Talk:Fire needle acupuncture

Notable?

As a WP:FRINGE topic, this article needs substantial coverage in WP:MEDRS sources. At the moment, we have two cites to a publisher, "Blue Poppy Enterprises", that I have strong reservations about. Next, we have a cite to a primary study.

I think, at the moment, we're looking at a redirect to Acupuncture. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong per WP:FRINGE:

For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

This has been covered by multiple reliable sources and scientific studies showing a statistical significance with cervical headaches. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Books by promoters of this fringe theory published by "Blue Poppy Enterprises" are neither independent of the subject, nor does the publisher have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Blue Poppy Enterprises is clearly a promoter of acupuncture.

That leaves one journal article; not "reliable sources".

Next, what journal is that? Zhongguo zhen jiu = Chinese acupuncture & moxibustion. Current impact factor: 0.00. (Note they are comparing "fire needling" with acupuncture. One fringe theory is better than another fringe theory.)

Also from WP:FRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So just ignore this source? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Current impact factor: 0.00." That means everyone is ignoring that source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• v2.0 I'm guessing based on your edit history you do not have a science background. The link I just sent is one of the many scientific studies from non-acupuncture sources regarding this specific technique. Unfortunately if you cannot see that as reliable then we have an issue I cannot address. Also how did you come across this article we your reviewing my history? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You can guess about me all you would like. Have fun.

The issues with that source are:

• 1) It is ONE source. Notability requires multiple sources (related note: the "Blue Poppy Enterprises" books are worthless).
• 2) It is a primary source; the article is on one study (see WP:MEDRS).
• 3) The source is a low-impact (actually, a zero impact) study in a meaningless "journal" (again, see WP:MEDRS. That you do not understand this is only means that we will not be able to resolve the issue here. i guess we'll need to take it to AfD.

As a side point: I have added a tag questioning the notability of the topic. You feel the topic is notable. That's fine. However, the tag indicates that there is a question. Removing the tag indicates the question is resolved. It clearly is not. In the future, please do not remove maintenance tags while there is active discussion.

As to how I got here, I'm not really sure. Yes, I may have seen it in your contributions list, but I also watch Acupuncture and may have seen the link added there. (My first edit here was several days after the link was added and during a break in your editing with this article near the top of your edits, so I'd guess that's it.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"bi qi"

The remaining "Blue Poppy" source says this is used to treat "bi qi". As this publisher clearly uses machine translation for some of its titles (tested on cases of "calvus" for a total of 49 "chicken's eyes" of which 38 were "stripped", whatever any of that means[1]), I can't tell if this is a biomedical claim or not. What is "bi qi"? I am familiar with the fictitious energy, "qi". I this supposed to be a "disease" where the "qi" is both "hot" and "cold"? Google has never heard of it. No sources seem to have any idea what this is supposed to be. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the request for clarification as to what "bi qi" is. If anyone believes there is no need for clarification, please explain what "bi qi" is, as I have been completely unable to find anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is some way to clarify this, I will remove the statements. As it stands, the statement is nonsense and might as well state that "fire needle acupuncture treats riytogiuo, rrrytouiojkasghiasd and 5etriyoguihksdga". (Unless "bi qi" is an obscure in-universe term (in which case it should be defined), I'm assuming this is part of Blue Poppy's apparent machine-translation, which also gives us the "stripped chicken eyes".) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While I am sure it is used to treat bi qi, stripped chicken eyes and a variety of other bad machine translations, I am removing this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: This is apparently a bad machine translation. The original source said something that probably made perfect sense in (presumably) Chinese. Blue Poppy Enterprises apparently ran that source through an off-the-shelf program to translate it to English. Sometimes this works reasonably well. Other times, the system chokes and we end up with "bi qi" and "stripped chicken eyes". You are insisting that the treatment is used for "bi qi". What is "bi qi"? (For that matter, what are "stripped chicken eyes"?) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Chicken's eye" is a term of art used in this book. [2] Such funky terms crop up in TCM literature a lot, and I think bi qi is very likely another example; unfortunately the whole book isn't available for searching. I actually might have a physical copy around; will check. (FWIW the term may have to do with "bi syndromes" [3], which involve "obstruction of qi", and it may mean just that: "obstructed qi". That would fit with use of a strongly qi-dispersing technique like fire needling). A clarification tag is appropriate; deleting the source on the suspicion it's a bogus machine translation isn't. Support Valoem's restoring source [4] and keeping it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Scientific studies"

One study cannot be "scientific studies". The study in question does not state that studies found this, only that they did.

In no case is it "scienific". In fact, given that it appears in a "journal" with an impact score of zero, we should be treating this source with a good bit of care and reason to question whether or not we should be calling it "scientific".

If a review article is JAMA says sticking red hot needles into your skin is an effective treatment, Wikipedia says it is an effective treatment. If a single study published in Frank's Journal of Medical Treatments and Fishing Tips says it's an effective treatment, we don't mention it at all. While this source is clearly somewhere in between those two extremes, the zero impact score gives me reason to believe this is not a WP:MEDRS source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a valid study, which I why I requested the source remain in tact during the AfD. The AfD was closed as keep so it means the sources is valid. Again if you disagree please discuss since consensus is against you. I intent to expand this article with the sources added by User:Cunard which clearly pass GNG, however I cannot if you continue to remove sources to the point the article fall below WP standards. If you prefer ANI I'd be glad to see the outcome. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD was closed as keep, which means the topic was found to be notable. It says nothing about the individual sources in the article. I will raise this particular source at the MEDRS noticeboard. There is no policy or guideline that says sources added must remain or that any removal of a source must be accompanied by the addition of a source. If you have sources to add, please add them. The existence of those sources (and whether or not they are in the article) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not this source should remain. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Plainly not a MEDRS for efficacy; removed.[5] Source still might be usable for a statement along the lines that fire needling has been studied in China for treatment of cervical headache (but that reliable efficacy data are lacking) but I'm not at all sure about that. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: As should be obvious, I've opened the discussion at the noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The consensus there was that this is not a reliable source. An editor form the noticeboard removed it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

A TCM textbook is not a fringe source; it's RS for non-biomedical aspects of TCM and should not be removed without a good reason.[6] At the same time Cochrane, a MEDRS, shouldn't be removed either without a good reason.[7] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A TCM textbook is a fringe source. Obviously. We need to give context from the wider world to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As you've pointed out before, whether a source is RS depends on its usage. A TCM textbook is entirely reliable for TCM principles & practices. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem with reliability; it's neutrality which is the issue. Wikipedia is not a compendium of fringe notions. Insistence that "It's RS!" tends to be a hallmark of POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The definition given by the TCM textbook/encyclopedia is exactly the same as the one given by the Cochrane source. I restored the latter, [8] and the former is plainly RS for defining a TCM term, which is neutral. Now you're edit-warring.[9][10] You're free to go to to WP:AE and report me for POV-pushing, but I suspect that would result in a boomerang. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Since we've a good source there's no need to WP:OVERCITE with a fringe one is there? Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's RS for the definition, isn't it? Why wouldn't a TCM text be RS for TCM beliefs, and how can this simple definition an NPOV vio? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't use fringe sources except in the (rare) case where it's necessary. Why would one? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it's not OVERCITE to cite two different kinds of sources. But you've argued that there's a neutrality problem (with multiple implications for sourcing), hence my questions just above. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality problem arises for notions that are only in fringe sources: we mustn't include them. Otherwise, we should try for WP:BESTSOURCES. You seem keen to use fringe sources. Why? Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm "keen" on using RS's of all types, and you're playing IDHT with my point about the claim-dependence of RS-ness. Also time to stop the baiting.

On topics that are only in "in-universe" sources: if we have adequate mainstream perspective on the mother topic, then we should usually be able to cover child topics neutrally. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Except this parent/child thing is your invention (neutrality is inherited?) and not in the PAGs. We require mainstream sourcing for discussion of fringe topics, period. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course scientific skepticism about acu would carry over to fire acu. As I mentioned at WT:MED, if an editor tried to argue otherwise, they wouldn't get very far. It would be seen as tendentious. WP:SNOWBALL.

This is common sense but yes it is also in PAG. (WP:FRINGE/PS) that if say a new perpetual motion machine becomes notable, we don't have to wait for scientists to comment on it; we can treat it as scientists treat perpetual motion machines generally. Similarly for fire acu w/r/t acu. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no problem there. It's all fine so long as there's no reliance on fringe sources and the "child topic" idea isn't invoked to try and subvert that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That (the "so long as..." part) is exactly what I am advocating, because the "child topic" idea (from WP:FRINGE/PS) provides the NPOV, mainstream reception part. Apart from that, quality in-universe sources can be used for everything else an article needs. There is nothing in FRINGE or other PAG that I know of that that we cannot write the article from such sources as long as they are RS for their claims and we write it neutrally. And no this doesn't open the floodgates to all kinds of woo because (a) they must pass WP:N, and (b) not all kinds of woo can be written about neutrally. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are misapplying policy. WP:N (a guideline) explicitly does not apply to article content. See WP:NNC. As for your professed ignorance about purely fringe sources being forbidden, I have quoted policy to you before but you blew right past it. To reiterate:

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my bold]

For any fringe issue or theory we need sources that represent "established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world" in order to contextualize that fringe issue or theory; if such sources do not exist there is not an option then to rely on the fringe sources in a vacuum, and so the fringe content must not be included. Alexbrn (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who said WP:N applied to content?? All I meant was that WP:N keeps lots of woo out by requiring sources of a certain standard.

Who's comparing a fringe idea to accepted mainstream scholarship and trying to legitimize it that way? You're taking the bold part out of context -- and that's apparent even from the preceding sentence, let alone the rest of WP:GEVAL.

GEVAL says not to present fringe content as being on par with established mainstream scholarship. It doesn't say what you're suggesting, re standalone articles.

Anything else, re my proposal (my preceding comment, 09:23, 26 March 2016)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What a fringe source is and isn't

This is important: TCM textbooks are not always "fringe sources". They are scholarly sources for appropriate claims about their own topics. Per WP:V and WP:RS, the reliability of a given 3rd-party source depends on the claims it's used to support. So for example, a philosophy textbook would be FRINGE for medicine if it made biomedical claims (by an unqualified author) -- but that wouldn't make it a "fringe source" for philosophy. No reasonable editor would argue that point. We've treated Chinese medicine textbooks the same way, elsewhere -- just limit them to appropriate claims. Broadly impeaching a TCM textbook as "a fringe source" and removing it for e.g. a simple definition of this article's topic is inappropriate.
This broader issue would be good to raise at a noticeboard but I'd prefer to defer that for a few days (busy IRL). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC) clarify "broadly impeaching" 05:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

TCM-specific textbooks are all fringe sources for TCM in the same way that homeopathy textbooks are fringe sources for homeopathy and ufologists books are fringe sources for UFO accounts. What you're really arguing is that TCM is not under WP:FRINGE. What a surprise. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it depends on the subject matter and quality of the source. A textbook with a legitimate author and publisher is RS for appropriate claims about its subject matter, but is fringe for certain other claims. A TCM textbook is fringe for biomedical claims about TCM, but is RS for TCM beliefs and practices, appropriately qualified. That's very basic RS and V (see WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SOURCES respectively) and is true regardless of the text's subject matter. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As I keep pointing out, the issue is not reliability, but neutrality - and NPOV is core policy. Wikipedia is not a compendium of arcana. If something has not penetrated beyond the circle of TCM to the point where we can contextualize it with reference to a mainstream source, it would not be neutral to include it. I've quoted the policy to you twice already: for each fringe factoid we either omit it or contextualize it with mainstream scholarship. Having fringe stuff unqualified is not an option. As I have also said, an insistence on reliability is often a hallmark of POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(belated reply) Alexbrn But you ARE complaining about reliability: we were using a Chinese medicine textbook for the definition of fire acupuncture -- something over which there is no NPOV dispute -- yet you called it a "weak fringe source" and removed it [11]. Of course the Cochrane source you replaced it with is great, but it says the exact same thing (indicating no NPOV problem with that claim!). The TCM source was also fine, in that instance. In order to be handled neutrally, it's not necessary that something "penetrate beyond the circle of TCM". It's fine as long as there are no specific NPOV disputes -- nothing beyond what we've covered for the main topic of TCM -- and you haven't shown that there are any. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is necessary that we can place fringe concepts within a mainstream context, and for that we need mainstream sourcing. If we didn't do that we'd be open to all kinds of crap: details of 1000s of UFO abductions, OOBs, etc. (and TCM stuff). Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) So where's the specific NPOV dispute here; what are the competing claims? (2) Fringe-ness depends on one's reference frame, cf. RSCONTEXT. Chinese medicine is highly notable, and while it is fringe with respect to biomedicine, it is in some other respects about as mainstream as it gets. It engaged some of the best minds in Asia for centuries and is a huge topic area (as is its modern iteration TCM). When some guy's UFO abduction rises to the same level of notability then we can cover that too. Actually we already have one guy who allegedly flew up into the sky and became about as notable as can be. You or your neighbors quite possibly celebrated his birthday this past March. He used to be fringe, but then he hit the bigtime, and sometime in the last few centuries became even bigger than Chinese medicine! Now, we don't use Christian apologetic texts for scientific claims and we don't use TCM textbooks for biomedical claims, because they espouse a fringe view in those areas. But for their own areas they can be mainstream RS. It depends on the claim. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, re material that should be omitted, your argument still reflects a misreading of WP:GEVAL and WP:FRIND. Neither applies to sources like TCM textbooks that we should be using in TCM subtopic articles for straightforward, descriptive, non-biomedical claims. I've already explained why but will once more.

For those who missed it

GEVAL is about omitting fringe stuff from mainstream articles, not from articles on fringe topics themselves. Read GEVAL in its entirety and you'll see that the point is that "currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship". That means we omit tiny fringe topics from mainstream articles if they're so fringe that we shouldn't dignify them even by mentioning/contextualizing them. That's GEVAL. However, whether to have articles on tiny fringe topics at all, and how to write about them in their own articles, is a different issue, and GEVAL does not speak to that. FRIND says that "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." Here, "independent" (WP:INDY) means "having no financial or legal interest in the topic". So, while "in-universe" sources like TCM textbooks aren't MEDRS, they are generally INDY, and (cf. WP:RSCONTEXT) they are good, tertiary RS for non-biomedical claims about TCM. Like "what is fire needling" and the like.

Straightforward, descriptive, non-biomedical claims sourced to TCM textbooks don't invoke GEVAL or FRIND, and don't involve the kind of competing claims (like safety or efficacy) that indicate NPOV disputes, so they are fine here. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ashi points?

Mentioned in the article but no explanation given? Don't think this is a medical term? Joolzzt (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Joolzzt: I didn't find anything that would pass muster as a RS, but ashi points appear to be places identified empirically as producing a result or by the quality of pain felt by the subject if the point is stimulated. They do not necessarily correspond to traditional acupuncture points or meridians.

BTW: I'm removing the "immediate attention needed" flag that has been here since the Talk page was created. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)