User talk:Herbxue

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin

About TCM

Hello, I am the user who start the section [1]. Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now [2]. Actually, I have edited this [3] when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now[4] before I edited it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.63.1 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"outsiders"

Hi Herbxue. I am troubled by this comment. What do you mean by "outsiders" and how is that relevant to Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When someone with TCM training, or someone culturally "trained" to accept some underlying traditional assumptions, sees results from TCM treatment, they often accept that there are more than one possible explanations for what happened. For most people editing or reading WP, it is a foregone conclusion that there is zero value in the traditional explanation. This leads to weight problems and ethnocentricity. (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I still don't understand. What is the weight/ethnocentricity problem, and who is causing it? I could read what you wrote above, at least two different, completely opposite ways. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean it both ways but yes, of course it goes both ways. This is why I always advocate as much specificity as possible. "An editorial in Nature finds..."; "TCM practitioners attribute the effects of ginseng to..." Statements that are contestable just need clear attribution so the encyclopedia doesn't risk giving undue weight to anyone's assumptions.

thanks for answering but this is more smoke than light. trying to get clarity. I ~think~ what you meant (start of speculation!) was that for people who are entrained (cultural upbringing or otherwise) in TCM, qi, etc are real and accept that whatever happened was due to manipulation of qi, and maybe other things. To "outsiders" - those who are not "entrained" - qi doesn't exist, period. You find that the "outsiders" are ethnocentrically biasing the article, and that it should be written in such a way to give validity to the existence of qi. (end of speculation) Is that what you are saying? Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is clear as day. I think you are trying too hard to read something else into it. I am saying we (WP, you, me, QG, everyone) have no business making conclusions or doing original research. Therefore, all statements should be clearly attributed ("The TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as…. in this system it is considered reliable for…" then on the other side "Scientific inquiry has found no correlate to the concept of Qi" or "Studies of efficacy seem mixed and may be due to non-specific effects. For example, a Cochrane review found that…"). Do you get what I'm saying? I am NOT saying "WP should give equal weight to supporting the existence of Qi" - again, that is NOT what I'm saying. If you read my first reply you notice I say that those who consider TCM valuable are perfectly comfortable with the fact that there are more than one possible explanation. Plurality is part of what makes TCM a different thought process.Herbxue (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you avoid using terminology like "ousiders say X" especially in arguments - it is very off-putting and leads folks to speculate as I did above (I was very careful to avoid saying that "you are saying X" - I came here to ask you what you meant.) And you still have not answered the question about "outsiders" - but I am letting it go. I almost agree with what you write just above. For sure, in terms of describing the beliefs and practices of TCM, what you write above is entirely appropriate and I agree 100% - intext attribution ("TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as...") is the best way to avoid presenting the beliefs as fact and to present the content clearly and respectfully. However, statements of fact should not be inline attributed, as per this. With respect to pseudoscience, it is a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; TCM provides no plausible mechanisms of action. It is not biased to say this, nor is it criticism - it is fact. This is the key thing I am trying to communicate to you. In Wikipedia, we stand 100% with science and there are no outsiders or insiders with regard to this - it is how things are here. To the extent somebody fights this, they are fighting community consensus as establissed a long time ago, here. Again, this stance goes deep into WP's policy and guidelines and pseudoscience has been to arbcom. The place to argue about TCM as pseudoscience is not on the Talk page of the TCM article - it is unproductive and misery-making to do that. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you just get to the point when your plan is to talk down to someone. Pretending to be interested in what I meant and then pretending to not understand my clear answer is disingenuous. Essentially you went way out of your way just to tell me to shut up. Again. Herbxue (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked what you meant by "outsiders" because I found it disturbing, but before I judged, I wanted to ask what you meant. Your refusal to directly answer leaves me still in the wind. So instead of judging I just told you I found it disturbing and tried to tell you that it is off-putting. Everything you wrote here is in tune with what you have written on the Talk page, which is that you still refuse to accept what the community has decided about pseudoscience, so I reiterated that here. I had no plan to talk down to you and I didn't talk down to you here. You can take my advice or not. The more you continue fighting consensus inappropriately, the more misery you will have and you will cause, and the more you will continue heading toward running afoul of the sanctions arbcom has established. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok well I thought I was clear enough in my first response that I was defining "insiders" (those who are trained or entrained) as a way to clarify what I meant by "outsiders", I guess not. I'm really not trying to disrespect your effort, but you are correct that I will continue to push for a more neutral tone and will continue to say that opinions in sources like Quackwatch do not constitute fact, even if that flies in the face of previous consensus. And for the record I do appreciate the advice about where it is or isn't effective to do that, but talk page discussions are very important and I don't think there is reason enough to stop reminding people of the dangers of giving too much weight to a select few notable commentators. Herbxue (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Talking is so, so important, I agree. I hope you can see that you are not just trying to change a couple of articles -- you are trying to change Wikipedia. Discussion on article Talk pages needs to be grounded on WIkipedia policies and guidelines and the consensuses (sp?) on what they mean, and if you want to change those policies, guidelines, and consensuses please make those efforts on the appropriate pages - policy/guideline Talk pages. That is where Wikipedia can be changed. Please make your efforts there - for your sake and everybody else's. And again, if you want to change how we use Quackwatch, the place for that is RSN. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments at WP:ANI

Hi there Herbxue! What's up? =P I was wondering if you were interested to take a look at this [5]? It's a rather lengthy case, but I tried to summarize the main points a little in a comment I left there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comments by Jayaguru-Shishya (and also the Conclusions -subsection). Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY

Cursing as you do here [6] is not suitable in discussions. Would suggest you reword your comments. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted, I have corrected my talk page comments.Herbxue (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)