User talk:Herbxue/Sandbox3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=617190003
 * Editor dismisses concerns about POV wording and misuse of editorial source by asserting fact without in text attribution

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=617468469
 * Editor asserting POV wording against previous compromise (and misusing editorial to assert fact in WP's voice)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=617524986&oldid=617518624
 * Editor dismisses entire subject as without any value, but continues to edit dismissed subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=617924367
 * Arguments against depicting "acupuncture is pseudoscience" as fact in WP's voice

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=617777489
 * Editor insists on presenting opinions as fact, showing obsession with the label pseudoscience

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=next&oldid=617864915
 * Logos gets it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=617846849
 * Editor claims strong consensus but does not give evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=617843551
 * Zambelo gets it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=617731968
 * bobcatmeow on NPOV

Dismissive, insulting
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&curid=159422&diff=621284481&oldid=621256431

Kww - part of the reason your direction looks like original research is that you are confounding different research questions. As I see it (my OR) there are three main questions confounded in this article, and you are partially correct about one of the three: 1. Does acupuncture exert a true physiological effect? - acupuncture has clearly demonstrated physiological effects - it is a separate question to ask "do these effects have any relationship to the therapeutic intent of traditional Chinese acupuncture, and are they different from any other noxious stimuli?" 2. Is there a specific effect of acupuncture beyond placebo? If we are seeking a yes or no, Vickers says yes. It is "modest", but it exists. If you can find a credible source that says scientists have a consensus about this, then cite it. Even Ernst is careful enough to not make a definitive statement that acupuncture's effects are due to placebo. So, you are correct that there is not a lot of exciting positive evidence that acupuncture's (demonstrably positive) effects are due to more than placebo effect, there is also not enough convincing evidence to claim that there is consensus that its effects are primarily due to placebo. 3. Is Acupuncture a clinically and cost effective option for patients? The answer seems to be yes - again, this is a separate question from its effects beyond placebo. Doctors generally consider acupuncture safe and effective, even if they think there is no true mechanism of action. Acupuncture beats standard of care for some forms of chronic pain, and it outperforms sugar pills. Does that validate traditional theory? No, but does it mean that actual doctors consider acupuncture a worthy referral option? Yes. Again, you have to be clear what question you are asking before seeking to answer in wikipedias voice. In your post above you say you are trying to devise a summary - but you already have a purpose in mind! If you seek to summarize, do it here, on the talk page, and see if the evidence supports what you are saying.