Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Response by Duncharris

It would have been nice to be informed of this by someone.

Jim is making edits without consensus to promote his view that alternative "medicine" is not pseudoscience, despite the contrary consensus on various talk pages. This is part of a long running effort in which he has tried all the wikilawyering tricks (see category talk:pseudoscience, and generally special:contributions/Jim Butler) to try to redefine WP:NPOV to remove the category he thinks is POV, despite long-established consensus to the contrary. Specifically, I ask him to provide examples of proper double-blind peer-reviewed published controlled trials of such "therapy" which he has failed to do. — Dunc|☺ 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Preliminary Compromise Offer

Acupuncture has been around far too long to be considered a "protoscience". By now there should be substantive scientific proof, in the form of double-blind peer-reviewed papers, that prove its efficacy. There are none. In addition, acupuncture's hypothesis (such as it is) states matter-of-factly that it works without really stating why, thus failing to meet the scientific criterion that its hypothesis be tentative allowing for empirical testing and falsifiability. It is, then, a pseudoscience. That Mr. Butler disagrees is irrelevant -- what is relevant are the facts themselves. •Jim62sch• 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing strongly with Jim here. Further, I note that it is easy to find sources in mainstream science/media which describe acupuncture as a pseudoscience such as Skeptic magazine. Furthermore, the word "protoscience" seems like a deliberate euphemism if not strong POV pushing. JoshuaZ 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn pending developments. --Physicq210 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Jim Butler

Comments from Jim Butler(talk) 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC): To put acupuncture in category:pseudoscience means WP endorses the POV that it is pseudoscientific. Even under WP:SPOV, that is problematic. Under WP:V and NPOV, there should be some reliable evidence -- or at the very least good reason to believe -- that most scientists would agree with the categorization.

I think there is good evidence to the contrary. Acupuncture isn't something debated merely at the fringes. If there is scientific consensus, it is probably that the jury is still out on efficacy. This view is supported by some evidence-based medicine reviews, which rely on meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Some of these (from reviewers of undisputed caliber, and looking at peer-reviewed RCT's) actually find evidence of efficacy for certain conditions: headache[1], nausea[2][3][4], back pain[5][6] and dental pain[7]. Also see these, which disagreed over headache[8] and nausea[9]. For other conditions, reviews show that acupuncture may work (i.e. it can't be said that it's no better than placebo), and for others, it's pretty clearly just placebo. Not exactly stunning evidence for acupuncture's efficacy, but excellent evidence that legitimate debate exists, and that it is actively researched by mainstream scientists.

Acupuncture's claims are easy to test, irrespective of the way the ancient Chinese believed it worked. (There really isn't a dragon in the sky that eats the sun and moon, but if the ancient calendars predict eclipses, that can be verified. The claims about the dragon were never claimed to be "scientific" in the first place, but pragmatically, they still have predictive value.) There is also debate about appropriate study design; the question of double-blinding is far from trivial for procedures as opposed to pills (see this section from main article. (The guy doing your surgery is probably gonna know if the treatment is real or fake.) Finally, even under EBM it isn't considered heresy to apply treatments that are less than proven: other things being equal, it's acceptable to "try it if it might help and can't hurt", and rely on clinical experience as well as meta-analyses.[10] If using acupuncture is reasonable under EBM, how can it be pseudoscience? (FWIW, a majority of US doctors polled believed it is effective to some degree.[11])

So what is gained by using a category that advances a POV that isn't demonstrably scientific consensus, let alone medical consensus? Is it helpful to the WP user curious about pseudoscience? Perhaps, but "What links here" functions as an index without WP taking a position on categorization. A WP user might be interested to know which people have been labelled as fascists by historians: does that mean we can put George W. Bush in category: fascists just because a significant minority viewpoint says so? I don't think so. Given NPOV, I'm not even sure a simple majority is enough if significant minority views disagree over something. I think something like consensus is required. I agree with WP:CG that categories should be used cautiously since they endorse a position:

Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed. Most categorizations are pretty straightforward, though.

This categorization isn't straightforward. No editor has presented good evidence that most scientists think acupuncture is pseudoscience, and I think the EBM stuff above is good reason to believe otherwise. We're talking about genuine differences among mainstream scientists over what the evidence says. What the EBM stuff shows for sure is that belief in acu's efficacy is a credible scientific view, at least a significant minority one, so why should WP take sides?

The voices of prominent skeptics are certainly sufficient to establish their view as a significant minority POV, but where is the evidence they speak for most scientists on every topic? It's not as if we're talking about creationism here, or even homeopathy. There's actually mainstream research and debate going on. So it's much more NPOV simply not to categorize acupuncture as pseudoscience, and instead present various POV's in the article. I want to emphasize that vocal, "hardline" skeptics do not necessarily speak for all scientists on every topic.

Thanks for considering this. If this is considered "mere wikilawyering" by most editors, then I guess I shouldn't be editing here. I think it's a pretty basic issue of the POV-ishness of using any cat, as discussed in WP:CG, which merits more attention than it has received so far. Jim Butler(talk) 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are my comments on Dunc's post above, which is pretty misleading, whether or not he intended it to be.
Jim is making edits without consensus to promote his view that alternative "medicine" is not pseudoscience, despite the contrary consensus on various talk pages.
This is part of a long running effort in which he has tried all the wikilawyering tricks (see category talk:pseudoscience, and generally special:contributions/Jim Butler) to try to redefine WP:NPOV to remove the category he thinks is POV, despite long-established consensus to the contrary.
  • Where is the consensus on those pages? Did I miss a guideline somewhere? I think Dunc is using the "wikilawyering" accusation to avoid substantive discussion.
Specifically, I ask him to provide examples of proper double-blind peer-reviewed published controlled trials of such "therapy" which he has failed to do.
  • Dunc only got around to asking me for that yesterday[12], and I posted a response about 20 hours before he posted his claim here that I didn't[13]. Also, most of the EBM stuff I summarized above is already in acupuncture and has been there for some time. Dunc's claim appears careless or disingenuous.
Finally, Dunc persists in using awful Wikiquette in edit summaries. It's extremely misleading to say "rv vandalism" when Dunc actually added the cat for the first time to an article that didn't have it before.[14] (Acupuncture didn't have the cat. Acupressure and Acupuncture point did.)
I'd prefer that the discussion stay focused on substance rather than process, but it's awfully hard to pursue consensus given Dunc's approach. He seems to presume that acupuncture is as flagrantly pseudoscientific as anything else on the skeptics' lists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is too moronic to dignify with a civil discussion. Even genuine morons deserve better Wikiquette than that. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding Evidence section

Hello physicq210 - Thank you for volunteering to moderate this case. I will refactor the page to include my opinions and evidence in the proper section. (Being new to the process, I included a lot of that in the "Request Information" section.) Since I've gotten unexpectedly busy, I can't do it right now, but I will within 48 hours. Thanks again and best regards to all involved. -Jim Butler(talk) 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of Evidence Section

Only evidence belongs in the Evidence section. Please take your discussion about submitted evidence to this page. I don't want to reorganize the page all the time. --Physicq210 22:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't tell how to use the template on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence. Most of the evidence that I have in the form of diffs I already included under the Request Information section, with a little more moved to the talk page. I'll be happy to reorganize it in the right format if someone can tell me how. Never mind - I think I get it. Will get to it within a day. thanks - Jim Butler(talk) 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know how to use the template, experiment in the sandbox. This can wait. --physicq210 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems moot now. Thanks for reviewing the diffs in the manner in which I presented then and not insisting on the template. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Evidence

[edit] Responses to Comments by Slowmover

Whether you like me or not, (I take it this is in reference to your bizarre vandalism (and there can be no other word for it, you were deliberately removing content and indeed relevant links) of them), that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether alternative "medicine" should go into category:pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent accusations and mischaracterization of my edits only reinforce what I have said. -- Slowmover 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Quick comment: Dunc, I made this MedCab request to bring about a change in your Wikiquette, not to definitively settle the pseudoscience issue. Reaching consensus on pseudoscience will take some time, but depends on decent Wikiquette from us all. Your behavior (incivility, carelessness, reverting without discussion, improper use of edit summaries, etc.) has crossed the line too many times. Judging from your talk page, your approch seems to be end-justifies-the-means: once you decide another editor is wrong, consensus is moot, and Wikiquette doesn't matter. Slowmover's comments are illustrative and I'm glad he took the time to make them. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional evidence

Dunc has continued to violate WP:DR by reverting without discussion since he became aware of this MedCab request (his comments on this case were made on 9 July). He reverted on 10 July with Category:Alternative medicine[15]; this time the reverted edits were from User:Limegreen. Also on 14 July[16]. Dunc gave no reason for his edits either in the edit summaries or on the talk page[17]. Since Dunc has violated Wikiquette with two different editors on the same dispute, he appears to be technically eligible for an RfC. Following our mediator physicq210's request, I won't file one pending the outcome of this case. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in the first case, Dunc reverted without comment to implicitly indicate his support for FeloniousMonk's position. However, I would consider the second revert suspect. --physicq210 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Also, to Dunc's credit, he's left the acu-related stuff alone since this MedCab request. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Verdict

I have finished compiling the verdict on Dunc's actions. However, since I wrote it late at night (I finished it around 10:45pm [Pacific Daylight Time, as I live in San Francisco]), I will finish my verdict the next day. I apologize if the verdict seems biased against Dunc at the moment. Jim Butler's actions are also under review. The use of the category will be deliberated last.

Remember, the verdict can be challenged, and I am willing to address any grievances. --physicq210 05:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. This is only the preliminary verdict, pending permanent verdict. --physicq210 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the first compromise offer

Hi physicq210. I certainly agree that discussion is better than edit warring. From my reading of WP:CG, I seriously question whether cats should stay on pages if they present NPOV problems. Additionally, WP:V says those who want an edit to stay bear the burden of evidence, something editors critical of what they say is pseudoscience haven't produced. However, I recently came across a good template -- Template:Disputed-category -- that can handle this issue. (It might be a good idea to make it so that template could indicate the specific category that is disputed.) Again, I don't think that proper use of cats is something any one editor can or should solve. It's going to take time and effort to reach consensus, but any input is valuable. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing Remarks

Are there any more remarks or issues from either side that need to be addressed? If not, then this case will close in three days. --physicq210 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time here. This is my first experience with WP:DR beyond talk pages. Maybe a Wikiquette alert would have been a better way to go. Hope some good comes of it; we'll see. Jim Butler(talk) 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my conduct

This is a minor issue, and I'm just mentioning it for the record. physicq210 wrote that I "did not obtain consensus with editors prior to removal of the category". I think it's evident from the talk pages in question that consensus doesn't yet exist on this issue (in either direction). Nor am I aware of a Wikipedia policy/guideline to the effect that removal of categories requires consensus. If anything, it appears that those who want to keep the cat need to justify it, per WP:V and WP:CG. Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a topic is through a bold, revert, discuss cycle or two, but that requires that both sides be willing to discuss....

Anyway, I'm not suggesting my conduct is spotless. I'll certainly plead guilty to some edit warring. I've also learned some things about making my points on talk pages more concisely. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)