you on cleaning up the lead, but if you reinsert content into the article which either fails to address the concerns discussed here, or which introduces new problems, that content will (rightly) be reverted. I'm just noting that here, largely repeating what's already been said above; Your stated approach is combative, not collaborative, and is not likely to get us anywhere good.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the indentation. I think I have figured that out better now. I was referring to the "lede" currently in place on this article entry. It's a mess. The revised version above is much improved. Though the first paragraph is still a bit jumbled. You need to organize the bit about the history and the various regional practice styles slightly better. The second paragraph is fine, but the third is too specific for an introduction. There is a "intended revision" version which is better but its first sentence is redundant with the second paragraph of the proposed revision version. Though, the second sentence of that "intend revision" is all well and good. Here would be my simple solution, which still could be improved upon:


 * Acupuncture is an alternative medicine in which thin needles are inserted into the skin and manipulated in various ways, ostensibly to influence the patient's qi for therapeutic benefit. It is closely related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), sharing the same core philosophy and often being used in combination with TCM herbal preparations. However, many acupuncturists construe TCM narrowly as the modern mainland Chinese practice and see acupuncture as a distinct concept, particularly in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and prominent European practices derived from those where acupuncture has diverged significantly from Chinese theory and practice.


 * Acupuncture dates back to prehistoric times, with written records from the second century BCE. Traditional acupuncture was developed prior to and independently of Western advances in medicine. Many of its presuppositions - such as qi or meridians - have no identifiable correlation in Western medicine, and even its conceptions of bodily organs is different, treating them as interrelated systems rather than discrete objects in the body.


 * Acupuncture may be used by practitioners as a tool to promote general health, for relief of symptoms, or for therapeutic purposes. However, acupuncture's effectiveness for anything beyond the relief of some types of pain and nausea has not been established, and its effectiveness with pain is often cast as a placebo effect.


 * There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles.


 * I removed some sentences and phrases for reasons of flow, redundancy and relevance. For instance, the bit about how it is sometimes used with electrical currents -- that was too specific for an introduction and should rather be mentioned somewhere in the rest of the article entry. It isn't mentioned anywhere else currently, so why mention something so specific in this introduction? I won't presume that my version is perfect, just better than what is in place right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.100.144 (talk • contribs)


 * @67.127: Thanks for the proposal. Unfortunately, this leans heavily upon Ludwig's proposal, which he's in the process of revising to address various concerns discussed on the talk page, and consequently, this proposal has those same problems. One, for instance, is that it reduces the weight of acupuncture's efficacy and adverse effects too drastically, and adherence to WP:Weight is a major concern. You are correct, however, that the organization and wording of the lead should be cleaned up, and hopefully as Ludwigs is able to revise his proposal, we can look at what pieces of these suggestions we can incorporate. I've created a subpage with the current lead in place, here: Talk:Acupuncture/Proposed lead. Feel free to edit that with any ideas you have. Making them smaller incremental changes (if possible) might be helpful to follow the progress of edits. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because it relies on Ludwig's proposal doesn't make it bad. Perhaps there is bad blood here which prevents the rest of you from accepting this. Ludwig has provided a better starting point than what is currently in place in the introduction. It is not perfect though. It has the problems which I enumerated above. Also, the statement I kept in tact about efficacy is this: "However, acupuncture's effectiveness for anything beyond the relief of some types of pain and nausea has not been established, and its effectiveness with pain is often cast as a placebo effect." That really says it all succinctly. What more needs to be said in the "lede" that this statement doesn't already say?  I am not sure what you mean by "weight", but the rest of the efficacy statements in the current lead all go to support the statement which I retained. If they are only supportive - they don't add anything new except specific details of why acupuncture's effectiveness has not been established beyond that of placebo - then these statements don't belong in the "lede". The reader doesn't need more in the introductory statement. Just a cursory overview of the main points of the rest of the entry is sufficient. Save the details for the body of the entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.100.144 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess: I'm really not concerned about the numbers of editors who object; I an interested in the reasons editors give for objecting. A thousand editors could come by and say "I don't like it" and I wouldn't care.  one editor who comes by and says "I don't like it because..." gets my attention.   Thank you for making the subpage, feel free to use, but I'll be discussing things here and editing the article.


 * Now, thank you for raising the weight concern (which you probably should have done prior to the first revert you made on the page). I think you're right that the IPs edit goes a little far on removing critiques of acupuncture, but I don't think you can honestly make the same claim about my revision - since in fact I didn't remove very much, but mostly reorganized what was there. can you point to something in my version that you see as problematic in terms of weight? bet you can't...    -- Ludwigs 2  17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "reorganizations" oftentimes give undue weight to unsupportable information.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, my very first edit to this page was on May 3rd, where I said "The new proposal reduces that weight substantially, further adding undue weight to the concept that Acupuncture is effective for some treatments. This doesn't properly reflect the article, or the weight of the sources." This was a full day before my first revert to the article, which was suggested and supported by editors on the talk page. Not to be missed, I referenced concerns with weight again, including on the 4th, immediately before reverting to the last stable version. I subsequently clarified and gave specific examples, in addition to other editors, including my May 4th 9:55 reply, which said "your proposal removes the list of adverse effects from the lead, which is unwarranted". You repeatedly responded that these concerns were "not meaningful". Goading me by saying things like "bet you can't" is out of line.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, these concerns - as you have expressed them - are not meaningful. Anyone can say the words 'undue weight' with reference to anything. Honestly, I have no idea whether you are right or wrong in your assertion that there is undue weight on something, because you steadfastly refuse (with the one notable exception above) to explain what you mean by it.  I simply cannot credit your opinion as valid because I could easily train a parrot to give the arguments you've given so far ("undue weight, undue weight, *squawk*, undue weight").  Please give me some better discussion than the mere fact that you have learned how to type the words 'undue weight' on your computer keyboard.  If you can't do better than that, then... sorry!


 * @Ludwigs (I assume), you asked me to provide a specific example of WP:Weight concerns, and told me I should have cited them prior to reverting you. I provided exact diffs showing I've already done just that. As far as "meaningfulness", your objection to my criticisms broadly fails to address the content of my reply, or provide any indication that you've so much as understood what I've said; Your objection that my reply is "not meaningful" is itself not meaningful. Rejecting large amounts of criticism from a variety of editors all under the vague notion that it's "not meaningful" doesn't get us anywhere.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem keeping scientific criticism in the lede but insomuch as it isn't redundant or stating something specific from one specific study which only goes to support the general statement that there is a lack of evidence supporting acupuncture's efficacy beyond that of placebo. The lede doesn't need to be more specific than that. The rest of the article entry is for getting so specific.67.127.100.144 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the first two-thirds of the the proposed revised first paragraph. The first sentence is a better summary of the topic, in particular I think the adjective "ostensibly" is well-chosen and neutral.  Moving the list of claimed effects and accompanying questions of efficacy to the second paragraph seems a good choice to tighten the focus of the paragraph, though removing it from the lead altogether would be a mistake.  Better agreement on how to present this information in later paragraphs may be needed before it's actually removed from the first.  The copyedit of the next few sentences is an improvement.


 * However, the final two sentences of the proposed first paragraph are seriously problematic, as they introduce incorrect comparisons to western medicine. "Traditional acupuncture was developed prior to and independently of western advances in medicine" is nonsense. The Ancient Egyptian medicine that was the foundation for western medicine was far more advanced than Chinese medicine in the second and third millennia BCE- heck, Hippocrates himself lived centuries prior to the earliest written records of Acupuncture as mentioned in this article. (For a sufficiently broad definition of medicine both traditions could be said to date back to the stone age, so while perhaps one could argue they have equal age on this basis, the 'prior' claim on behalf of eastern versus western medicine is still nonsense.) This false comparison appears to be a non-neutral exaggeration of its relative age to give an incorrectly positive impression of the practice to the reader.  The final sentence of the proposed first paragraph is also nonsense - the claim that western medicine never treats the body organs as interrelated systems is obviously false, and again not neutral. --Noren (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noren, I kind of agree with your first points, but I'm really supportive of your second paragraph. This Western Medicine bullshit is just frustrating, especially when Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Singaporeans, and whomever else lives on the Asian continent, use "western medicine," such as surgery, cardiac stenting, beta blockers, plastic surgery, organ transplants....oh, I could create a list that would rival the long treatises of some other editors.  There is medicine, backed by evidence, science, clinical trials, peer reviewed studies, and success.....and there's stuff that isn't anything.  This eastern vs. western medicine is some sort of strawman argument that fails logic quickly.  Anyways, I agree with what you're saying.  NPOV matters, and the proposed edits aren't.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, how's this then? If it doesn't work, don't criticize it without proposing your own version. Let's see how much we all agree on at the same time and maybe a compromise wil become all too obvious. All we know now is that we all agree that this lede needs to be rewritten. So let's go for it!


 * Acupuncture is an alternative medicine in which thin needles are inserted into the skin and manipulated in various ways, ostensibly to influence the patient's qi for therapeutic benefit. Acupuncture dates back to prehistoric times, with written records from the second century BCE, and is closely related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), sharing the same core philosophy and often being used in combination with TCM herbal preparations. However, many acupuncturists construe TCM narrowly as the modern mainland Chinese practice and see acupuncture as a distinct concept, particularly in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and prominent European practices derived from those where acupuncture has diverged significantly from Chinese theory and practice.


 * Acupuncture may be used by practitioners as a tool to promote general health, for relief of symptoms, or for therapeutic purposes. However, acupuncture's effectiveness for anything beyond the relief of some types of pain and nausea has not been established, and its effectiveness with pain is often cast as a placebo effect.


 * There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles.


 * 67.127.100.144 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @ IP: that's short and sweet, I'll give you that. I'd be ok with it, though I'd like to think on it a bit, because I have a dim and unformed feeling that it's missing something.


 * @ Noren and OM: I understand your objections, and even agree with you that it's badly stated. The thing that I was reaching for there was the obvious observation that TCM and modern medicine are largely incommensurate - one cannot map effectively or meaningfully from one to the other without creating nonsense statements.  just for example, the bit about equating acupuncture's effectiveness with pain as equivalent to a placebo effect: What does that mean?  The placebo effect (scientifically speaking) refers to an effect whose cause is unknown.  e.g. if you give someone a sugar pill and they get better, there's obviously some unknown reason they got better, but it's assumedly not the sugar pill that did it, right?  Now if Ernst (I think it was Ernst) is saying that acupuncture is no more effective than a placebo statistically that would a powerful statement that acupuncture doesn't work (show the statistics for that and the discussion's over).  However, if Ernst is saying that the 'mechanism' of acupuncture is similar to the 'mechanism' of a placebo...  well, that's just nonsense: obviously, should acupuncture actually have an effect it would be an effect whose cause is currently unknown.  I suspect Ernst is making the latter claim (mostly because acupuncture does no lend itself to placebo-controlled testing at all) and we need to be careful to contextualize statements like that properly to avoid presenting the science of the issue badly.


 * Note that this isn't really a worry about acupuncture at all. This is a worry about misrepresenting science on wikipedia.  Science gets its power by being clear, rational, and definitive with respect to well-defined evidentiary claims.  The more we misuse scientific sources to support ill-defined or exaggerated claims, the more we inadvertently convince readers that science is mostly politics - where scientists 'win' by making other theories look bad - and that just plays into the hands of people who advocate pseudoscience.  We don't want to win a battle against pseudoscience in article space just to lose the pedogogical war in the real world.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response, Ludwig. I think short and sweet is exactly appropriate for a lede. Please let me know of any critiques after you've sat with it for awhile, and please do so by presenting a version with your changes. When should I expect a response from other participants on this entry?67.127.100.144 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would really like to continue this discussion but I cannot keep returning just to check this thread where no one is attempting to work with each other. It seems to me as an outsider that there are a lot of personality conflicts occurring behind-the-scenes to the point where people are less interested in bettering this article entry; more interested in disparaging each other. If this is what WIkipedia is then no-thank-you. So what I am going to do is insert my version into the entry. That might get changed back right away but at least it could restart the discussions here about substance rather than personal grudges. Again if you have a critique of this version please respond with your critique and a version of the lede with your changes. This will better illustrate our differences in opinions and facilitate a compromise.67.127.100.144 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi 67.127. Again, there are a couple concerns with the revision which have been discussed (in part) above. Right now, I think we're waiting on Ludwigs to provide an improved version of his proposal which addresses those concerns. If you can do that too, that would be great... but I think the best course of action is to propose your change here, and garner support first, before inserting it. Putting it into the article without support, when there's been this much discussion, probably won't do much good, or instill good faith for editors who are contributing. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, thank you for the response. As I said, I am okay with my edit be changes back (as it was), but why did the editor (Orangemarlin) accuse me of edit warring? That seems rather extreme and is the kind of thing that leads to these personality clashes that have graffiti'd this page. Maybe I am misinterpretting what accusing someone of edit warring means. But why didn't this editor or you propose a revised version as I requested? I know you don't have to comply with my reasonable request, but it occurs to me that this discussion would run smoother if instead of just saying what we don't like about each other's version, we also respond with a version incorporating our critiques. It would feel like we are all interested in putting in the work to make this article better; making contributions rather than just criticisms. As for your comments above, please see that I responded to each of them but received no response back from you. I apologize if I am missing some Wikipedia custom of how to get someone to continue with a conversation. I am trying to learn. In any regard, my response to your main criticism remains: A lede should not contain such narrow specifics that just go to support a broad idea which is already stated quite clearly in the lede. So (for example) it's good enough to write that acupuncture dates back to prehistoric times. We don't have to talk about Shiji and Huangdi Neijing in the lede. The existence of these ancient texts support the idea that indeed acupuncture dates back to prehistoric times, discussion of these texts should be reserved for the body of the article entry. It's unneeded in the lede. The same goes for all of the other topics discussed in the lede and this includes the lack of scientific support for efficacy. It is enough to say acupuncture lacks scientific support; it is unneeded to go into an explanation of clinical science and specific systematic reviews which support the statement. These specifics belongs in the body of the article entry, not in the lede.67.127.100.144 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The placebo effect isn't "an effectiveness whose cause is unknown", it's an effect unrelated to the specific effects of the physiological activity of the compound or intervention. We may not understand precisely what is happening in terms of biochemistry - we just know that the results aren't being caused by the medication or anatomical changes brought about by surgery.
 * I don't like the proposed lead for a couple reasons - it's TCM first, alt medicine second and the proposed version places emphasis on its modern practice before its historical roots. The use of "ostensibly" casts doubt on the practice, which is warranted, but acupuncture should be described in terms of the TCM explanation (i.e. "Acupuncture's effectiveness is explained in TCM as the result of the manipulation of qi...") followed by the modern explanations, including placebo.  The proposed version places emphasis on it's use as a general tonic, rather than going straight into its lack of effectiveness - in other words, it gives undue weight to the claims of practitioners rather than the scientific evidence.  It also emphasizes its "safety" when "safety" is a relative measure.  Driving isn't as safe as sitting in a steel room with an independent supply of sterile oxygen, water and food, but gets you where you're going faster than continental drift.  Emphasis should be placed on the existence of adverse effects (with examples) that are rare in the hands of trained practitioners with sterile needles.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. My goal was not to give undue weight to the claims of acupuncturists. My goal was to remove the fat. All of the superfluous information and specific supportive facts unnecessary for a proper introduction. My goal was also to make the lede concise and to have some logical flow structurally. WLU, please share with us how you would like to see the lede written so we can see what you have in mind.67.127.100.144 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@67.127. The problem is that removing details about acupuncture's criticisms has the effect of removing weight from the statement, which in turn places undue weight on the statements regarding its efficacy. That turns out to be a violation of WP:NPOV, since the statements regarding scientific support are well sourced to high quality sources. So, while it may shorten the lead, it's a line that we have to trot carefully to avoid changing emphasis without proper cause. To answer your question about other editors making proposals, it's great when an editor can do that, but we can't expect every editor who lodges an objection to a proposal to provide one of his own. There are a variety of reasons for this, above all else that the editor may not have time to rewrite the content now. If so, this doesn't dampen his objections to the new content, which must stand on its own. Some editors here may also not think that the lead needs a rewrite at all, and if so, asking for a new proposal when they object to yours would defeat the point. All in all, the new proposal has to be an improvement over the existing one, and cannot introduce new problems to the article, or be a violation of policy. Until it meets that criteria, it has to be kept out while it's being worked on. You're welcome to continue doing that, of course! I would recommend not reintroducing it to the article again, however, until you have some support on this page. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the response. Can I ask if you specifically have the time or interest in writing up a proposal for the lede? I think you are among those who agree that the current lede is a mess and needs help. And in fact, I don 't see anyone above arguing that we leave it as is.


 * I don't quite yet have a grasp on the concepts of NPOV and undue weight, so I apologize right off the bat for that. I have read a lot about these Wikipedian concepts but am still not quite comfortable with them in practice. I appreciate your continued patience and guidance here. And I don't have plans to re-insert my version of lede. My stated goal was to restart this stalled conversation. And it has! So yay for that. :-)


 * So please help me out here. By removing from the lede all of the specific scientific reviews that state that acupuncture is not effective for this or that ailment specifically, how am I putting too much "weight" on the general statement that acupuncture has not been shown to be scientifically effective for much of anything at all? I thought that was a pretty faithful summary for the entire "Scientific basis and research on efficacy" entry. Are you saying that a faithful summary cannot stand on its own in the lede without including supporting details from that section? By not including the specific supportive statements am I making the weight for the general statement stronger or weaker? And how should it be if not just a neutral summarization of what is presented in the rest of the article? It seems redundant and "non-lede-like" to include a statement like "A 2011 review of review articles concluded that, except for neck pain, acupuncture was of doubtful efficacy" in the lede when we are already stating "The evidence for acupuncture's effectiveness for anything but the relief of some types of pain and nausea has not been established." 67.127.100.144 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been hoping to propose a change at some point, but I don't have the time now. As of now, all I can really do is participate in the discussion. Regarding WP:NPOV and WP:Weight - these can be tricky policies to get a handle on right off the bat... they apply differently in different cases, largely dependent on what type of sourcing we have available. I would suggest, as you're becoming acclimated with everything now, that you create an account, and place on your user page. This will request that an experienced user helps answer questions and get you acclimated with some of our policies. Many new users find this helpful to adjusting to the site. In this case specifically, we need a neutral way to say "Acupuncture claims efficacy in a broad range of areas (including X, Y, Z), but these claims lack scientific support. Clinical trials have concluded that acupuncture is not effective treatment for ailments besides nausea, and has serious risks (including U, V, W)." Ultimately, all of that needs to be said, and needs to be presented with proper emphasis. The current proposal (based on Ludwig's) pushes emphasis from the end of that content to the beginning (i.e. from 'criticisms' to 'claims'), which gives the reader a greater impression of the claims being made over its actual efficacy as concluded by the scientific community. Based on the sources we have available, and per WP:Weight, that's an unwarranted shift of emphasis. We should probably trim the lead, sure, but not at the risk of compromising policy. Does that make more sense?   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does help, Jess. It is appreciated. So you are saying that the problem you have with Ludwig's proposal is that it puts statement A before statement B when you think it should be B before A. I think what's important here is that you both this A and B belong in the lede, but you are only disputed the order in which they are presented. It's this kind of common ground which becomes apparent when we start being more specific with what we want to see done in the lede rather than just critique what others are suggesting. I bet we are all pretty close to agreement. Closer than we think. When you do have time, please do propose a change to the lede as I think it will reveal more about what yours has in common with Ludwig's and my proposals. And that will bring us to an agreement much quicker and more painlessly than merely providing a criticism, which so often is taken personally whether intended or not. It is easy to criticise; harder to contribute. So if we all put in a little bit more effort to contribute, I think we will all reach an accord much faster. Thanks again, and know that I am very close to pulling the trigger on setting up my own account. I appreciate your advice.67.127.100.144 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible draft lead
See Talk:Acupuncture/Proposed lead. It's essentially a hybrid of this lead and the current. It needs sources to be filled out, but for every ref tag there is a citation and it should be a good one - the old lead was one I worked on personally and I tend to be a stickler for scholarly publications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I give it thumbs up on my first reading and I give you a well-deserve thank-you. I will look at it closer and let you know if I have any comments and will offer specific revisions if I do. But it does seem succinct and well-organized. Great work!67.127.100.144 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking at the first paragraph only, I wonder if we can't shorten it a bit by cutting out some of the specificities.


 * WLU's first paragraph:
 * Acupuncture is a form of traditional Chinese medicine that involves inserting and manipulating filiform needles into various acupuncture points on the body to relieve pain or for therapeutic purposes. The earliest written record of acupuncture is the Chinese text Shiji (史記, English: Records of the Grand Historian) with elaboration of its history in the 2nd century BCE medical text Huangdi Neijing (黃帝內經, English: Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon). Though thought to originate in China, variations in theory and practice are taught throughout the world mainly differing in their use of Chinese herbology,[citation needed] selecting different points to needle, or in modern applications, applying an electric current to the needles. A related traditional practice is moxibustion (灸), the burning of cone-shaped preparations of Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort) on or near the skin often in proximity to acupuncture points.


 * Compared to:
 * Acupuncture is a form of traditional Chinese medicine that involves inserting and manipulating filiform needles into various acupuncture points on the body to relieve pain or for therapeutic purposes. Though thought to originate in ancient China, variations in theory and practice are taught throughout the world mainly differing in their use of Chinese herbology,[citation needed] selecting different points to needle, or in modern applications, applying an electric current to the needles.


 * Essentially, I got rid of second sentence which spoke about specific written records which tell specifically how old acupuncture could be and instead just added "ancient" to describe "China" in the following sentence. I think that suffices for a lede without getting so specific. Also, I removed the last sentence about "moxibustion". I don't think that is important enough to the rest of the article to qualify for the lede. These thoughts of mine aren't make-it-or-break-it issues for me in terms of finding a compromise. I just want to make you fully aware of how I look at a lede in terms of writing style. It should be broad, succinct, and well-written. Before I analyze the next paragraph, I would like to hear from WLU and the others here to see if this penchant for brevity by way of lack of specificity is a good Wikipedian practice.67.127.100.144 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the inclusion of brief mentions of specific texts. Keep in mind the entire history section is essentially summarized in that single line, it's worth keeping.  Moxibustion almost always accompanied acupuncture historically, this should be reflected in the lead and in the body.  The two were considered mutually supporting and complementary, it would be like a history of the internet without mentioning the telephone.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess I have a lot to learn about how ledes are written here at Wikipedia as opposed to the academic world. I just want to make it clear, because there seems to be some confusion, I am not for reducing the amount of words dedicated to discussing the lack of scientific support of acupuncture because I have a pro-acupuncture agenda. I don't think any of my edits should suggest that. I am for reducing the overall amount of words in the entire lede because I believe ledes should be concise. There were some assumptions made here about who I am and what I stand for and that was really troublesome. I came to Wikipedia last week simply because I wanted to learn something about Acupuncture. I read the article, got confused about one section and decided to make my first edit ever. I joined in the conversation here because I found the entire article to be well-written except for the lede. My goal was to make it more streamlined and I think WLU's proposal - while it does not completely satisfy me - it is without a doubt a hell of a lot closer to that than the jumble, overwritten mess that's in place now. I'd be all for implementing it and then seeing where it goes from there.67.127.100.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD for how leads are written here. They're supposed to follow the body (which needs a substantial rewrite in my opinion) and summarize the major points.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

page progress and page troubles
@ Snowded (and anyone else who pops in here). I'm open to reasoned discussion about the ongoing changes to the article, but we have had none of that to date - just pithy obstructionism from a single editor. I'd ask you not to revert a reasonable amount of good work simply because one editor has been doggedly obstructing things. If you don't like the changes that have been made, please discuss them here. Do not become part of the problem by engaging in large-scale reverts without considering the issues properly. -- Ludwigs 2 18:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lay out the issues so other editors can look at them. For the moment I've put the article back to where it was before this dispute broke out - WP:BRD and all that.   As far as I can see you are as much a part of the problem as other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowded, READ THE TALK PAGE. these issues have been laid out as we've gone along, and been regularly reverted by one editor who does nothing except declaim 'POV edit!'  You are currently supporting someone who has been tendentiously edit warring against page development.  is that what you mean to be doing?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * P.s. If you're really going to insist that I spell out all the rationales for changes again, I'll do that: but but I want your word first that if I do so you will behave reasonably and cease edit warring.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really enjoy personal attacks on everyone. For someone with 14 blocks to their name, is this a wise course of action?  I'm just trying to give you some helpful advice.  And yes, your edits were POV.  It's upon you to explain your edits to a stable version of an article, not for me to explain why every one of your edits were unacceptable and violations of POV.  Again, I'm here to give advice to an editor who is subject to a variety of Pseudoscience article sanctions.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Its far from clear to be honest. I went through the discussion above and some of it relates to the actual edits.  Rather than commenting on other editors  maybe you would put the same effort into summarising the main changes you want so they can be treated one by one.   I also suggest you stop shouting and failing to WP:AGF.  I've restored a position per WP:BRD if you think that is edit warring or unreasonable behaviour fine -- Snowded  TALK  18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're asking for that isn't already there. for instance:
 * my edits of yesterday were clearly marked as clean up and rewrite for clarity . mostly they were just rewording for style; some of it was removal of odd ramblings. why didn't you open a discussion and ask about it?  I would certainly have been open to that discussion, but since I have no idea what you think is wrong with the edits in particular, how can I justify them?
 * you reverted a clarity tag that middle 8 put on - why is that?
 * it's easy to revert Snow, but it's really hard to figure out what's bothering you about the edits if you won't explain yourself. So, explain what you think is wrong with the edits, in enough detail so that we can discuss it - how long do you need to make a reasonable explanation?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI my id here is snowded. Its very easy to edit war,  I reverted to a stable position with the suggestion that you (or some other) involved editor summarises the desired changes.  Simple really, if you are not happy with that I will look at it again later, but for the moment I have flights to catch -- Snowded  TALK  18:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, once again, it is your responsibility to defend your edits on a fringe article. You haven't.  You cannot take your path of editing and think you can "get away with it." You could go the teapot around the moon article, write that it's there, and ask everyone else who tries to revert "well, provide a reliable source that it isn't there."   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well will you summarise the issues with the changes (which I see have been put back) then maybe we can make progress. -- Snowded  TALK  18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing less than ideal behavior from both OM and L2. L2, edits like this [] are simply petty. OM, your snarky WP:TLDR, and references to L2's number of blocks don't contribute to the discussion; if the number of blocks is relevant, what are to make of your 4? (By the way, [zero] here. Don't that make me better or more virtuous than both of you???)Gerardw (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerard - I archived that because it was off-topic and specifically intended to be personal rather than content-related. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the archive, because it adds nothing to the discussion, and leaving it out there will simply encourage more comments along the same line.  If you like, I can do more focused redaction of off-topic personal material, but I do believe it should be obscured.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What possible reason would I have for restoring it? I think it's inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll do it myself. If you continue to think it's inappropriate, please bring it up somewhere (not here) where we can discuss the matter with the community and reach a decision on the usefulness of it.  Just let me know where.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, as I said, they were mainly clarity changes. let's start going through it line by line and try to figure out what to do about each. sorry about shortening your username, by the way; didn't realize that was an issue. -- Ludwigs 2 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

first line
what do you object to in this revision? the latter is a clearer description of what acupuncture attempts to do, I think. -- Ludwigs 2 18:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we have all the suggested changes? That is just a small part of the changes in the first couple of sentences of the lede.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded - it's three paragraphs of copy-editing revisions, involving material that was added, reworded, moved to different places, or removed. If you want to deal with the whole thing at once you can look at the diff and tell me what specifically you found distasteful in it.  If it helps any, I had three main goals:
 * to clarify specific details (e.g. needles are inserted into the skin, they are not stuck into the body like daggers).
 * to organize the paragraphs: first paragraph as overview of topic, second paragraph dealing with medical issues and efficacy.
 * to remove redundancies and pithinesses (e.g. removing link to 'evidence-based medicine', which is a POV neologism for western scientific medicine, or combining the three or four separate references to efficacy issues into a single line for easier reading)
 * Otherwise I don't understand what you mean by 'all the suggested changes' - we look at it as a block or we look at it in pieces; there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. -- Ludwigs 2  19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 hours, no response from Snowded or Orangemarlin. I'll check back in a bit.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about. no one here is full time and I am grabbing spots between hotels and airports over the whole of this evening so don't expect any detailed work in a two hour window - please. Otherwise I don't think its all or nothing.  When I looked at it some of the editors improved things, others attempted to reduce any medical criticism.  Its going to take a bit of work given this and the article is thanlfully frozen for a few days anyway.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just marking time, more with respect to Orangemarlin than you. Eventually, the fact that OM does not use the talk page to discuss revisions is going to become significant, and it's worth highlighting it as we go along.  For instance, this thread has now been hanging here for 7.5 hours without anyone trying to discuss the reasons for reverting the material.  You're busy, valid excuse; Orangemarlin has been working on different pages on project.  the longer this thread goes without anyone explaining the reasons for reverting, the more effectively I can assert that we have the established the groundwork for a new consensus.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. See wp:NODEADLINE. Certainly nobody seriously believes we operate on a timescale of hours. Give it a few days.LeadSongDog come howl!  06:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, its going to be necessary to go through the changes which have been restored by Adler/Ludwig2. The one listed above is fairly inconsequential, other changes appear to attempt to reduce scientific criticism.  Making such major changes without consensus was bound to be provocative.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If either of you has concerns with the changes you will have to say what they are. See the 4RR report currently open at WP:EW/N or the discussion on my talk page for some background. OM is a serial abuser of the BRD principle. For him it quite obviously means "bold, revert, leave the regular editors of the article puzzled about what he might be objecting to and why". It's just a technique for producing maximal chaos at an article with minimal effort.
 * NODEADLINE refers to imperfections in article space. It doesn't say that you can hold up editors who are doing content work on an article by putting unreasonably long intervals between the BR and the D of BRD. And the point of Ludwigs2's comment was probably not that it's taking too long but that there is a reasonable expectation that OM is not going to get to the D step at all. Which is why it was perfectly proper to revert him. Hans Adler 06:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't use one persons bad behaviour to justify the fact that there was little attempt to argue the changes here on the talk page. As it is its going to be a good hours work to go through the changes and comment.  The example given above is cherry picking the least controversial change.  Given that its unreasonable to start demanding responses within two hours -- Snowded  TALK  06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This section is about L2's attempt to draw OM into discussion. It's not cherry picked, it's the $%^ first sentence of the lead.
 * It's predictable that OM won't bite because it's (almost?) unprecedented that OM engages in discussion at one of his revert-only articles. But I don't see why we need this meta-discussion here in the meantime. For all I know your own content concerns may well be valid. Find out what they are, express them, and start a fresh section.
 * This all started with disruptive behaviour by OM (5 unexplained reverts in 24 hours, not acceptable by any standard, with not remotely comparable behaviour on the other side), and you jumping in essentially just supporting OM uncritically. Now it's your turn to stop supporting OM's pure stone walling and take this into a constructive direction. Hans Adler 06:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first line is minor, the substantive changes were elsewhere so it is cherry picking. The ne content has all being placed there by Ludwig and one other (and now reverted by you) rather than leaving the previous stable version in place while a discussion takes place.   Rather than edit warring after the reversal the case should have been made on the talk page.  If after a few days no one objected then the case would have been stronger.  However we have a edit war flurry over a day so neither side really comes out well here.  Now we have forum shopping on top.  I am now going to bed, and I have a very long couple of days on my feet with flights and late night arrivals.   I will go through this as a content issue if another editor does not do it first however, but it may take a few days.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you will understand things better tomorrow. A 3RR report for 5 reverts in 24 hours, with no content discussion and no history of constructive work on the article, cannot possibly be forum shopping unless an admin is already dealing with the problem.
 * The first sentence of an article is the most important. This is the one position that most edit wars are about, and there was a substantial change there. If OM is fine with that change, nothing objectively prevents him from saying so. Even saying it in a nasty way would have advanced the discussion. But he has just run away. Hans Adler 07:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Snowded: as far as I'm concerned what I did was inconsequential copyediting. You throw around words like 'controversial changes' and 'attempts to reduce scientific criticism' but I have no idea what you are referring to and you're not explaining it. I told you above precisely what I was trying to do (see the three bullet points above). So note well: You have a problem with this edit; I don't. You need to express what your problem is - in words - so that we can address it properly. If you cannot express what your problem is in words, then how can we possibly credit your problem as being valid? wp:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.

and 'cherry-picking' refers to quoting sources, not discussing content. If you're not averse to this particular change, just say so and we'll move on to the next. easy as sinning, if not as much fun. -- Ludwigs 2 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@ LeadSongDog: the fact that there's no deadline doesn't mean that we can't assert a new consensus has been formed. we have the opportunity to discuss any objections now, which is great if that's what you want to do. If you choose not to raise or discuss objections at this point, then you can certainly raise them at some later point (because there's NODEADLINE), but in the meantime we will take this new revision as the new consensus. As far as I can see it was a reasonable edit that I am more than willing to discuss and explain; you need to tell me what you see wrong with it.

I understand the 'temporizing' tactic - block changes to the article, toss out a few vague policy worries in talk, refuse to explain much of anything all the while accusing everyone else of haste and impropriety, and then sit on your heels and temporize in the hopes the issue will melt away without further ado. It's a common enough tactic on wikipedia, and not necessarily an unreasonable approach in many cases, though it is a bit on the passive-agressive side (particularly when used against reasonable editors). Just be aware that this is not the first time that I've had to address this particular tactic on project - not by far - and it certainly won't be the last. If this is the approach to be used here, then I will take it as an opportunity for practice and experimentation; it's good to have the chance to discover more reasonable, civil, and effective approaches to dealing with it. -- Ludwigs 2 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For all this talk of how OM is dodging discussion, has anyone actually tried contacting him to let him know there's a discussion taking place? Apparently not, so I have. I get that editing can get tense around here sometimes, but all this talking about a specific editor on an article talk page when he's not even involved in the discussion is a little out of line. Watchlists get clogged up sometimes, and I very often find myself reverting changes with which I disagree and not seeing the subsequent discussion until a bit later. If there are specific complains with a specific editor, they should be taken to their talk page, not here. As for the article changes, I'll lodge my disagreement with the provided diff as well. The previous version properly contextualized Acupuncture as variously claiming efficacy in a broad range of areas, for which there isn't currently scientific support. The new proposal reduces that weight substantially, further adding undue weight to the concept that Acupuncture is effective for some treatments. This doesn't properly reflect the article, or the weight of the sources. The previous version needs work, but this largely isn't a step in the right direction.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mann_jess: OM made five (5) reverts in one day, and has seen fit to make multiple comments here on my putative POV, logical fallacies, personal character, and etc. It's safe to assume that he's following the conversation and choosing not to participate for unknown reasons.  I applaud your adherence to AGF, but will suggest kindly that the principle should generally not be extended to the point where one has to ignore a whole range of behavior in order to make it make sense.


 * With respect to your substantive comments... This is an article about acupuncture, not an article about the scientific criticism of acupuncture.  while I agree that the scientific criticism needs to be there, we do not need to pack the lead with multiple separate claims about the same weakness; one line is sufficient for framing, and we can draw out the specifics in the body more extensively as appropriate.  Please remember that it is not the purpose of wikipedia to make an argument that acupuncture is flawed.  We simply describe acupuncture, including its flaws and critiques, in a way that makes the subject clear to readers.   Filling out the lead with excessive critiques is an effort to make an argument; balance is needed.  right?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Criticisms of an editor should still be kept on the editor's talk page (or a noticeboard). Having a whole section practically devoted to that editor, particularly when he isn't even participating, isn't what article talk pages are intended for. Regarding content: I agree fully that the article shouldn't focus on criticism, and I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm simply objecting on the grounds that the new revision doesn't properly convey the scientific standing of acupuncture on the claims being made. The last version did that, so while it may have had problems, this revision is still not forward progress.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's generally accepted that normally a lead should have no more than 3 paragraphs. (Ludwigs2 reduced the number of paragraphs from 4 to 3.) How many of these 3 paragraphs need to say that acupuncture doesn't work all that well? This is a serious question, and I expect a number as an answer. Hans Adler 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, cool, I'm actually glad to hear you say that abut "Criticisms of an editor should still be kept on the editor's talk page (or a noticeboard)". could you please take a look at these diffs -, , , ,  - and remind Orangemarlin of this principle?  That's just the ones from the last few days, excluding the edit summaries on his article page reversions; I can find more, if you like.  And yes, I do actually expect to see you remind him, otherwise your comments to us here lose whatever moral authority they might have.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ludwigs, the argument "he did it first" isn't a good one. I'm in no way lodging support for OM's editing. I'm simply saying that, as you and Hans are experienced editors, you should adhere to policy regarding article talk pages, namely by keeping discussion of other editors on their talk page or a noticeboard. Your irritation at OM in this thread appeared to be that he wasn't participating, so reminding him to stay on topic in a conversation he's not a part of seems a little silly. That said, consider this a reminder for him too, since it equally applies to everyone.
 * @Hans There's no one number which answers that question absent discussion of actual content (and along side a decent proposal). Again, I've made it clear that 1) I don't think the article should be driven by criticism, and 2) the previous version needs work. The answer to your question is "however many is necessary to describe the criticism well". I imagine that would probably be one or less, but it needs to be done well, and the current proposal doesn't. I'm objecting on those grounds. Weight was removed from criticism and added to efficacy for nausea. That doesn't reflect the article or the sources properly.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, I wasn't using a he did it first argument - I was suggesting that you be equal and fair in your condemnation of he practice. But let me point out that you and I talking about each other isn't productive either, so let's drop this.


 * With respect to your disagreement. I actually welcome disagreement and discussion.  I don't welcome a "let's go back to square one" approach.  Overall the writing in my version is an improvement.  if you think I've gone too far in organizing the material, then you're welcome to suggest new adjustments, but neither you nor anyone else has given a pressing rationale for blanket reversion.  what criticism do you want to add to the criticism that's already in the article that you think is important?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jess, it's very difficult to edit here with Ludwigs' constant personal attacks. It makes for a very troubling and hostile editing environment. I'm assuming that Ludwigs will get his 15th block sooner or later, which will make this area much more civil and prone to agreement. I thought Ludwigs was on a fringe article restriction? If not, I'd rather work on articles with a more collegial environment. I'm not sure why he hasn't been blocked for all of his hounding of me and of his constant personal attacks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Jess: so much for idealism... -- Ludwigs 2  23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't take these personal attacks from Ludwigs. It's clear he hasn't learned anything from his prior 14 blocks.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently you haven't learned anything from your prior 6 blocks, either. Hans Adler 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He has a few problems with basic math, as well - only about half of those items are block entries, the rest are unblock entries. I've wracked up a number of 20 minute deals, where someone makes a hasty block and it gets quickly overturned.  but it's no never mind.  stuff like this is so obvious it's actually kind of funny.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, take this to talk. If anyone has an issue with another editor's behavior, it should be handled on a noticeboard. We now have multiple sections devoted to attacking others. That's not ok. No response to this is needed... just concentrate on article improvement from here on out, please. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment re: Jess and Ludwig Ludwig seems fair & reasonable. I quote him below, indented.. His purpose is entirely reasonable, fair & appropriate. This is the intent of Wikipedia. Jess -- while it is nice to discourage argument, you reveal an inappropriate inherent bias -- tolerating one editor's disruptive & abusive behaviour, while essentially telling another more-reasonable & fair-minded editor that they should both 'settle down'. Ludwig is entirely fair and reasonable, and not try to push some particular philosophical point of view. The atmosphere in this article is extremely toxic & unpleasant, has driven off most genuine contributors, and you are contributing to this by permitting & validating abusive & inappropriate behaviour. See Ludwig's quote, below.202.37.64.48 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to your substantive comments... This is an article about acupuncture, not an article about the scientific criticism of acupuncture. while I agree that the scientific criticism needs to be there, we do not need to pack the lead with multiple separate claims about the same weakness; one line is sufficient for framing, and we can draw out the specifics in the body more extensively as appropriate. Please remember that it is not the purpose of wikipedia to make an argument that acupuncture is flawed. We simply describe acupuncture, including its flaws and critiques, in a way that makes the subject clear to readers. Filling out the lead with excessive critiques is an effort to make an argument; balance is needed. right? [Ludwig, quoted by TW.]

Comment from a non-editor Although I do not edit articles of this kind, I requested that the article be fully protected for a short period while the disputed changes to the lede were discussed. The whole form of the lede was changed in a single edit, described as a "copy-edit". Given that, discussing such major changes sentence by sentence does not seem to be a helpful way to move forward. My suggestion is that the previous lede be restored and that arguments for the proposed new lede should be presented and discussed here (per WP:BRD). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that we have entered actual discussions about the content (for the record: OrangeMarlin has so far not been involved in this at all), I support this proposal undere the optimistic assumption that there will be an actual constructive discussion rather than all the sceptics running away because it's been reverted back to a version in which a third of the lead is made up by the following and blocking any improvements ensures that it stays that way:


 * In case someone still doesn't see the problem, while every single sentence is probably correct, a large part of this is not the kind of high-level summarising that we normally expect in a lead. There is some obvious redundancy, such as the first and third sentence saying almost exactly the same thing. I am not seeing this phenomenon for the first time; it appears to be caused by a perceived necessity that every single lead paragraph debunks the subject of the article to some extent, and that at least one paragraph is fully devoted to debunking the subject. Of course this technique of hitting the reader with 16 ton weight right at the start ensures that (1) they stop reading, and (2) if for whatever reason they do continue reading, they take everything negative said in the article about acupuncture with a pound of salt. Unless they are already subscribed to the Skeptical Inquirer and are used to this amateur debunking style.
 * As a very minor observation, the previous version of the lead had "that treats patients by insertion and manipulation of needles" in the first sentence. At homeopathy there was once extreme opposition against using "treat" in this non-technical sense. Having seen Middle8 use the word in its technical sense of treating effectively, I am now more inclined to believe that this is a legitimate point. Ludwigs2's edit solved this problem. Hans Adler 08:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to start a new section, putting the two ledes side by side (in a template as above) and then making comments on their various merits and demerits. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mathsci:
 * Can you document where you made this request? it's not at the edit-warring thread I opened.
 * It was a copy edit and rewrite for clarification (as I explicitly said), and no one has pointed out anything actually problematic with the revision (it's all vague, unsubstantiated worries about POVitude).
 * Given what's happened at the page in the last few days, I suggest that any attempt to undo the revision again without thorough talk page discussion can be viewed as an effort to resume edit warring on the page, and I will treat it as such. It's not going to harm anything for the version of the page you dislike to remain in place for a few days while you explain (clearly and succinctly) why you dislike it.
 * That being said, I will set up the side-by-side comparison you asked for below, in a separate section. -- Ludwigs 2  17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I second MathSci's proposal. This is in accord with WP:BRD, and is how this dispute should be handled. The appropriate route is not to "keep the new proposal until there's consensus to revert it", it's to revert the proposal and discuss the reason to add it. Once again, if there are issues with an individual editor being disruptive, that's no reason to treat all objections from other editors as disruptive as well. I raised valid concerns above regarding weight which must be addressed. Regarding Hans' comment, I agree that we should avoid using "treat" in the previous first sentence, and as such, I'm in agreement with the first sentence change. That said, the entire "copy edit" change should be undone, with individual changes applied which are either non-contentious or with consensus support. Policy is BRD, not "BDR".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, nothing needs to be or should be undone until the issue is discussed. -- Ludwigs 2  23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and per the support here and in the variety of editors initially reverting, I think it's reasonable to adhere to the BRD cycle. I've reverted to the stable version on those grounds. We can discuss individual changes here, and incorporate those as consensus allows. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * and I'm reverting back, because no valid reason has yet been given in talk for reverting the material. -- Ludwigs 2  00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, you've been reverted by myself, Orangemarlin and Snowded, and restoration of the previous version has been supported on this talk page by myself, MathSci, Hans Adler, and LSD (below). I see no one besides yourself supporting your proposal stay while the issue is discussed. Furthermore, guideline dictates that the proposal be reverted followed by discussion, not the other way around. Per policy, and consensus support, I'm going to revert to the stable version again. This is the last time I'll do this. Considering your 9 blocks (5 for edit warring), I'd highly suggest working collaboratively rather than combatively on this issue, and avoid edit warring until consensus for the inclusion of your proposal is reached. If you continue to institute your version against consensus, I will take the issue to AN3. Furthermore, your assertion that "no valid reason has been given" is incorrect, as multiple editors have lodged objections, myself included. I'd very much appreciate if you worked with other editors, rather than against them, on this issue. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, I don't regard this as satisfactory in the slightest. Just a few weeks ago, I was discussing this introduction with WLU and the (extremely hostile, irrational editor) who is unable to consider logical balance of his worldview. We -- me and WLU -- reached a reasonable agreement, with a well-written introduction text.  What is the sudden need to change things? Other than to push a POV.


 * I'd also like to raise the fact that the claimed Cochrane 'review of reviews', omits, according to my understanding, every single piece of Asian research into acupuncture. Doesn't assign it a partial weight, doesn't consider it with a reduced-weight Bayesian algorithm.. it gives it a zero weight.


 * In terms of 'information analysis', in the professional field (signal-processing, document-processing, opinion- or intelligence-gathering, building a radar system) this would be considered a FAIL.


 * And if this counts as legitimate science, then the Church should have just 'omitted' Galileo's research in their 'review' of theories they didn't like. (Yep, I know you guys are skeptics -- and you will damn well need to learn to consider both sides equally, not just exercise some pack of assumptions on what you assume not to work.)


 * You guys would be busy shouting down continental drift, if it was a hundred years ago. No?


 * Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The left-hand one, is the correct form for an Introduction section. Introductions, are meant to be a summary of the *primary* nature of the topic. Weasel words and negative phrasing such as "ostensibly" and "purports", should not be used to inappropriately cast doubt & introduce negative aspertions; this would be a negative POV.

Describing "into the skin" and "manipulated in various ways", detracts from the directness & clarity of the explanation; and in the right-hand example, is primarily used as prelude to introducing negative "ostensibly" phrasing.

Read my examples:
 * Toothpaste ostensibly does not cause cancer.    [Mid-to-strong negative perception]
 * Apples are ostensibly free of pesticide.   [Highly negative perception]
 * Colin offers a purported investment.       [Highly negative]

For those with a genuine interest in writing & style: I recommend 'The Economist' Style Guide. This is the leading style guide, for the English language. Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who the fuck is WLB? You're replying to a comment that's a month old.  No-one cares.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'.
Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy. It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anaesthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:



There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

If acupuncture were any empty phenomenon, there would not be this level of scientific investigation (16,457 published papers). This is a subject, which is receiving genuine & substantial amounts of investigation -- to uncover why it appears to be efefctive.

However, acupuncture is the primary phenomenon -- not the partial and limited understanding of it, yet gleaned by science. *That* should not be the topic, or focus, of this article.

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US:

up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US:

[Iatrogenesis] [26] $19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge.

It is unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence.

By comparison with Western medicine, acupuncture is safe. Article on gardening, do not immediately focus on legionella deaths from planting mix -- articles on rocketry, do not immediately focus on rocket explosions -- articles on Western medicine, cover the 'positive purpose & benefit' with little mention of the 20% - 33% rate of hospital complications and 250,000 deaths per year (in the US).

Yet the supposed 'rationalism' of skeptics -- actually, a *logically false* and erroneously argumentative form of criticism -- comes from a weak & limited understanding of their own 'embedded mindset' and accepted background. Things considered to be 'normal' or 'accustomed' practice, by them, are not equally considered or subjected to such criticism.

Such 'skepticism' is logically false, and should not be the major feature in this article. This is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally POV, and both exceptionally weak & arrogant -- to assume that a raft of selective minor criticisms, should assume first-class status & take over the article.

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group -- and to edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Furthermore, I'd like and expect this discussion of 'purpose', 'bias' and 'criticism' to REMAIN IN THIS TALK PAGE -- until such time as it becomes unnecessary, or a better and more comprehensive NEUTRAL DISCUSSION succeeds it.

Thankyou.

Twhitmore.nz (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend an hour countering your rant. First of all, see WP:NOTAFORUM.  The talk space of articles is not a place to rant about what you believe in.  Your logical fallacies abound.  You choose articles in support of your POV that are primary sources, unconfirmed, or barely rate as a reliable source.  Acupuncture cannot cure a cancer, and if you claim it, you better bring some pretty amazing sources.  Yes people die in hospitals because they are sick.  They die of cancer, which none of your alternative medicine can cure.  NONE.  They don't go to a hospital because they're in perfect health.  So, if you're going to play with the big boys here, please read the following:  WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS.  Because you misconstrue NPOV as being not negative.  The vast wealth of clinical trials, evidence, and science make it clear that the best you can ever expect from acupuncture is a placebo effect.  BTW, most research shows that for no benefit whatsoever, acupuncture has a relatively high rate of adverse events.  You got your facts wrong.  Good luck with your search for reliable sources.  Because we've looked, and there aren't any.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Harumph! I hardly qualify for TLDR...do you want to talk about the moon and cheese????  LOL  I'm guessing that was meant for the soapboxing friend.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a rant -- it's a statement of what neutrality, and neutral POV, consists of. Your stating that you won't bother countering, is both a rant -- and an admission that you are pushing a highly biased POV, and can't support that.


 * For example, emphasis on acupuncture "risks/ deaths" is extremely biased -- compared to rates of medical error, death, drug side-effects, and painkiller addiction in Western medicine. And you mention logical fallacies?


 * I didn't bring up the subject of cancer, you did. See the WHO recognition of acupuncture, for a reasonable list of conditions considered treatable. Chronic/internal illnesses -- such as digestive & metabolic illness, as well as pain -- may be suitable for acupuncture. As far as I am aware, cancer is not suitable for treatment by acupuncture, and you should see your GP or oncologist.


 * It sounds like you have a personal, highly emotive, and reactive issue with regard to cancer. As this was entirely off-topic. Please conduct these discussions, in the interests of Wikipedia rather than in reaction to any personal circumstances. My condolences anyway, despite your poor manner.


 * "Yes people die in hospitals because they are sick." -- this is widely accepted, not to be an acceptable excuse for *medical error*. Practices in the field of aviation, are widely recognized to be far superior in reliability/ error avoidance, to those in the medical field.


 * "Playing with the big boys"? I am disappointed by your tone & attempted superiority. Perhaps if you could give a balanced discussion, and not a ranting list of logical fallacy, then we might be able to discuss this more sensibly.


 * I've referred this to NPOV Arbitration.
 * Twhitmore.nz (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm bored, let me respond to your bogus theories:
 * 1) It is a rant. See WP:SOAPBOX.  All that matters is verification and reliable sources, not your opinion.  No one cares about your opinion, from a Wikipedia standpoint.
 * 2) Accupuncture risks is verified by reliable sources.
 * 3) WHO is a political organization and doesn't qualify for a reliable source. You have none to support acupuncture's usefulness in anything, including digestive and metabolic illness.  Lacking any reliable source to support your fringe theory is, once again, precisely what NPOV is all about.  When you bring a reliable source, and not your opinion, then let's talk.  We'll wait, since we looked at this again and again and again and again.
 * 4) Wrong. I don't care about anything about medicine but evidence based verifications.  You're the emotional one, because Wikipedia, in its goal to protect neutrality, refuses to give you the means to push a POV that acupuncture actually does anything.  When it does.
 * 5) With regards to hospitals. You make me laugh. You have no idea, and apparently, no reliable sources to support your soapboxing.  Logical failure of the extreme.
 * 6) I'm not superior to anyone. I am, however, well versed on this topic.
 * 7) Do you not think this has been to NPOV "arbitration" (can't even get the terms right) before? This will WP:BOOMERANG on you badly.
 * 8) Remember. Verification counts.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I ended up reading it. It's the same standard talking points you always see - acupuncture is popular, it's old, it doesn't have adverse effects, etc.  There's nothing new here and no sources worth integrating.  In particular, Twhitmore should realize that acupuncture is proven effective or not based on studies of acupuncture, not on the adverse effects of unrelated treatments.  Doubly-particular, Twhitmore needs to read WP:NPOV carefully, particularly WP:UNDUE.  "Neutral" does not mean "from the perspective of believers".  The article does need a re-work though, and I'm reading towards that goal.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Removing the interspersed flow from my original, to preserve it clearly, and so I can reply to them:


 * It's "long history" (which is actually rather debatable, see Taylor, 2005) also does not prove it is effective. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Long history, establishes it as outside & pre-established before the emergence of scientific method. Being competent at logic, this establishes it as at least 'partly independent' of that domain. Long-established existence, also implies social acceptance & shared understanding, (possibly due to successful effect), continuing that existence.
 * So why would you expect science to support it? Science is a method for testing, and acupuncture has consistently failed those tests.  It is data that matters, and it is data that determines the truth of the claim made.  Social acceptance, pre-scientific understanding, continued existence, these are all logical fallacies; popularity, tradition and a bit of nature.  It was long accepted the earth was flat and the sun rotated about it.  It was long accepted that bleeding cured.  It was long accepted that white men were superior to white women who were in turn superior to all black people.  None of which is supported by data, therefore none of which is true.  Acupuncture isn't all science, but all of its factual claims are - claims about healing, biology and method.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV. "Neutral" does not mean "uncritical", it is appropriate to lay out the best evidence for acupuncture's efficacy as a medical treatment.  We also don't create POV forks.  An appropriate page on acupuncture deals with its history, uses, variations, rationale, and the evidence for or against it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Neutral does not mean "excessively critical" either, which is exactly what it was. Biased use of the very few acupuncture injuries, to denigrate it versus Western medicine which has huge problems, is completely intellectually unacceptable.
 * It's not biased to point out that acupuncture itself has adverse effects, that it is not risk-free. Particularly given arguments, like the ones you've made, that it's both risk-free and effective.  Acupuncture is not risk-free despite being promoted as such, and given that it's effectiveness is borderline at best, that make the ratio of risk to benefit a bad one.  That's the point made by Ernst, and it's an important one.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's biased to give undue weight, to low-or-minimal levels of risk compared to Western medicine. This writing appears to completely mis-state the relative risks -- Western medicine, with surgery, small-molecule drug sideeffects, and painkiller addiction is *substantially* risky. Acupuncture appears to have a very low risk.
 * Aspirin and paracetamol, for example, both have complication/death rates between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 10,000. The cited 100-odd acupuncture complications; is that per million, 10-million, or 100-million treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Trick or Treatment, the evidence base for acupuncture got significantly worse once adequate placebos were developed. There is no evidence for acupuncture points with specific effects, meridians, or effectiveness for much beyond pain and nausea.  The reason there is so much research is because acupuncture is popular, it is purported to treat nearly any disease, and it's extremely difficult to create an adequate placebo.  However, we've now managed to do such a thing, with the resulting erosion of the evidence base.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * I'm aware of the placebo effect already. "The reason" is an assumption -- the best & most probable reason for a scientist to do research, is because something works & they want to know why. A less profitable reason, for a scientist's career & for scientific value, is to debunk something. It is a suprising assumption, that you assume the less profitable & negative reason by default. Not logically sound, either.
 * Acupuncturists have much greater motivation to deny negative studies and claim it is effective because they directly make their living from it, while researchers get grants irrespective the results of their studies. The placebo effect is discussed regarding acupuncture because it makes much more sense than qi and because the evidence supports it - acupuncture is dramatic, portrayed as old and mystical, requires a lengthy "diagnosis" and a pseudo-sensible explanation, all of which enhance the placebo effect.  Control for them and acupuncture's effectiveness disappears.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientists have greater motivation to research & investigate useful and existent phenomena, than to debunk non-existent ones. Productive activities are always more valuable than unproductive ones, both to society, and in research kudos, grant money & citations. The presumption of scientific investigation being most likely for "debunking" purposes, is logically unsound & actually completely inverted.202.37.64.48 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding anasthesia, search for "anesthesia" in this document. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Thanks for your suggestions.
 * I have now read/ skimmed through the article, and found it interesting.


 * We reference pubmed here frequently, there's a citation template for it: cite pmid. You are doing what is referred to as "cherry picking" - selecting studies that support your hypothesis, rather the totality of the literature.  See WP:MEDRS.  What you actually need are review articles and meta-analyses, such as this one, and this one, and this one, and this one.  Note the trend is ultimately negative.  There's no evidence, there's negative evidence, there's calls for more research, but rarely is there anything positive.  Again read Trick or Treatment, and you'll find that as the quality of the trial increases (control groups, a large sample size, publication in high-quality journals, replication, etc.) the evidence base again shrinks.  Anyone can cite primary sources that support a conclusion, but we must cite secondary sources on wikipedia pages that summarize whole bodies of research rather than just the parts we like.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * "Cherry picking" could be used to describe studies, which reject the majority of Chinese & Asian research -- who are the experts -- yet elevate Western medicine as "scientific" and "researched", despite the huge funding biases & major publication biases known to exist in the research/publication system.
 * Look up the Cochrane Collaboration and search for it in WP:MEDRS. There's a reason we insist in high-quality sources that aggregate the data for us, so we can't cherry-pick.  The best sources, published in the best venues, are negative.  Again, read Trick or Treatment's chapter on acupuncture.  The results for acupuncture in non-Asian high-quality research are mixed, some positive, some negative.  By contrast, there are zero negative results from China.  Ernst and Singh point this out as a reason why to distrust Asian research, particularly given political motivation to portray the culture and its learning in a positive light.  The results point to systematic bias.  Read the book.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox, nor a publisher of original thought nor a place to predict the future.  We discuss what history, medicine, anthropology and sociology have uncovered about acupuncture, we don't assume it works and promote it.  Also, acupuncture is effective, but the research is aimed at discovering why.  The results suggest much of the effectiveness stems from nonspecific effects - that is to say, placebo.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Precisely. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for skeptics. This article is meant to be about Acupuncture, not about "Skeptics assume Acupuncture couldn't work". Acupuncture has been around for let's say 2000 years -- I'd say in the next 50 years, biological sciences will have advanced far enough to get a good understanding of what acupuncture does, or doesn't do.


 * But for now, biological & medical science do not understand many major systems, nor subtle patterns in many other systems. For example: cell-wall sugar-molecule signalling, immune system, cognition & consciousness, gene control & expression, RNA computation & effects, cellular operation, growth & development control, repair mechanisms, or the peripheral nervous system.


 * So -- assuming it's all cut-and-dried already, is entirely & spectacularly incorrect. Go read a science magazine -- every month they're making spectacular discoveries.
 * Again I point to sources - the best sources are critical and the literature reviews are critical. Citing their results accurately is not skepticism, it's accurate summary. If you can find positive literature reviews whose results are not contradicted by later work, then by all means cite them.
 * Egyptian medicine has been around a lot longer than Chinese and lasted longer than the entire civilization, shall we start digging into the Egyptian medical papyri for modern treatment? Shall we use crocodile dung instead of condoms?  For that matter, bloodletting goes back to about the same time, shall we start using lancets again?  Age doesn't mean anything, evidence does.  Merely because new scientific discoveries are made on a regular basis doesn't mean they support acupuncture.  Until you have specific evidence that explicitly supports acupuncture, you're not saying anything worth including on the page.  Are you convinced if I say "they're making new scientific discoveries every day, so therefore all healing is due to tiny gnomes who heal your wounds in your sleep"?  But they're making new scientific discoveries every day!  Speculation about future evidence is useless without specific evidence for or against acupuncture.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume if you investigated crocodile dung, you might find it had some degree of effect. (Perhaps a 70% probability of that outcome?). But, Egyptian contraceptives are not the point. I posted links to some number of studies, by reputable Western research departments, finding benefits from acupuncture. Suprisingly -- cardiology was one hot area. So, there is specific evidence. Your straw-man about "tiny gnomes" is really, not necessary.202.37.64.48 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [Iatrogenesis] So what? The two phenomena are unrelated.  It's not like the failings of medicine mean acupuncture works.  If an experiment fails to support string theory, does that mean loop quantum gravity is the correct theory?  If the theory of evolution has flaws, does that mean creationism is right?  You're creating a false dilemma here - acupuncture's effectiveness stands or falls on its own merit and evidence base like all of science.  If evidence supports or refutes acupuncture, that is only meaningful to acupuncture, not to any other branch of medicine or science.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * The what is, that the "Skeptical Acupuncture" page was being written to entirely different standards -- negative, critical, unproductive -- than those applied to pages of Western medicine.
 * Science is meant to be about discovery & intellectual honesty. Double-standards & pre-judgement are not what science is about, yet these were a previous & severe problem with the Acupuncture article.
 * That's fantastic, so go find negative studies about "western" medicine and add it to medicine. It's irrelevant here.  I wouldn't cite peer reviewed articles about the failures of homeopathy on this page, despite their obvious vitalistic commonalities.  I would cite articles about acupuncture because this is the acupuncture page.  Please stop bringing up "western" medicine's alleged failings.  It's both a red herring and a false dilemma.  Acupuncture stands and falls on its own merits, nothing else.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's not fantastic. It's an instruction to apply the same neutral & constructive writing style to articles about Acupuncture, as is used for surgery, prescription drugs & Western medicine. This is an issue of NPOV, non-bias and having a productive/informative writing style, meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Equality, fair comparison & avoidance of unconscious bias ('Western medicine is fine & health risks are non-existent, acupuncture is a fraud therefore absolutely minimal levels of acupuncture complication should be written up like a huge accusation') are not a red herring, nor a false dilemma. But they should be fixed.202.37.64.48 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Returning to my earlier comment, if a peer reviewed trial supports surgery, does that mean acupuncture suddenly becomes less effective?


 * Anyway, your comments here are irrelevant, if you're so concerned about the failings of "western" medicine and surgery, you should seek out reliable sources and expand those pages, not try to debate them here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Obviously nonsensical. My points are about 1) slanted Evidence bases in the comparison of Western medicine to acupuncture, 2) false standard of comparison between Surgery and Acupuncture, despite surgery being relatively effective;  and 3) expectation the Acupuncture page be written & discussed in a useful, positive & constructive way -- not driving all the actual domain experts off.


 * I regard most pages on Wikipedia as good exemplars; focusing on the productive topic, rather than nitpicking caveats. This same standard, is the one which I am happy to apply to Acupuncture.
 * Great, find medically reliable sources to support your points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [Re: unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence].
 * It is if we're discussing effectiveness. The history section shouldn't talk about how meridians and acupuncture points are unsupported by any evidence, but the "theory" and "effectiveness" sections should.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Primary purpose of the page & introduction, should be the topic -- not skeptics attacking the topic. WLU's version now provides is an appropriate and balanced intro.


 * If acupuncture is ineffective, then it's not safe no matter how many adverse effects there are. If accupuncture is truly effective, we should be able to demonstrate this using scientific evidence instead of talking points - in which case it will be adopted as actual medicine.  It hasn't, because unlike most drugs and many surgeries its effectiveness is still debatable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Actually, this is the only logically sound & correct statement you've made. Thanks for pointing out something that is actually correct.


 * It is posited on an multiplier of zero, though -- for the statement to have any effective value, acupuncture has to be completely or (very significantly) absent of effectiveness. Probably even placebo effect, would render this approach unfruitful.


 * Thanks for attending Logic 101.
 * Yes, but without you citing positive, medically appropriate sources, you're wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "skepticism" can be "logically false". It's an approach, a desire for empirical evidence rather than rhetoric, not a syllogism.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * Skeptical bias in this page, has displayed *enormous* double-standards, assumptions of in-effect, and negative/unproductive writing style. If I say logical error, or logically unsound, I mean it. Read my disproof of Noam Chomsky using variant form of Occam's Razor.
 * Again, sources over logic. Your opinion is original research and is worthless.  Without sources, you're wasting everyone's time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, neutral doesn't mean favourable. See WP:NPOV.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex


 * When I say neutral, I mean neutral. I don't need somebody to tell me that; especially as "slanted wallpaper" to cover blatant, highly biased, extremely slanted & aggressive & rude (to the point of driving off genuine contributors) skeptic community.


 * We appear to have reached an improved state of affairs, and (thanks for your input & contributions) a much more coherent & reasoned discussion. Thanks again for your comments & input!
 * Neutral is demonstrated, not asserted. You call us rude, we have to deal with the same bullshit whining every couple months and we get sick of it - "this article is too negative, modern medicine isn't perfect, science supports acupuncture" all without any real work or heavy lifting done by any of the whiners.  I'm reading a lengthy book on acupuncture, one of several, so I can contribute meaningfully.  I will use these books to neutrally expand and rewrite the page.  I won't bitch about how unfair it is on the talk page and throw up a pile of fallacies.  If "being rude" (i.e. insisting on wikipedia's policies being followed) drives of credulous believers unwilling to actually hunt down sources and read the polices, it saves everyone some time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to recent editing and WLU, the introduction is now much improved -- substantially neutral, with primary discussion of Acupuncture and appropriate minor mention of negatives, among the scientific.

Thanks to the editors & contributors, who have taken the time to politely comment. Twhitmore.nz (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is still flawed because it should follow the body, not vice-versa. Right now the two are out of balance.  One reason I wasn't willing to replace it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)