Talk:Shiatsu

Scientific Reasoning

Dear @Roxy the dog:, You reverted my edit on Shiatsu in which I replaced "good" with "scientific" to keep true to the source. I would like to know your reasoning for this decision as "return to last good" isn't an explanation. Thank you. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a recurrent topic. The problem often expressed about saying "scientific evidence" is that it can imply there are other ways of proving beyond the purview of science. Another problem is that editors will spring up pointing at a crappy journal article on Shitsu saying "look, there is evidence! Wikipedia lies". So "no good" covers the bases, and is also technically correct when referencing a secondary source which has sifted the evidence. If readers are really curious they can click the hyperlink for more info. Alexbrn (talk)

E/C That is so strange. My return to good (it seemed at the time) removed a swathe of the "Timeline" nonsense as well as your edit, and yet the edit history says otherwise. I seems I just replaced the word "scientific" with good. That was deliberate too, as using the word scientific in that sentence implies that there is some evidence, which is not the case. I see that since your edit replacing your wording, another editor has made the same edit as me. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"neither qi nor meridians exist"

Claims on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. The cited source does not say that qi and meridians are nonexistent. They say that qi is unverifiable and meridians are not supported by evidence. We should also keep in mind that no claim in science is ever considered to have absolute certainty, only support or lack of support. I have updated the article to be more accurate to the source. Also I should note that the Accupressure article goes into more detail regarding meridians and we don't need to be duplicating it. The sources cited for this blurb do not apply to Shiatsu specifically but Chinese traditional medicine in general. MarshallKe (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the good version before your edit, per the source, which says "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you notice that "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." is not synonymous with "neither qi nor meridians exist"? MarshallKe (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

... and you are pointing this out because? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• The status quo text is a good summary of the cited sources, and the content is necessary for a NPOV. MarshallKe, now edit warring, has been alerted to the WP:Discretionary sanctions in place for this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The "status quo" text is a not at all a summary of the cited sources and is obviously POV and inconsistent with both NPOV and the cited article. MarshallKe (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Qi is a myth. For WP:PSCI policy reasons we need to be upfront about that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In order to best be upfront about pseudoscience, we should demonstrate that science has studied the topic and found no evidence for it. This is what my edit does. MarshallKe (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The SBM source [1] says, Acupuncture meridians and acupoints are imaginary until proven otherwise. The Ernst source [2] says, Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths Are you saying that "imaginary" and "myth" do not imply "does not exist"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ernst source later says "the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven". Would you say that the source conflicts with itself? MarshallKe (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. That's true of things many quasi-religious things that don't exist, like faith healing powers e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither can the existence of Russell's teapot, which doesn't exist either. So what? That quote is inconsequential. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We can discuss epistemology all day, but what really matters here is that we don't misrepresent the WP:RS material. I'm starting to think it's simply time to escalate this to WP:DR as we are unable to agree on what the source says. MarshallKe (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• As a gesture of good faith, I'd like to share that I personally strongly suspect accupuncture and most of Chinese traditional medicine to be quackery. I scheduled a massage the other day and I discovered that the therapist was an accupuncture/pressure/Chinese traditional medicine practitioner. The things she was trying to get me to believe came across as some of the most quack stuff I've ever heard. We need to promote scientific skepticism, and the way to do that is to promote the scientific method and discourage making claims that can't be proven. Negative claims such as "qi does not exist" is itself, a claim that cannot be proven. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, regardless of whether it is a negative claim or a positive claim, and a Proof of impossibility is an extremely high standard that is usually not achievable outside the realm of mathematics.

WP:FRINGE is not a blank check to make unproven negative claims against pseudoscientific topics. It is an obligation to hold accepted scientific sources in higher regard than nonscientific sources. We must not fall into the same trap as pseudoscience believers by making unproven claims. We must adhere to the principles of science and faithfully paraphrase the scientific sources, which I have done, which has been reverted now in favor of text that reads as a dogmatistic fundamentalistic afterthought and misleads the reader into thinking that science operates in the same way as a religion. MarshallKe (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you believe WP:FRINGE is misapplied, raise a query at WP:FT/N for more input. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm under the impression noticeboards are for urgent matters and that for matters that are worth waiting for, WP:RFC is preferable. Also, the policy involved here is WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, not WP:FRINGE, as I am not looking to add information with the intention of promoting a fringe view but rather I am looking to delete a claim that does not exist in the source in favor of faithfully interpreting that source. MarshallKe (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, only a couple of noticeboard are for urgent matters (e.g. ANI). The question you raise is about WP:FRINGE concepts and FRINGE is part of NPOV. Launching an RfC without adequate WP:RFCBEFORE could be seen as disruptive, especially since it would seem you'd be better off dropping the WP:STICK. 06:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources seem to say its a myth, so so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any doubt within the relevant scientific community about this? If yes, report it. If no, we can state it in Wikivoice, because that would be an appropriate encyclopedic summary of available sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• This discussion now has a post on the Fringe theories noticeboard MarshallKe (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn thinks that using the phrase "their existence can neither be proved nor disproved" is plagiarism, and that reverting to the non-neutral blanket statement that's not supported by the cited sources is better. This is the power that the FRINGE guys have over neutrality, in the name in science. It needn't be that way. Truth and verifiability can coexist. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not copy portions of text from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia. Also note WP:V is policy, so original editorial comments are not a good idea either. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I think the plagiarism accusation and editorial comment accusations above are merely asides. Even if you hadn't made those mistakes, your edit would still have been reverted by Alexbrn and Roxy the dog. The main argument they're riding on is that the word "myth" is synonymous with "does not exist" and that because of Christopher Hitchens' razor, that claims can be decreed as patently false just because they are unprovable. I think both of these border on WP:SYNTH. MarshallKe (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I know. For the same reason we don't state "God does not exist", we should stick to statements that are supported by sources that are neutral enough to allow some diversity of belief. Similarly, the statement that "There is no good evidence that shiatsu is an effective medical treatment" oversteps that statement in the cited source, that "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease". This builds in the POV assumptions that only things that prevent or cure a disease are effective medical treatments, and that the only good evidence is "scientific" evidence. I understand that the FRINGE/MEDRS crowd has empowered themselves to run WP this way, to not let it contain any neutral coverage of alternatives to the so-called evidenced-based western medicine. It's a good thing they don't exercise similar control over WP's treatment of religions and philosophies and politics and such, which would pretty much all have to be labeled as "no good evidence for". Instead, we just neutrally describe what they are, drawing on reliable sources with multiple points of view. Shiatsu is a thing; we ought to be able to describe it without taking a strong POV position against it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:AN3; is the dispute really over whether "meridians" (A) are imaginary, or (B) do not exist? We are edit warring over "imaginary" vs. "do not exist"? Is there a more serious issue that I should investigate? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much that. More particularly, if a source claims they are "imaginary", can we state in WP's voice that they "do not exist"? No, that's one POV, but the article should adopt a more neutral POV. It would be OK to say that western medical researchers can find no evidence for these things (i.e. attribute the POV), and things like that, being careful not to extrapolate beyond what's in the source. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a substantial difference between "imaginary" and "do not exist"; if one can get consensus and the other cannot you should just go with it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If one can get consensus and the other cannot, that's the difference. It's not clear that stating in WP's voice that they're "imaginary" is going to get consensus, though, so maybe they're the same. But yet let's seek a phrasing that can get consensus. Probably attributing the assessment would help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Any statement to the effect that the existence of meridians/qi "can neither be proved nor disproved" is facilely incorrect and does not belong in Wikipedia any more than we would say such a statement for fairies or ghosts or any other of a number of other fantastical claims. Where people have made empirical arguments that meridians/qi can be observed, their evidence has been lacking. To the extent that some claim you cannot observe the phenomenon that means that the claim has left the realm of empirical reality and stating jejune commentary over "proof or disproof" is something best left for your personal blogs. jps (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Does WP contains statements asserting the nonexistence of fairies? or ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, miracles, gods? Maybe, but I haven't noticed them. I'm not saying I believe any of these things are "real", but I don't think you or I get to decide that WP should take that position when plenty of people and sources have other POVs on these topics. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We follow the sources and observe NPOV. And it's best to say it plain and simple without deviating from the source. As to Wikipedia "taking a position", well yes - it does take a position on such matters by aligning with respectable rational sources and contextualizing fringe claims thusly. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Does WP contains statements asserting the nonexistence of fairies? Wrong question. Better questions, "Does WP contains statements asserting that the existence of fairies can neither be proved nor disproved?" FTFY. It doesn't matter whether "plenty of people" think anything. Surveying the beliefs of plenty of people is not how we decide whether we WP:ASSERT a thing or say it's just, like, your opinion, man. jps (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles on mythical topics like qi and fairies should contain neither an assertion that they do not exist, nor an assertion that they can't be proven. If scientific studies exist on the topic, the outcomes of the studies should be described. If the topic is not able to be studied by science, then there should no statement at all. Considering that there have been studies looking for meridians and there have been no studies looking for the mythical qi, I propose that the line be changed to omit qi and simply say "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of meridians". MarshallKe (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Qi and fairies are different in that there aren't numerous journal articles, practitioners, etc. asserting that fairies are real, a legitimate subject of scientific work, and a route to medically effective treatments. Like our sources, Wikipedia needs to be plain that these things are really not real. Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia should identify and be biased toward reliable scientific sources, and articles should faithfully reflect those sources. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. Fear of pseudoscientific beliefs in the world should not cloud our duty to uphold Wikipedia's policies. MarshallKe (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles on mythical topics like qi and fairies should contain neither an assertion that they do not exist.... Why shouldn't we have assertions of non-existence? We have reliable sources which make it clear that these things do not exist as typically argued, and it is fair to be up front about that. Of course, there are ways to do this that do not involve beating a reader over the head with clunkiness of wording. I'm reminded of all the times I cringe when the adjective "false" is inserted into news-stories about some inane thing the 45th President of the United States said, but occasionally there is nothing for it but to be up front. More to the point, the sources we have which indicate clearly that meridians and qi do not exist always do so in the context of claims that there is physiological or anatomical evidence of such. The claims of practitioners that they can "see" these things with third eyes or reiki or whatever other vaguely empirical argument are the contexts where, "Yeah, not really." needs to be explained so that readers are not confused. This can be done through simple David Hume-esque "Of Miracles" style which does not pass judgment on the believer but simply points out that within the phenomenology of "things known" that have observable effects, such things do not exist. Blunt statements can be jarring, but that is no reason to enact a prohibition on being honest to our readers. jps (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

And just to wear out my welcome a little more, the statement "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of meridians" is one I certainly can get behind, but it also doesn't fully capture the ontology of the way meridians or qi are argued in the context of alternative medicine. There are some who argue that meridians or qi do exist but that science just needs to "catch up". This is a profoundly incorrect assertion. Part of the reason that the existence of meridians is deprecated is that we have an understanding of physical, chemical, biological, and medical phenomena which do not permit the sort of mechanism described. You can have your psychosomatic effects and your placebos, but this is not the argument made in favor of meridians. jps (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Blunt statements are fine and statements of nonexistence are fine, as long as those statements are supported by the source. The source does not make it clear that qi does not exist despite what some editors would wish it to say. We just don't agree on what the source says. MarshallKe (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources which make the point more bluntly. E.g. [3] [4]. What we do not want to get into here is WP:CHEESE territory or an argument over ontology as I intimate on your talkpage. There really is no debate in the most reliable sources that we have which consider the question as to whether there is room in the natural world for these claims. You can reimagine them in the realm of metaphor or mythology or faith if you prefer, but that is not the substance of the editorial remit we are discussing here. jps (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems like gaslighting. As everyone is telling you, something that's stated to be mythical/imaginary simply doesn't exist. We have a good fair summary. If you want to add something like "and as such qi is not amenable to scientific investigation" that's fine, but it seems banal & unnecessary. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The actual question seems to be: since there are several flavors of nonexistence, from lie via fake news, disinformation, fairy tale, myth, legend, misunderstanding, rookie mistake, ignorance, and obsolete idea to measurement error, do we need to fastidiously copy the exact same flavors named by the sources? It would certainly save time, since complaints are easier rejected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with jps here. Zooming in upon cherry-picked turns of phrase in order to justify a higher level of plausibility than the science actually supports is not the way to write good encyclopedia material. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A thread has been opened since some time at the fringe theories noticeboard. Is there a reason why this is still being discussed here rather than there? Anyway, I have put up a proposal there, so I would like to invite comments on that. If it is preferred I put up my proposal here, I can copy it –just let me know. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit proposal

A number of editors here agreed on the wording (not necessarily the sources) below. I have skimmed through a number of sources, but found that the ones already cited in the article worked well enough (better sources could and should certainly be found, but for now these should suffice). Comments are welcome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, which is sometimes described as an "energy flow". This energy flow is supposed to be channeled through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians, thus causing a variety of effects. Despite the fact that many practitioners use these ideas in explaining shiatsu, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.

References

• I think it's too high-brow in the wording. I would greatly prefer "neither meridians nor qi have ever been shown to exist," or "neither meridians nor qi are known to exist," or "neither meridians nor qi exist." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's probably too high-brow, but the problem is one of context for the verb "to exist" because the context can be confusing. The question of whether meridians/qi exist in a Platonic sense could be of interest to some, but that's not the context of the part of the article we are interested in here. As an empirical matter, I think all the sources agree that they do not exist as there is no room for them as some phenomenon of the natural world. How to capture that is not something I think I understand well. "neither meridians nor qi exist." might do it fine. I'm not sure. jps (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • How about "are not real"? (this wording is used by Ernset & Singh in another source not cited here, incidentally). Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Ugh. As much as I think that natural world is what is implied by "real", I fear that many readers may not understand that either. jps (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Editors at FTN did not "agree" that wording. It seems a bit wordy and has WP:V issues. I'd go with the 3rd wording suggested by MjolnirPants ("neither meridians nor qi exist") for specifically addressing the nature of meridians/qi. Of course more can be said about other aspects of Shiatsu. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Your preferred wording ("neither meridians nor qi exist") has been objected to and changed by numerous editors already as a very non-neutral POV. It makes sense to use more words to say more specifically what is meant, as supported by the sources. The proposal "neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena" allows for their existence as metaphysical concepts/entities. As I said before, same reason we don't state "God does not exist". Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jps and I "agree on the content". PaleoNeonate found a slightly earlier non-copy-edited version "rather fair", and XOR'easter found that earlier version "a little wordy, but not unforgivably so". No one else commented or objected. It's more than fair to say that four editors 'agreed' here, though that doesn't imply that consensus has been reached, as we can always start disagreeing ;-). I agree that exist as observable natural phenomena is using a rather formal wording that is not present in the source, but MjolnirPants' neither meridians nor qi have ever been shown to exist is already much closer. Neither meridians nor qi exist, on the other hand, is the furthest from the source of all four options on the table: Ernst 2013 explicitly treats of these concepts in terms of their empirical verifiability, saying that qi is unverifiable and that meridians are verifiable but have not actually been verified. As a fifth alternative, Ernst 2019, p. 193 has These are philosophical concepts at best but lack scientific and biological plausibility, which we might perhaps paraphrase with neither meridians nor qi are scientifically plausible concepts. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's closest to the sources. So long as we capture the "mythical", "imaginary" properties (=does not exist) without obfuscation all will be good. The SBM source should stay too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Harriet Hall in the SBM article writes that acupuncture meridians and acupoints are imaginary until proven otherwise. However, Hall clearly is an opinionated source, which would necessitate us to hedge this with something like "According to the physician and skeptic Harriet Hall, ...". But that is clearly undesirable here, since it would have the opposite effect from the one we intend (i.e., conveying that not only according to skeptics, but according to the scientific community at large these concepts have no credibility). Edzard Ernst 2013 does call qi a myth, but this doesn't summarize his argument, which revolves around the unverifiability of the concept (comparing it to God and to Russell's teapot): the argument every time is that these concepts either cannot or have not been shown to exist, and it would tendentious to reduce this to "mythical", "imaginary", "does not exist", etc. In any case, other non-opinionated sources like the Cancer Research UK or Ernst 2019 do not use such words at all, which makes it clear that it would be undue for us to do so in this context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Science-Based Medicine is a very good source for fringe medicine and Hall's comment must not be attributed, but asserted in line with WP:YESPOV (there is no doubt over the statement that meridians are imaginary). It's true that the myth aspect does not "summarize" Ernst's entire commentary, but it is a key aspect and we need to relay it prominently to satisfy WP:PSCI. It seems to be the upshot of these various proposals are to cloud a matter which should be as plain in Wikipedia as it is in the sources. We cannot intuit what CRUK thinks about the mythical nature of qi from what it does not say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, attributing Hall's comment that qi is imaginary would tend to state a fact as an opinion and thereby violate WP:YESPOV (note though that Ernst 2013 compares qi to God, and at least to say that God is imaginary would commonly be regarded as an opinion rather than as a fact), but not attributing a comment made by a strongly opinionated source would violate WP:BIASED, and that's why we'd better not use it at all. As for the existing proposals, they are directed not at clouding but at following what the sources are saying, which just are not as plain as you would like them to be. No one is trying to intuit what CRUK is thinking or to represent them as saying something they're not saying. It's rather about trying not to unduly say anything they're not saying, which is core content policy. Really, claiming that phrases like "meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena" or "neither meridians nor qi have ever been shown to exist" or "neither meridians nor qi are scientifically plausible concepts" are obfuscating the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community (as WP:PSCI puts it) is quite absurd. They're exactly the kind of thing a scientist would say when speaking for a broad public, and it is indeed what we find in the sources. Saying that they're mythical or imaginary would in many contexts be potentially offensive, as well as less informative, and so they tend to avoid that (as a matter of fact, we are also supposed to prefer nonjudgmental language and to avoid disparaging our subject). But quite simply, if the sources generally avoid it, we do too. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Hall's statements are not "strongly biased" but just factual. Sources don't "avoid" saying qi/meridians don't exist, so neither should Wikipedia. We should not avoid plain English statements of fact. Wikipedia can say other things, but so long as we also have something like "qi/meridians do not exist" we'll be good. Alexbrn (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
            • I concur with this. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. This is exactly the problem that numerous editors have objected to and tried to fix since Alexbrn changed 2 years ago from ""Contemporary research has not demonstrated the existence of qi or meridians." When describing alternatives and complements to western medical science, it is fine to say what western medical science says about them, but not to convert that into the only view, and in WP's voice. From the point of view of most people who use, practice, study, or appreciate Eastern medicine, that kind of blanket dismissal of important concepts just makes WP look stupid. It's better to allow the "existence" of such things as metaphysical concepts at least than to use such language. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Made that change. Phew, we're done. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• This arguing about what the sources say is 100% pure pedantry, and flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:YESPOV. It's literally trying to find ways to erode the simple, verifiable statement that neither qi nor meridians exist so as to appease those who refuse to accept reality. There's no benefit to watering down the language, and plenty of problems with it, as it undermines the accuracy of this project. "neither meridians nor qi exist," is the absolute best way to phrase it. The claims that it doesn't match what the sources say are pure fabrication. No-one here is stupid or confused enough to actually believe that, and none of us were born yesterday. If it offends you that Wikipedia should state such a simple, verifiable fact in plain, direct tones, then you should go edit conservapedia, instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @MjolnirPants: please don't redirect me to Conservapedia. Also, calling something pedantry and namedropping policies does not an argument make. Perhaps I was born yesterday (I think I'm younger at least), but just carefully read the following, and point me out precisely where I am wrong. As I see it, saying that qi doesn't exist really belongs to the realm of opinion rather than fact. As Ernst 2013 notes, the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven, and though Russel's teapot (also cited by Ernst) implies that what cannot be proven does not need to be disproven to be extremely unlikely, it does not imply that what cannot be proven is thereby disproven. Simply put, while the existence of qi is not a verifiable fact and therefore rather unlikely, its inexistence also isn't a verifiable fact. That's why Ernst 2013 doesn't say it does not exist: strictly (philosophically) speaking such a claim is untenable, and it's enough for him that qi is empirically unverifiable to argue that is has no place in science. Ernst 2013 also explicitly says that qi enjoys the same status as religious faith. If so, claims of its existence or inexistence are as factual as claims about the existence or inexistence of God. Ernst's whole argument is that science does not work with such unverifiable claims. Most importantly, other sources also plainly do avoid to say that qi doesn't exist (there's not one source saying it), and outright denying this verifiable fact (I encourage you to verify it) won't make it any less true. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

    namedropping policies does not an argument make. Actually, it does. In fact, policy-based arguments are the best arguments to use on WP. If you don't think those principles apply, then feel free to read them. Nothing you've said here or at FTN does anything to undermine the fact that RSes state these things don't exist, and as this is not a BLP issue, there's literally no other acceptable argument for why we should not say so.

    Also, if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there. You keep insisting that the sources don't say what they very clearly say, also, which is a seriously problematic stance. I've seen more than one long-term, experienced editors indeffed over their inability to neutrally interpret sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

    • @MjolnirPants: a policy-based argument is not the same as a namedropped policy. But stop your tantrum and go read the sources. Quote me one source that says qi doesn't exist, and we'll cite it, no problem. If you don't find it, I expect an apology and, well, a policy-based argument ;-). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      Pointing out that you're running afoul of our usual process is hardly a tantrum, but the childishness of that claim might well be. ;)

      Also, you might want to stop asking for quotes that Hob gave you days ago. Ignoring things that prove you wrong isn't a good look.

      And stop pinging me. My watchlist works just fine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      Childishness now, really? I can't seem to remember being given any quotes, except a rather unhelpful one that Martin Gardner appears to have used. Could you please give me a pointer? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      I think he means this: [5] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      @Hob Gadling: thanks for that! These are of course the two sources that Alexbrn and I have been discussing above, and I already quoted them both. Neither of them directly states that qi doesn't exist. Moreover, as I argued, the SBM source (authored by Harriet Hall) clearly is an opinionated source, and although Ernst 2013 does state that concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths, he goes on by saying that they enjoy the same status as religious faiths, precisely in the sense that the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven (note that this is what he directly says about its existence). If you think of how, e.g., biblical scholars use the word "myth", it should be clear that referring to something as a myth is not the same as directly denying it occurred or existed. There are philosophical, methodological, and sociocultural reasons for avoiding that kind of claim (as I also explained above), and Ernst 2013 is using the word myth to clarify his broader argument that science cannot and does not work with unverifiable claims (as myths certainly are). Other sources like the Cancer Research UK page and Ernst 2019 also don't claim inexistence. If we are going to claim it, it should at least be qualified as in Jps's as observable natural phenomena, which I still like (though I would also endorse neither meridians nor qi have ever been shown to exist). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      You're wrong about Science-Based Medicine no matter how you WP:CLEARLY argue it. Reality is not a point of view, and being "biased" towards reality/science is the kind of WP:GOODBIAS Wikipedia likes, to avoid indulging in the WP:GEVAL fallacy. We can just WP:ASSERT what Hall says wrt Meridians, since no sane source would say otherwise. Why do I feel you concede points only for them to come back, like tenacious zombies? Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      I did not concede anything about Science-Based Medicine. No need for you to call my point about it a tenacious zombie. It clearly is an opinionated source, not because the word 'clearly' has such a nice ring to it, but because of the fact that SBM is published by the New England Skeptical Society and that its authors are primarily known as scientific skeptics rather than as scholars (in contradistinction to, e.g., Edzard Ernst). It's a watch-dog website owned by a watch-dog organization. How are you going to tell me that's not opinionated/biased? You cite WP:GOODBIAS, but I don't see that essay mentioning a bias for scientific skepticism, nor a bias for 'reality' for that matter. Anyway, WP:GOODBIAS flows from WP:NPOV, it doesn't somehow trump it. Hob spoke to me earlier about sophistry and tricks. But what is this if not rhetoric and tricks? WP:GEVAL is probably another one of those policies you like to namedrop without given it a second thought how or even whether it applies. You're arguing that we should follow the wording of one opinionated source and ignore the wording of three other sources, two of which are written by one of the most prominent experts on the subject, and dare to argue that not doing so would create a false balance? Everything you say falls completely flat, and most of what you accuse me of really applies to yourself. Most specifically, you have no inclination at all to follow WP:NPOV, and care only for your own personal POV, which appears to be a most particular one indeed: that science equates to reality and that scientific skepticism is the only true philosophy. I suspect that this POV is one that in varying degrees is widely shared by editors around here, so it's rather easy for you to push it, just through proof by assertion. I can't do much about that, but I will tell you that you're not doing the encyclopedia a service this way. I think I've made my argument, and unless another editor steps up and argues for one of the other options, we can have Despite the fact that many practitioners use these ideas in explaining shiatsu, neither meridians nor qi exist. I would only ask everyone to reflect upon how weird this really sounds, and why that could be. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      It's not a "biased" source other than being biased in favour of science/reality. It is required here for giving a scientific/reality-based context for the TCM woo. This is why WP:PARITY exists. Wikipedia does not shilly-shally about nonsenses like qi and meridians, but gives it straight, plain, sourced & true. What you want to do seems to be to have some wordy diversionary text. Sorry, no. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      You obviously don't know what "biased" means. Or "neutral". A neutral article would balance the POV of western "science-based" medicine with the POV of traditional Eastern medicine. In the latter, qi and meridians exist as important concepts, while in the former they don't exist as physical reality. I don't see why it's so difficult to let WP cover that neutrally. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      That is an obtuse comment. We don't give credence to disproven nonsense, whether it be "eastern" (e.g. TCM) or "western" (e.g. homeopathy), or anything in between (e.g. antisemitism). You are taking a WP:PROFRINGE position. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      That is an acute comment. The POV that Eastern medicine is "Nonsense" is not a neutral POV. And nobody is asking you to give credence to anything false. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      WP:PROFRINGE. "Regional" "medicine" is a hallmark of quackery, since genuine medicine goes global quickly, as multiple sources attest. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      That is an acute comment.

      Acute

      /ə-kyoot/

      having or showing a perceptive understanding or insight; shrewd.

      I agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      Yes, his observation that "We don't give credence to disproven nonsense, whether it be..." was shrewd. The bit about claiming I'm taking a WP:PROFRINGE position is unsupportable; not something I would do. Why did he make such a claim? It's sharp, not shrewd. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      No, you were explicitly taking a profringe position. The claim that we should "balance" real knowledge with fiction passing itself off as knowledge is a very well-known profringe position. You're literally claiming an equivalency between medicine and alternative medicine that doesn't exist, except in the minds of profringe individuals. So, in fact, the entire comment was quite shrewd. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      @Dicklyon: "neutral" in neutral point of view does not mean what you think it does. You might want to read my recent explanation at MarshallKe's talk page. Simply put, we follow the proportion of what reliable sources are saying, even if that proportion is very skewed in one direction (e.g., modern medical science vs. TCM), and we remain 'neutral' only with respect to that proportion (however skewed that proportion is). Reliable sources are agreed that TCM's claims are not scientifically credible, so our NPOV is also going to be skewed that way. That's the Wikipedia sense of 'neutral'. But by all means, go read my mini-essay! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      I guess I better work up a rebuttal essay, since you seem to be ignoring what WP:NPOV says: "... means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views ..." which is quite different from representing only the majority/western view when writing about non-western topics. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      When you use a quote, especially a partial quote ending on "...", users who are experienced with WP:PROFRINGE editors will look up the rest of the quote you omitted. After "significant views", the sentence continues "that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your geographical criteria for views ("western/non-western") are not used in science or in Wikipedia. Instead, we use reliability, and sources which use the geographical criteria are typically not reliable. For that matter, homeopathy is western, and it is also woo. Pseudoscience is region-specific. Science, on the other hand, works everywhere, independent of compasses, because of the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation. See Noether's theorem. So, your picture of the situation is crooked, and in reality, it is all good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      Quite. 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. Anybody who goes against this will eventually get blocked/banned, for good reason. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Alexbrn has now unilaterally changed the paragraph Neither qi nor meridians exist. to Neither qi nor meridians exist as observable natural phenomena., removed the 'disputed tag', and commented that "we're done". But that seems premature, given the fact that they seem to be the only one to disagree with the whole first part explaining what qi and meridians are supposed to be. The whole discussion until now has been focused on the admittedly difficult last part, but is there a consensus to leave out the first part of the proposal per Alexbrn's edit? My whole point of writing this was to give it some context. Most people seemed to agree with it before? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I think the question of whether to add the sentence you want to add can be handled better in a new section anyway. It would be good to get some input as to whether people think the sentence is decent. jps (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  One small step... Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  I added the sentence with a few bold tweaks anyway. I do not object if someone WP:BRDs it. jps (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  I moved it to the description section (it's not really about efficacy) and struck the word "colloquially". Any further discussion is of course possible here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  The thing I worry about not including "colloquially" is that the description of qi as an "energy flow" is not a formal description by any means due to no small part that the putative "energy" is at the very least metaphorical and perhaps more accurately described as apocryphal. Not sure what adverb might be better than "colloquial", but no adverb at all strikes me as potentially misleading. jps (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your concern. We're not saying it's a formal description, just that it's "sometimes described" that way? Perhaps we should look for a source on Chinese philosophy that does give a more formal description? One other alternative is to have "sometimes translated as "energy flow"": the fact that we're dealing with a Chinese word here definitely adds to the difficulty. By the way, describing it as "energy" is not entirely metaphorical, and certainly not apocryphal: did you know that the word "energy" derives from Greek ἐνέργειᾰ (enérgeia), lit. "being-at-work", meaning "activity, operation, vigour"? This word (and its equivalents in other languages, like the Arabic fiʿl) was used in ancient and medieval natural philosophy to denote an active, moving, formative principle. Given the historical definition of life as the state of being self-moving or having an active principle of movement, it was in some contexts also identified as a vital principle (e.g., in Galenic medicine). The modern word energy (the capacity to do work) ultimately derives from this idea of an active principle, as contrasted with a passive principle (historically matter, in Newtonian physics perhaps mass). Our understanding of what energy is, and of what it is and isn't responsible for, has of course changed completely (most importantly, since the 17th century we do not longer identify it as being responsible for form), but there is a certain continuity that goes beyond etymology. Given this historical meaning of the word energy, and given the similarity between that historical concept and the concept of qi, both "vital" and "energy" are apt translations. Isn't it remarkable that the Greek word pneuma, used by Aristotle to denote the material carrier of the active and 'energetic' entity called vital heat, and used by Chrysippus to denote that energetic principle itself, literally means "air", and that qi also literally means "air"? G. E. R. Lloyd, one of the most well-respected historians of ancient philosophy and science, has written a number of books on this which are still on my reading list. Anyway, even though the incoherent use of the word energy among modern-day esotericists also has a background in the historical meanings of the word as described above, the description of qi as "energy" in reliable sources does not necessarily derive from the popularity of qi among said esotericists, but has its own background in the comparative historiography of natural philosophy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the term "energy (esotericism)" was itself (as far as I can ascertain) employed entirely as a pseudoscientific gloss similar to the way animal magnetism was originally used or how some contemporary circles are trying to adopt "quantum" as in quantum mysticism. If you look at the OED-type etymology of the way that "energy" is employed in these contexts, it is never with direct reference to the physical definition but is instead something of an homage or, at worst, a complete fabrication. So it is misleading to simply say this is described as an "energy" just as it would be to, for example, offer the direct translation of "air" without qualification. None of this is to deny that the historical development of the physical quantity and term "energy" proceeds much as you describe, and I do not begrudge proponents the use of the term they find most useful for their exposition, but I do think it is a disservice to the reader to use only the "scare quotes" to indicate that the description is problematic. Think about some student learning about this subject for the first time when reading this page. I don't want it to seem like this is a functional description of an "energy flow", for example. jps (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your concern. I still think it kind of ignores the fact that in quantum mysticism and the like, a scientific term has been used to fabricate entirely new fanciful theories, while qi is a philosophical concept with a very long and venerable history that has only relatively recently become the subject of abuse by esotericists and quacks. But you're certainly right that we should avoid misleading our readers into thinking that qi is somehow identifiable with what modern science calls energy. I've just gone through a rather large number of sources on Chinese philosophy, and the most often used translation is "vital energy", closely followed by "vital force". I've just added those sources to our Qi article, so we can copy them from there. Ernst 2013 also uses the term "vital force", and Ernst 2019 "vital energy". I would propose changing the sentence to [...] on the Chinese philosophical concept of qi, which is most often translated as "vital energy" or "vital force". This way, it's perhaps somewhat clearer that it's a philosophical concept (Ernst 2019 also refers to qi and related terms as "philosophical concepts at best"), that the meaning is not entirely fixed because of the language gap, and that it's more closely related to the idea of 'having a lot of energy' (as opposed to being tired) than to the modern scientific concept. I personally find linking to Energy (esotericism) just as misleading as linking to Vitalism (as the Qi article does for "vital force"), but I'll leave that to your discretion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is perhaps over-complicating the issue a bit. I see lots of sources claiming a "most common" translation, but they don't agree with each other. As it is we could use "vital force", "life force", "life energy", "vital energy", "flowing life force", "circulating life energy"... the list goes on and on. So I don't really care what term is used, but I still think that adding a simple caveat such as "colloquially" or some sort of synonym for "simple" will make it clearer that we are talking about an inexact translation. That's all I really want here: an indicator that there isn't a clear translation. I am still in favor of linking to what I consider the more umbrella term of energy (esotericism) here. jps (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you didn't grasp what I was saying. We're talking about a 2300-year old philosophical concept here (it originated in the School of Naturalists, third century BCE) that the most prominent historians of philosophy and science usually describe as a "vital energy or vital force". There's no way that this expert usage is colloquial, or simple. These scholars all agree with each other, and in most cases they give a number of alternative translations themselves. They do, however, go on to use the term qi after this initial explanation, as is common with foreign-language philosophical terms that have no direct equivalent in English, and which commonly results in the absence of one stable English term. If we really want to make it clear that the translation is unstable, the best way to do that is probably to give one literal translation and then a number of common translations. That way, we are almost literally saying that the translations given are inexact and do not correspond with the original meaning of the term (the case of pneuma is fairly similar by the way, as can be glanced from the lead of our article on it). For example:

The practice of shiatsu is based on the Chinese philosophical concept of qi, which literally means "air" but is commonly translated as "vital energy" or "vital force".

References

Liu 2015 is a particularly good sample source here, since it's an edited volume written by top-tier experts in the field (the different page numbers refer to different scholars), who consistently gloss it as either "vital energy" or "vital force". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The translation is what is colloquial or simple -- not the expert usage. I am not in favor of going into details of translations as you describe here because this is not an article on qi. I want a simple adjective or adverb that lets the reader know, "hey, this is inexact.... go somewhere else for a complete account". Right now, we don't have that and your proposal is somewhat worse. "Commonly" is okay, but it doesn't quite get across the idea of variability... of inexactness. jps (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my counterproposal:

The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, which can be loosely translated as "flowing vital energy".

I like the idea of incorporating motion which seems very important according to most of the definitional sources.

jps (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the jps only knows energy and force and power and such from the POV of modern physics. These terms have a long history (including in English) that predates the Newtonian physics that gave them them their current technical meanings. So by inexact or colloquial he means non-technical or something like that. I find colloquial means "used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary", but that's not the point here; the old non-technical meanings are still common in formal and literary writing. And the first dictionary definition of energy (that I find via a web search) is of that type: "the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity – changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being". If we expand our POV a bit, we can cover the subject better. The narrow POVs of western medicine and modern physics and not doing this subject justice. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you've missed here that people who talk about energy in relation to qi do sometimes hang their hat on the idea that it is a measurable energy in the "western medicine and modern physics" sense. Of course, not all people who use that term believe that, but there are plenty of sources that we've identified that show this to be a way it is used. jps (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: you're right, I've missed that. Can you point out where this was discussed, and/or what sources you've indentified that do that? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Try the eighth source in the article for starters. jps (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So there's no prior discussion you can point at? And no list of sources identified as treating energy that way? And no quote from this non-online source? Some such pointers would be useful to me in trying to understand where you're coming from. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the source? jps (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you just pointed it out, and I was unable to find it online, so I haven't read it yet. You had mentioned that I had missed "plenty of sources that we've identified...". Is it just this one? If I buy myself a copy everything will become clear? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were unable to find it. Did you try WP:Resource exchange? jps (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to find used, and I ordered a copy, but I will be traveling so won't see it for a few weeks. Maybe you can quote what it says. The older edition has "snippet view" on Google books and doesn't appear to treat "energy" as physical literal energy. And what about the "plenty of sources that we've identified..."? I guess those don't exist now? Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In your snippet view, why did you think it wasn't treated as a "physical literal energy"? jps (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

See book snippet, where things like "the different ways in which we distribute energy throughout our being" doesn't sound like a literal/physical thing; and the conjunction of "energy, cooperation, adaptability, organization, self-expression" would be odd to have one physical thing among the more fuzzy things.  And "The liver energy gives us our ability to plan our life path" doesn't sound like a statement related to physics.  I admit they do conflate it with physical energy in places, but it's hard to tell more with just these snippets; and I'd rather comment on the edition you refer to. No more sources that you've identified? Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I admit they do conflate it with physical energy Then we're done. We don't have to argue about whether they always conflate it with energy only that it sometimes happens as that was the point I was trying to make earlier this week. jps (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not done. Still trying to understand what you meant by "there are plenty of sources that we've identified that show this to be a way it is used". If you just mean that someone somewhere has conflated the meanings of "energy", that's fine, but I thought you meant more than that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If you just mean that someone somewhere has conflated the meanings of "energy", that's fine That's what I meant. And it is found in a number of sources we have considered including the one you identified. jps (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually you identified that one, thanks. If "a number of sources" includes more than that one, I'd like to learn of more. If these have been "considered" maybe you can find me a relevant discussion section or edit summary or something? Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jps: what do you mean with The translation is what is colloquial or simple -- not the expert usage.??? Where do you get the idea that an encyclopedia should represent "colloquial" or "simple" usage rather than expert usage? Why do you think that your own description/loose translation as "flowing vital energy" is better than that of the three expert sources I'm citing (which is an underestimation, since the page numbers for Liu 2015 actually refer to a plethora of expert scholars)? Are you really going to justify that anti-encyclopedic, anti-RS, and pro-OR stance with this is not an article on qi? Of course readers who want a complete and exact account should go elsewhere, this is Wikipedia after all, but the sources I'm citing are exactly where they should go for such an account.

And then link-describing qi as something that derives from TCM (the modern pseudoscience) rather than from Chinese philosophy (that 2300-old thing were it factually derives from), after what I've just been trying to explain on the basis of expert sources? Isn't that the clearest evidence (rather than assuming bad faith) that there's a certain tendency and tone on pseudoscience-related Wikipedia articles that you are trying to maintain here which does not care a bit about NPOV or about how reliable sources speak about a subject (in casu, qi), but instead just wants Wikipedia to be a soapbox for the fight against pseudoscience?

I feel that we're so fundamentally at odds here that I don't want to argue anymore. I will for the time being accept that Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience-related topics are the way they are, and try to stay away from them as far as possible in the foreseeable future. I hope my contributions here have at least been somewhat helpful, and I look forward to collaborating with you in other parts of the project where our perspectives are more aligned. Respectfully, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about shiatsu. It is not an article about qi nor is it an article about Chinese philosophy. Inasmuch as qi is used in shiatsu, it is inherited from TCM. I don't see how any other interpretation can be had from the sources. The three expert sources you cite do not make unequivocal translations of the word qi into English except to say that its literal translation is "air" which is irrelevant for our purposes. Perhaps what disconnect you are complaining about here is one that regards the subject material itself. We are not writing the article on qi. We are writing an article about a modality which is currently being used and to the extent that it is used it relies on a justification of qi/meridians from TCM. I'm surprised that this is at all controversial. jps (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: The community would be much more relaxed if fringe proponents would not fight tooth and nail against calling a pseudoscience a pseudoscience. The editing atmosphere will remain toxic as long as vandals and POV-warriors fight against that. It's like a war zone, while the authors of Britannica do not have to fend off constant attacks by advocates of pseudosciences. Many POV-pushers perfectly understand it is them against Big Science, or Big Pharma, or Bible scholarship from the Ivy League. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: thanks for that. I completely understand and agree. However much I dislike WP articles beginning with pointing out something is a pseudoscience before even properly describing it, and however unencyclopedic I find that to be, I absolutely prefer it over WP articles that would actually support pseudoscience or be in any way unclear about it. I also absolutely love it, and have always loved, that Wikipedia serves as a quick check for anything one might find questionable: just check the wiki article, and if there is even as much as a suspicion that it's fringe, they will clearly tell you. How great is that? In this, Wikipedia is often not at all encyclopedic, nor properly following its own NPOV policy, but it does make for a great resource. More convenient and better referenced than any skeptic website. But it is, like you say, a war zone, and what happens in war zones tends to be destructive rather than constructive. I already knew that WP articles will tell you if a topic is fringe, but not much more. If you actually want to know anything about it, you'll have to look elsewhere. What I did not yet know is that, if one tries to add encyclopedic content to them, there would be such a huge (and frankly, irrational) resistance. It's indeed like a civilian walking right into a war zone, who is then surprised to find themselves shot at with heavy fire from two sides. I certainly was naive about that. But I do understand it, and I want to stress that I very much appreciate the work being done to keep Wikipedia free from fringe theories of all kinds. It's hugely important. Compared to that, my historico-philosophical and antiquarian interests feel like a petty concern. Still, I'll stick to editing in topic areas where I can do my thing, which is aimed at the free distribution of specialist knowledge rather than at the fight against quackery. But know that I support you! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma:, I, for one, would encourage you to stick around on WP:FTN and elsewhere. Your contributions are valuable because it can become an echo-chamber amongst those of us who are veterans of this work and it is important to get some perspective sometime. Just be prepared for pushback and the longer you stick around the more you will end up sounding like the rest of us crumbums. I think the environment has warped the forms of WP:CIVIL conversation amongst those of us interested in this aspect of WP. Would be an interesting thing to document, TBH. jps (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to drudge up the terribly long debate above, but the opening sentence: "Shiatsu is a pseudoscientific form of Japanese bodywork based on concepts in traditional Chinese medicine such as the use of qi meridians," comes across as saying the practice itself is pseudoscientific rather than it being rooted in pseudoscientific claims. Adjacent articles to Shiatsu, such as the acupressure and tui na article, make the points "There is no reliable evidence for the effectiveness of acupressure," and "Good evidence tui na is an effective treatment and its safety is poorly understood." but it is not stated as a pseudoscientifiic practice as Shiatsu is, though I would argue Shiatsu is more comparable to acupressure and tui na than to, say, measuring skull shapes. More to this point: I would consider Shiatsu to be a form of massage, something that is demonstrated to have positive effects, with a pseudoscientific theory behind its efficacy and practices, rather than a form of quakery in itself; license massage therapists may practice Shiatsu as an alternative to a standard Swedish massage, something which according to Wikipedia itself gives some evidence of being beneficial Massage#Medical_and_therapeutic_use, psychologists and neurologists don't measure your skull shape to determine your cognitive functioning.

I've tentatively made an edit to clarify this, but as I am not an experienced editor I give deference to others to reverse the change. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC) FunctorialNonsense

Your reasoning is not very Wikipedia-like. We follow the sources, and if we have sources that say Shiatsu is a pseudoscientific technique, but no sources that say the same about tui na, then that's probably the way the articles will end up. It does not matter that the end results seem incongruous to you; Wikipedia articles are not required to be consistent to other Wikipedia articles because those are not reliable sources.

Also - leaving the Wikipedia rules for a bit and taking a tangent into the question of what is true - if shiatsu practitioners say that thwhat they do is effective, or if they use terms that sound scientific, then yes, it is a pseudoscience. Going back to Wikipedia: that does not matter if no reliable source noticed it.

That said, it does not matter a lot where the "pseudoscientific" is, so I don't see a reason to revert your edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

God does not exist

More heat than light here and is definitely not WP:FOC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article God currently says "In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. God is most often held to be incorporeal, with said characteristic being related to conceptions of transcendence or immanence." Obviously too wordy, giving "credence to disproven nonsense" as Alexbrn would say. Should we just change it to "God does not exist"? Especially given the occasional report of healing miracles and such, this should fall under the same FRINGE and MEDRS hammers as Alexbrn wants to apply to Shiatsu, no? Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC) If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, perhaps we should verify that it is a similar subject. Are there people arguing in favor of Godatsu massage as a means to manipulate the flow of God through God channels in the human body mapped out helpfully on Godchannel Maps of the human body by practitioners? If so, we could say that such God and God channels don't exist. I was not really aware that this was the typical treatment of Gods, but I'm always willing to learn. jps (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC) @Dicklyon: yes, I think this comparison is apt. Ernst 2013 writes: Equally, even though we can't observe it directly in any way, it may still be there, in the same way that God may be there or in the same way that Russell's teapot may be there. Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths. It's philosophically naive to think that from the fact that these things are not empirically verifiable, we can conclude that they don't exist. To make that conclusion logically valid, you need a second premise, i.e., that things which are not empirically verifiable do not exist. And that latter premise is a philosophical position, not a fact. The difficulty is that most people tendentiously take that second premise to be false when it comes to the things they believe in (e.g., God) and as true when it comes to things they don't believe in (e.g., angels or spirits), while many others take it to be always true. Only some entirely reject it. So depending on the subject, people intuitively take another approach to it. It's clear that Alexbrn is one of those people who think the second premise always holds. If it were up to him, we'd probably be calling belief in angels "woo" and belief in God "nonsense". Except that sources absolutely won't allow that. With pseudoscience, it's very different, because a lot of sources which deal with pseudoscience do take much firmer positions on this second premise (or at least, they all focus on the unverifiability of pseudoscientific concepts, because that establishes that they are unscientific). Still, it's only a philosophical position (not 'reality', as Alexbrn would have it), and though sources are firm they generally do not take philosophically untenable positions or disparage their subject. Because sources take another approach to pseudoscience than to God, we need to do so too. However, the sources do not justify the attitude which seems to be endemic to Wikipedia, i.e., that articles on topics related to pseudoscience should only exist to make it very clear to everyone that it's all just woo and nonsense, and contain no further useful information on it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC) As someone who has been accused often in the past, including by the likes of none other than Dicklyon, of engaging in an attitude which seems to be endemic to Wikipedia, i.e., that articles on topics related to pseudoscience should only exist to make it very clear to everyone that it's all just woo and nonsense, and contain no further useful information on it, I think it would be best if you did not cast WP:ASPERSIONS such as this on good faith editors. I doubt anyone here is of the opinion that we should remove all useful information on shiatsu from this article. jps (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC) I was thinking this about Wikipedia years before I ever edited here or came into contact with any editor. And I'm a scientific skeptic myself, mind you! It's a general thing, and if I was thinking about a specific editor, it was of course not about you, but about Alexbrn, who just today wrote the following on this very talk page: It's not a "biased" source other than being biased in favour of science/reality. It is required here for giving a scientific/reality-based context for the TCM woo. [...] Wikipedia does not shilly-shally about nonsenses like qi and meridians, but gives it straight, plain, sourced & true. Not the woo, only true, stuff like that. Also entirely ignoring policy-based arguments. Rejecting the part from the proposal that explains what qi and meridians are supposed to be. Am I so far from the mark? But you're right once again about assuming good faith. Eh, did you note though that in these discussions some editors have at times assumed far worse faith on my part? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Let's not delve into tu quoque if we can help it. Anyway, there are many ways to interpret what Alexbrn et al. are saying here and it helps if you try to be charitable in that and do as the good book tells you to. jps (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC) I will dig an ei etiam on snarky parky here below me though. But now you're just making me curious. What good book do you mean? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Snarky Parky is so blase... I prefer "the great white snark," "Ned Snark," "Grand Central Snark" or, to make it a sideways compliment, "Arthur C Snark". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Did you note? Now the joke's on you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Shit, I'm as snarky as they get. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Take your pick: [6] or [7]. jps (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC) You have accidentally chosen the wrong Talk page. Talk:God is that way. You're welcome. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Not the woo, only true". I like that. And it is what we need to do to build the enyclopedia. Of course, we can reflect what reliable WP:FRIND sources say about the woo, in a proper context of reality and rationality. (I should remind editors that this is not an article about qi or meridians, but about shiatsu. So we only need the orienting brief description of qi/meridians (i.e. that they're bogus) here, to satisfy WP:VALID; more detail would belong elsewhere). Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC) No, that not OK. "Not the woo, only true" means you decide to present only the debunking of the topic, and not information about the topic itself. No encyclopedia would do that (except for those that are specifically about anti-fringe or quack-busting; that's not what we're here for). Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Can you not read? I put "we can reflect what reliable WP:FRIND sources say about the woo". That is hard NPOV policy, and not negotiable; if some aspects of the woo are not contextualizable with decent RS, then we omit it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC) So we only need the orienting brief description of qi/meridians (i.e. that they're bogus) - That's exactly what I'm talking about: the only reason to describe qi or meridians, as far as Alexbrn is concerned, is to make it clear that they're 'bogus'. For him, "they're bogus" is a sufficient description, and everything else is merely optional. As Dicklyon pointed out, that's antithetical to a proper encyclopedic perspective. Also, the mixing up of reality and rationality with the POV of the most reliable sources speaks volumes about what this editor's real concern is. It's clear that what he personally believes to be real and not will be declared to be the POV of reliable sources, no matter what reliable sources really say. This whole 'only the truth' attitude and immunity to rational argument reminds me of religious bigots. This is patently not a lack of good faith on my part, only a description of his whole approach in this discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Probably better to WP:FOC rather than go on a fanciful rant. For our content, if we follow decent sources, reflect accepted knowledge, and keep on topic all shall be well. And NPOV is a policy we need to adhere to. Alexbrn (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Regal

The joys of full-protection... I'll come back to this later then. Shiatsu has a brief mention put in context in Regal's Pseudoscience - A critical encyclopedia's "Alternative medicine" section. It could be used to add a little more context in this article's "description", possibly also to mention that it's listed in this encyclopedia, that might support the pseudoscientific mention (that currently lacks any citations). —PaleoNeonate – 16:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added it to the article. We probably need a better source though, since Regal does not have a separate entry on Shiatsu (he barely mentions it in the passing without any analysis or further comment), and does not directly call it pseudoscience. That we do need a good source on this is made clear by the fact that while looking for sources, I found both a practitioner's handbook published by Elsevier and one published by Springer, both very well respected STM publishers. Not normally being involved with this kind of thing, I guess I kind of forgot how bad it really is. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Respectable publishers will publish pseudoscience as long as there is a buck to be made. We have a lot of documentation of this problem. Occasionally, some of these publications get pulled when Wikipedia editors go asking at the publishing houses to find out who it was who reviewed the material. I may or may not be guilty of such. :P jps (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unclear revert reasons

I made a sequence of four tiny edits to improve the article, sticking close to cited sources and using a good survey source instead a POV editorial by a quack chaser. Apaugasma reverted the whole lot with summary I think these changes are taking the tone of the article further away from the sources rather than the opposite; feel free to discuss at the talk. Most of these are already discussed above, and he didn't give any particulars of what he objected to or why sticking closer to what the supporting sources say makes him think the tone "further away from the sources". This is very odd. So I reverted his revert, and am seeking any particular reasons why any of these changes would not be regarded as improvements. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The changes in question are these:

• [8] changed including thrombosis, embolism, and at least one documented injury to including one case of thrombosis, one embolism, and a documented injury". There's no reason to imply that the source indicated more than those few cases.
• [9] removed the cite to editorial '"The Primo Vascular System: The N-rays of Acupuncture?'" by "The SkepDoc", and replaced it with the ref that had been there or a long time before Alexbrn removed it in Dec 2008, "Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: A systematic review".
• [10] changed natural phenomena" to "physical phenomena", since that's what the sources talk about. It's unclear what "natural" would mean here, while "physical" is very clear, and sourced.
• [11] in There is no good evidence that shiatsu is an effective medical treatment, changed good to scientific (as in the source), and is an effective medical treatment to will prevent or cure any disease (as in the source). In some of them serious, changed some to a few since really only 2 cases of serious adverse health effects are reported.

Any objections to any of those? Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll discuss them one by one:

1. Actually, Ernst 2019 cites Wada et al. 2005 as only one example among several case reports, and he himself implies that there are more examples. In any case, your change is unduly minimizing things by stressing that there is only one case each time. This is not at all the tone of the sources (including Wada et al. 2005), who stress the opposite.

   Maybe you can quote what you're seeing? In Wada I see a single case report with "To the best of our knowledge, IJV and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis possibly caused by shiatsu massage has not been previously reported." And in this Ernst paper, "The majority of adverse effects were associated with exotic types of manual massage or massage delivered by laymen, while massage therapists were rarely implicated" and "serious adverse events are probably true rarities". The serious adverse effect was one retinal artery embolism, with cause by shiatsu therapy not certain. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

   Wada et al. 2005 write: Tsuboi reported a case of retinal and cerebral artery embolism directly caused by shiatsu massage of the neck. Elliott and Taylor also reported two cases of carotid dissection that occurred after use of a shiatsu-type massaging machine. We would therefore like to draw attention to the possibility that shiatsu massage of the neck may cause serious neurological complications. They want to draw attention: they're not exactly minimizing it, but rather suggesting that this may happen more often than reported. The Ernst paper you cite is about massage therapies in general, and looks at a whole range of them. The serious adverse events are probably true rarities applies to massage therapies in general, not to shiatsu specifically, but the phrase the majority of adverse effects were associated with exotic types of manual massage does apply to shiatsu: elsewhere in the paper, Ernst writes: Clearly, one should differentiate between various approaches. The above findings suggest that massage by non‐professional and forceful techniques like shiatsu, urut and Rolfing are relatively often associated with adverse events. He also writes that the small amount of reported adverse effects could be due to under‐reporting. The tone of the sources is clearly that more problems may be lurking, not at all that there are only a few isolated and/or uncertain cases. Ernst 2019 has a big red thumbs down for the safety aspects of shiatsu, and we should convey that tone of warning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

   To bring in machine-caused injuries as if they were shiatsu-caused is certainly not acceptable. And those problems with shiatsu were lumped with other forceful techniques, there's still only a single instance of serious problem thought to be caused by shiatsu. I don't understand what you're saying about the tone; sure, other problems may have happened and not been reported; still we have just one thrombosis and one embolism, unless I missed something. Let's not extrapolate from thin anecdata. And I don't think Ernst's big red thumbs-down opinion can be considered neutral, nor within what WP:MEDRS requires. Reporting facts is one thing; opinions of an anti-alternative doctor is another. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

2. Personally, I strongly agree with this change, but Alexbrn did not, and since there has been a long discussion on this above I thought it should perhaps be discussed separately?

   Thanks for agreeing. What do you think Alexbrn might be disagreeing with? The removal of "The SkepDoc" editorial, or the citing of the survey article? @Alexbrn: which/why? Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

3. There has been a very long and difficult discussion on that sentence above, and just changing without any discussion is completely unacceptable.

   Just because Alexbrn inserted his preferred wording after discussion doesn't mean that tweaking it to be closer the source is "unacceptable". Instead, say why you think "physical" here is not better than "natural". Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

   I think that both "physical" and "natural" are fine. But I do think it's unacceptable to change this right after a long discussion without bringing it up at the talk first (btw, the "natural phenomena" wording is ජපස's (Jps's)). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

   Not to mention that after this comment you reinstated your edit. You've been warned that this article is under discretionary sanctions. Please do not continue down this path. jps (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

4. The only good evidence in this case is scientific (do I really need to refer to WP:MEDRS?), and the way you put it sounds like there may be evidence of another sort; is an effective medical treatment is clearer (not a biggy though); changing some to a few is minimizing it, but that does not seem warranted given the fact that Ernst 2019 has a big red thumbs down for the safety of shiatsu.

   "The only good evidence in this case is scientific" makes no sense. There is no scientific evidence, as the source says; why not leave it at that? And the interpretation of "effective medical treatment" is not ruled out by sources that suggest that Shiatsu may be effective at helping people feel relaxed, etc. Again, no real reason to extrapolate beyond what the source says, just because you prefer to portray alternatives in the worst possible light and only from the western/scientific/skeptic POV. Shiatsu is a thing, widely used and respected and parts of the world, and as long as we're not claiming it's effective where it's not, and fairly representing the points of view in the sources, we're meeting the policies and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

   There is scientific evidence on the efficacy of shiatsu: many studies have been done, though the systematic review by Robinson et al. 2011 says that the state of that evidence is poor (i.e., the studies that were done were of a low quality). The evidence suggests that though there seem to be some effects on relaxation, sleep, and symptom severity, shiatsu is not effective for any particular health condition. So actually, we could also just change that sentence to There is no evidence that shiatsu will prevent or cure any disease., though I suspect that we have "good evidence" now because some of the bad evidence (the low-quality studies Robinson et al. 2011 speak of) falsely claims health benefits. If this is incorrect, we can strike "good". However, as I said, changing this to there is no scientific evidence unduly suggests that there may be evidence of another kind. This has been suggested on this talk page before (e.g., by InterestGather) and has been rejected (e.g., by Alexbrn and by Roxy the dog) for similar reasons as the ones I have given. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

   Making a claim because not making it might allow other interpretations is not a logical approach to WP:V. And what about "anecdotal evidence" and accumulated cultural experience and wisdom; do we need to imply that those are not "good"? Is it not enough to say that these are not "scientific", like the source says? Here is an interesting discussion on this issue, from a western doctor who is willing to look at more than one POV. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

   Acupuncture is not science. It is a quasi-religious set of practices, so I personally don't think it's pseudoscience either (though the study of it very often is). It is definitely pseudomedicine. The thing is, though, that what we think doesn't matter a hill of beans, it's what the reliable sources say, and no reliable source on the subject of the demarcation issue between science and pseudoscience, has come down in favour of acupuncture being science.

   What science tells us about acupuncture is that it doesn't matter where you pit the needles or whether you even insert them, so acupoints are fictional, the claimed "meridians" have no associated anatomy and have never been shown to exist, and a large part of acupuncture's popularity in the West stems from a propaganda stunt by Mao in the 1970s. We know it does not work for most things, we know that the effect size in all studies is small, we know that the more scope there is for bias, the greater the chance of a positive outcome from a trial, we know that no study from China has ever found a negative result, and we know that the evidence trend is firmly against it. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

   Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually looked at all your changes quite carefully, and I only agreed with no. 2 here (but did not leave it in for the reason given). Could you in the future please follow WP:BRD and discuss before you revert? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think that the following which you wrote pretty much summarizes it: I don't think Ernst's big red thumbs-down opinion can be considered neutral, nor within what WP:MEDRS requires. When the world's most prominent expert on a subject writes a book based on all the available primary sources and systematic reviews, and you somehow don't consider their conclusion to be neutral and/or not within what MEDRS requires, I personally believe that your lack of understanding of our policies is serious enough to warrant a topic ban on articles related to medicine, broadly construed. But that's just my personal belief, and I have no desire to engage in any kind of fight with you, so please forgive me for expressing this sincerely held opinion. I also will leave it up to other editors to decide whether they agree with the changes you have made to the article or not. Respectfully, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I admit that Ernst is the foremost expert against complementary and alternative medicine. That doesn't make his big red thumbs-down opinion "neutral". Sure it's a valid POV, and can be reported, but to extrapolate what he reported in terms of bad outcomes because you interpret his mood to be more negative than his words seem really out there. MEDRS doesn't not require such extrapolation. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, where can I access a copy of this doc with the big red thumbs down? I'd like to better understand what you're reacting to there, or what he says it means. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ernst, Edzard (2019). Alternative Medicine: A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 193–194. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12601-8. S2CID 34148480. If you click the doi, you can buy it from the publisher. If you don't want to buy it, your nearest university library would be your best bet. Worldcat can find libraries which hold an item near to you. Some do scan-on-demand. Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it's not too expensive; I'll have my copy by Tuesday. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Poor article

This is a ‘scientists’ view of shiatsu and seems to focus on ‘disproving it’ as opposed to being an open and unbiased description of the tradition 82.40.149.126 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia, by policy, takes the mainstream scientific view, reliably sourced, as it's basis. This article reflects that. However, why dont you take a look at the history section, the largest part of the article; it seems quite fair to me. - Roxy the English speaking dog 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is only a "C" class article so needs improvement. The History section is already the longest one but if there is more to say then improve away. As shiatsu is a kind of pseudoscience/quackery Wikipedia does too need to be up-front about that. Alexbrn (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The german version still has the "unbiased" aka pseudoscience/quackery viewpoint. 2400:2652:96E0:9700:73BD:95B:9F76:9E18 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)