Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Wikiproject?

Seems like there's some editorial energy collecting here, and there may be hope for getting a good article if we gather enough input. If hgilbert says PPdd did a good job, I'm willing to AGF, retract my earlier expressions of cynicism (which PPdd took in good humor, much as I intended them) and welcome his enthusiasm and philosophy (expressed above) which is quite AGF and big-picture-smart: if WP is going to work, imo, it should be a classy place conducive to intellectual endeavor. I have sources and a background that can help. Maybe we should start a wikiproject and invite some editors who have commented previously, and sort of build the sub-community editing the page, with more AGF, better understanding of what other editors are good at, etc. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Adenosine A1 receptor study in Nature Neuroscience

LINK: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n7/abs/nn.2562.html

I was surprised that there was ABSOLUTELY no mention of this highly relevant article in this wiki entry. This is probably one of the only scientifically rigorous animal models used to provide a possible mechanistic basis for acupuncture. To summarize:

• Acupuncture triggers an increase in the extracellular concentration of ATP, ADP, AMP and adenosine.
• Mice that are adenosine A1 receptor deficient fail to exhibit an analgesic effect after acupuncture.
• Inhibition of adenosine breakdown potentiated an increase in the analgesic effect of acupuncture.

The latter two points are especially important, as it demonstrates that a) acupuncture stimulates the release of some factor, and b) enhancement or inhibition of that factor modulates downstream pain response. Controls like that are critical for scientifically rigorous studies, as opposed to just saying "Oh look, acupuncture causes Y, and so Y must be the casual factor", or "A doctor stuck some needles in me and my pain went away, thus acupuncture works".

That said, the study is not conclusive, because a control for "proper" vs sham acupuncture was not performed.

I'd say at least this warrants inclusion in the article. Jimhsu77479 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not usable since MEDRS primary source. Also all mild trauma or causing of mild pain triggers biochemical releases, so not about acupuncture in humans, even if it was not a primary source study under WP:MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, added a blurb in possible mechanisms. Correct for POV if desired. Since there IS a section in the article about possible mechanisms (otherwise, delete that whole section), that's where it would go, not in any clinical justification of efficacy. Jimhsu77479 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I could easily find a review citing that article such as http://www.springerlink.com/content/e4733559013331h1/ , but I assume that wouldn't make you happy, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimhsu77479 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole section should be deleted as someone's speculations about the "possible", or at best a proposal to do a primary source study, which is even less than a primary source study. PPdd (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a primary source that has not been validated through replication and as yet, applies only to animals and not humans. We require secondary sources that demonstrate this in humans, in order to note this. To portray it as accepted theory or even as a promising note is not yet demonstrated through evidence it is accepted by the scientific community. I've removed it. The secondary source presented is about the possible mechanisms through which acupuncture could possibly be useful for oncology. There's no mention acupuncture is useful in the treatment of cancer, and only one mention that it may be useful for the treatment of nausea during chemotherapy - sourced to the Cochrane Collaboration, among the best sources available on wikipedia. The best evidence you could get out of that is "it has been suggested there may be mechanisms through which it might be useful in oncology". Actual review articles suggest acupuncture may be useful for dry mouth, pain, and generally the symptoms but certainly not the cause. Even these results have issues - the final article states that recent RCT have mixed results and only pointed to a potential role. Not proof, not acceptance. Adenosine may be the causal mechanism, but it is far from settled. We are not the news and should not be reporting new results merely because they are new. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture Practice in Chinese Hospital/Clinical discussion of Acupuncture

Sorry, this is a new heading with a short text. The discussion are very long, most of them don't include ANY references from and by the Chinese Medical Community. You all don't seem to understand that in China, Acupuncture and Herbology are established branches of medicine, which co-treat alongside allopathic medicine, with clinical studies and proven results. This article and discussion does not, to my mind, include the point of view of a chinese medical clinician. It is a very one-sided debate, and I will do my best to bring more qualified theoreticians in it. Most of the statements regarding the theory of acupuncture are without any depth, laughable. It is easy to dismiss acupuncture based on statements which are basically ignorant of the field. Please at least attempt to study the topic you are writing about. Study of commentaries of a topic are poor substitutes for knowledge of the field itself. Imagine if this kind of outside commentary was applied to other fields.

-soll22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soll22 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please help out by finding RS for practice in China (and Japan). PPdd (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Soll22, I find your comments to be in extreme bad faith, ignorant and personally offensive. "You all don't seem to understand..." Please do not smear other editors as not knowledgeable. "...that in China, Acupuncture and Herbology are established branches of medicine..." Not quite. I understand that during the cultural revolution in China, the new Communist Party was stuck for ways to provide state healthcare to its massive population. The Party's solution was to use "barefoot doctors" and traditional medicine to treat those with minor ailments and free up the rest of the healthcare system for more serious issues. "...which co-treat alongside allopathic medicine, with clinical studies and proven results." Please read the article and attached citations for point-by-point dismissals of most of this so-called "evidence". "It is a very one-sided debate," No it isn't. You're here aren't you? Start debating instead of insulting us. Convince us of your superior knowledge of the subject. "and I will do my best to bring more qualified theoreticians in it." Please do. I'd like to test myself against these geniuses. "Most of the statements regarding the theory of acupuncture are without any depth, laughable." Which ones? Tag them if you find them incorrect or biased. Provide evidence to rebuff them. Otherwise, stop complaining. "It is easy to dismiss acupuncture" Yes, it is, isn't it? "based on statements which are basically ignorant of the field." Oh sorry, I thought you'd finished. Thanks for calling us all ignorant again, Great High One. "Please at least attempt to study the topic you are writing about." I've studied it in great depth actually. It sounds like you've been too busy fleecing the gullible to study it. "Study of commentaries of a topic are poor substitutes for knowledge of the field itself." So reading widely about a topic, studying the entire evidence base and weeding out poorly-performed studies, downright fraudulent research and concluding that acupunture is (mostly) bunkum is not "knowledge", but going to an acupuncturist and coming out thinking "hmm, I feel a bit better now that nice man's stuck needles in my chakras" (whoops, wrong belief system) is? "Imagine if this kind of outside commentary was applied to other fields." It is. That's how science works. Clever, eh? Famousdog (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Famousedog, you are correct, but Soll22 is a brand new editor with an apparently extreme POV background re acupuncture. I have been directing him to basic WP methods (like putting edit summaries, and discussing on talk) and policies, and he is improving and communicating more. It took me a while to begin to understand WP:Civility and WP:GF. Also "fleecing the gullible" sounds like the written version of my own thoughts about "science based medicine", which in practice is really a "science based profit-generating-machine, that utilizes scientific-marketing, supported by profit-driven scientific studies designed to make more money using scientific methods in its profit-driven studies", while acupuncture is more like "primitive-profit-generating-machine based on superstitions, to take what it can from the gullible, without using well developed scientific marketing methods", but I am sure that acupuncture's its profit generating methodology will improve and catch up to "science-based-profit-machine based on marketing science (especially with the insurance industry now subsidizing, and thus indirectly promoting, acupunture practice).

SOL22, Famousdog is correct, but since you are new, you might not totally get what he is saying. I suggest you read WP:Civility, WP:GF, and WP:MEDRS. You don't have to read it all at first, but at least skim over them to get the main ideas. One of the main things to get from these is that you should assume editors are trying to make the article better, even if they delete things you agree with (because they are NRS (not RS), or put in things you disagree with, but which have MEDRS. Another thing to remember is that to put in a claim about medical effects, you must have sources that are "secondary" (See WP:MEDRS) sources from established mainstream major medical sources, not from sources in the field (like acupuncture journals). Otherwise, you might still be able to use major acupuncture journal sources, but only to source claims about what acupuncturists believe or how they practice. I also suggest you very carefully read the article's fourth paragraph, which was derived from RS (reliably sourced with inline citations) content in tha article body (the part after the table of contents). When you start to edit, it is probably best to add or deleted things in the article body, not the lead (the part before the table of contents), which summarizes salient things in the article body. PPdd 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to educate Sol22 in the Ways of Wikipedia, but your characterisation of mainstream medicine as some sort of scientifico-medical Axis of Evil is very naive. You say "science-based medicine ... is just a science based profit-generating-machine". What about all the people who, oh, I don't know, get better thanks to it? Case in point: Radiation therapy, vilified by alternative medicine ignoramuses as "curing by harming", has an 80% survival rate after 5 years in the treatment of prostrate cancer.[1] If some people make money by selling machines and isotopes that save 80% of people treated with them, then more power to them! Damning the whole of evidence-based medicine because a few companies make a profit is a failure to see the wood for the trees. Famousdog (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just happy that all acupuncturists give away their labour for free, all manufacturers of acupuncture needles produce supplies voluntarily for no money, and therefore there is never any financial conflict of interest involved. Yeah, all interventions except research cost money. Bitching and moaning that companies and individuals make money off of medicine is hypocritical. Yes, money causes bias, but it causes bias in all groups - not just pharmaceutical manufacturers and doctors. Acupuncturists get paid too. Research, at least in the US, must be provided free of charge. In fact, often test subjects are paid for their time and risk. Damn those evil, greedy companies for giving away all that free testing, just so they can make money off of it later! Seriously, Big Pharma has done some shitty things in the name of the almighty dollar, but they don't have a lock on making money from treatment, and they still need profits to develop new compounds, fund research on it, and ultimately produce effective drugs to treat and cure diseases. Sometimes they even give it away for free! Other times they fund pseudo-journals. That's why we need the NIH and other research funding agencies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd thanks, and yes, I am trying to get to all these wiki rules as time allows. As you can see I am not jumping into any more corrections as I realize that doing so without the proper wikiquette is a waste of time (yours and mine) space, making both the talk page and the actual entry a nightmare for readers, and energy. Famousdog, my statements are not based on historical fact, but on clinical experience of my professors, many of which have had lengthy clinical stays in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Taipei and other cities. I do realize that a personal perspective is not the way wikipedia functions, but I am over enthusiastic about the field so I do apologize for any past ramblings about personal experience or opinions or any future ones. I do appreciate any touches of personal input in this discussion, for ex. PPdd description of a personal experience with an acupuncturist. I can better understand what each editor's foundation is, and try to find common ground, as I am sure there is even between the most unlikely edits. There are a lot of issues under discussion here that worth exploring, and I am looking forward to doing that. famousdog, did I really say science-based medicine is just a science based profit-generating-machine? please refer me to that section, I honestly don't ever remember saying that, because I rarely discuss the profitability of medicine - it's tricky topic, much trickier than establishing efficacy, and one that I would not be likely to jump into.

I would also encourage you to do a bit of research on "survival rates" after radiation or chemotherapy. I do remember being part of a discussion at a workshop, at Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center about what survival rates mean in these studies. Survival rate in a study about cancer treatment, means "not succumbing to the original cancer". However, several of these tx may cause other problems( chemotherapy can cause kidney failure, or sever liver dysfunction and radiation has caused cancers in other areas of the body - bone cancer or leukemia after radiation for prostate cancer for example) and survival rates for illness generated by the treatment or another type of cancer that can be clearly linked to the treatment is never part of the official survival rate. A number of patients of chemotherapy or radiation do succumb to fatal illnesses 10-15 years after the original cancer. I do not know the statistics, I am just bringing up a point that statistics need to be also examined in some detail. Just because something is analysed in percentages does not mean it is a thorough and definitive study. I am just saying - hang in there, and give things a second look. Secondly, I don't want to critique allopathic treatments at all, and I don't want to go into the subject since this talk page is about acupuncture.

And famousdog, basically the point of that paragraph which I wrote the first day when I found this page, was based on statements about the theory of the field of acupuncture which had no relation with anything in the clinical texts, studies or current discussions within the field of acupuncture. It was also an acupuncturist's first encounter with, what to most people inside the field would appear as an anti-acupuncture POV. I distinguished reading commentaries about acupuncture rather than critiquing with an inside knowledge of the field. It's easy to critique the channels as being astrological poo-poo, but it's not really fair since they are not thought of, used, discussed or taught from that perspective.

I know now that the folks here are serious about wiki rules, and that is important to me also, and I think now that we can all profit from our interaction. Anyhow, gotta split now, but will be back in the discussion asap.Soll22 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal experience, irrespective of it is yours or another practitioner, is not allowable as a source. If your professors have published journal articles on the topic, we can cite them - provided they are the reliable, secondary sources required of articles.

Chemotherapy survival rates are irrelevant here, the failings of other areas of research do not matter since this is the page on acupuncture. We do not examine statistics in detail, but we can cite sources that do so. It is not statistics that determines if a paper can be cited - it is the reputation of the publisher for fact checking and its status as a secondary source - review article or meta analyses. This is why Cochrane reviews are our best sources, as they combine both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree WLU, personal experience is not allowable as a source, and that other areas of research are irrelevant. I was answering famousdogs incursion into the statistics of chemotherapy survival. That being said, I did enjoy your rant on big Pharma. I was speed reading last time, didn't realize the last paragraph was yours.24.215.187.94 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV theme to keep in mind when editing this article

After reading some of the vast talk page discussions, I have found an underlying theme for the article that will likely make most, if not all, POV’s happy. The following is, for the most part, solely based on RS from the article.

• Acupuncture is a medical practice of inserting needles.
• It was founded before the scientific method and discoveries in medical related sciences such as human anatomy, human physiology, cell biology, and physics.
• Like other pre-scientific medical systems aroung the world, it was based on astrological and other supernatural beliefs, and possibly empirical anecdotal evidence and trial and error evidence.
• It has survived in large part, due to a cultural respect for authority and tradition in China.
• It may also have survived in par, by having some effectiveness, and some acupuncturists point to its survival for so long as possible evidence of this claimed effectiveness.
• The efficacy is small or short-lived enough that, if it exists, it has been difficult to detect using scientific methods.
• Any medical practice that goes on for thousands of years may evolve further by successful trial and error, but this evolutoin has been hampered by a cultural resistance to change in China, as with science in Europe under the authority of the church.
• It is not unreasonable to believe that such trial and error evolution, however slow, might stumble upon some real cause and effect relationship.
• Huge debates have occurred due to the supernatural initial basis, lack of scientific methodology, lack of clear anatomical basis for acupuncture points, and ambiguous and shifting meaning of “acupuncture” and terms related to testing its efficacy.
• Additional debates are about how to scientifically and ethically design rigorous studies, and whether it is worth spending limited medical research funding searching for an effect.
• One scientific basis proposed by believers in acupuncture is that stimulation of one or more points on the body might have effects through a body wide anatomical neurotransmitter release or similar extended structure, and that thes points might have been stumbled upon by trial and error, over thousands of years of very slow evolution of acupuncture methods.
• A question for further research is whether, if such a structure exists, new methods, or points triggering the structure can be found that increase the level of efficacy.
• Whether or not expenditure of limited medical research funds is justified, is highly disputed.
• Just as some skeptics scoff at the superstitious, mystical, or prehistoric basis of acupuncture, some acupuncturists scoff at contemporary science's narrowminded and egocentric views about the possiblity of nonphysical "energies" not yet detected at our time, simlilar to behaviorists' narrowminded rejection of the existence of a "mind", now effectively utilized in cognative psychology.

I think most, if not all, POVs will agree with everything in the above summary. As far as I can tell, there is not much else going on in the article. PPdd (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Note- So as not to take up alot of space, I am modifying the above as comments come in, responding to them, so if I incorporate your good comment, your comment might look inane to new comers when in fact it was the opposite.

Please be cautious. Keep in mind that a lead here isn't the same as an introductory section or paragraph elsewhere. It follows strict rules and is based on the content of the article, regardless of how stupid that might make the lead appear. Read WP:LEAD. If a lead looks dumb, then it may not be written properly, or the article may not cover the subject properly. Fix the article first, then tweak the lead, never the other way around. Each word, phrase, and sentence in a lead should have a parallel in the body of the article, preferably in the same order they appear in the article. While not absolutely necessary (it would be nice to avoid it...), references are often necessary in the lead. I like to keep the main ref (long version) in the body and only use the short "name" version (<ref name=blabla/>) in the lead. This basically demonstrates the primacy of content in the body, and that the lead is only following and copying content and refs from the body. It should ALWAYS be in that order.

I have a subpage that gives some tips: How to create and manage a good lead

Trying to completely redo a lead is more often than not a very controversial thing to do and usually not worth it. It is better to tweak it according to new content that's been added to the article, or if one finds that very significant matter in the article isn't mentioned in the lead, then add short mention in the lead. Otherwise try to refrain from rewriting leads unless there is extremely good reason for doing so. This is one of the most common mistakes made by newbies who read the lead and think "that's not good enough" or "that's not true" or "that doesn't describe or sum up the topic completely". The last one is based on an erroroneous understanding of the definition of a "lead" here at Wikipedia. The lead isn't supposed to sum up or define the topic. It is supposed to sum up the content of the article, and should include a definition that is based on the content, not on definitions found elsewhere. IOW we create our own definitions here. Yes, we should include definitions in the body from other RS (thus justifying using them in the lead), but we often end up with our own definitions that are a combination of other definitions and facts from the article. On very comprehensive and well-written articles, because of our NPOV policy our own definitions end up being the best on the internet because they define the subject from all notable angles. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are likely correct, so I withdraw suggesting a change in lede (and deleted this from my section title above so noone else wastes time reading that part.) However, I believe that the themes in the above are a good NPOV approach to further editing the article, as edits they will likely be acceptable to all POVs and not be contested at talk if it is kept in mind. PPdd (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not read that as a good lead and it is one that exemplifies what I see as not-so-subtle POV push. PPdd, I really mean this as a constructive criticism, not a blank criticism - on articles like this it is hard to avoid letting bias creep in, and the policy in question, NPOV, is not an obvious beastie. Acupuncture is the practice of inserting needles for medical purposes. Flatly, that's your opening sentence. The one you propose is already loading in what the points are based on, that it's not based on science, that it's only based on superstition, that it's only kept because people are stupid and dislike change, that there's no anatomy and the subtext really comes across as "ONLY STUPID PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ACUPUNCTURE!!!!!!!" You're putting far, far too much emphasis on the scientific aspects and basis of a cultural practice. Science is important, but it is an aspect of acupuncture, not the whole of it. The previous version was 1-3 pagaraphs on what acupuncture was, and one paragraph on the research behind it. That is a good balance for me, it makes sense, is encyclopedic, and fairly describes the process before going on to bash the evidence base. If you look at blatant quackery like homeopathy, it still gives lots of descriptive information. If you look at historical practices like bloodletting - again it focuses on description. The difference between the two is one is a historical curiosity, while the other is still being used today. But no matter what, an encyclopedic entry describes rather than debunks. Your efforts to improve the page are appreciated and obviously sincere, but in my opinion as an experienced editor, you are going too far in one direction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with WLU. There are major problems with the approach that all stem from the building of Acupuncture as a straw man waiting to be flamed by biomedicine. The tone of the article as a whole is far more inveighed than the corresponding page on Chiropractic, which is a CAM that is equally poorly researched. And it is not even a distant relative of the french wiki page. Can we please use these as templates for the future of the Acu page? Was not the "previous version" the one I had drawn up? If so, can somebody please resurrect that and properly format it? I have been appropriately warded off editing the main page. Luke643 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Luke643, try editing in the article body, and not the lede, and your edits that meet MEDRS will likely stick, and then be incorporated into the lede, which is supposed to sum up things in the article body. The above comments were utilized and incorporated in the proposal above, which was changed accordingly. PPdd (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear - I think PPdd's edits and what is essentially commentary on acupuncture would be incredibly valuable to any research study or review article regarding acupuncture. I just think they're inappropriate here. Think of it this way - imagine you know nothing of acupuncture. What would you want to know? Would you want to know, immediately, that it's not scientifically mainstream or supported? Or would you want to know what it is, where it comes from, and that its scientific status is contested? Example - I know essentially nothing of Chinese opera. When I go to the opera page, I want to know what Chinese opera is, what is its history, and at the end, I would be interested in reading about its reception in other cultures. I know essentially nothing of calculus. When I go there, I want to find out what branch of math it is in, its purposes and uses, and at the end, that's when I want to know whether there are significant disputes over its uses or theories. Always remember we are an encyclopedia - we inform and reflect the contemporary. We do not outpace it. We are not a crystal ball. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to write for what someone would like to know, other than me. Personally I skip to the history section of articles, because I like history. I am also in the 10% minority who reads the yellow pages phone book alpabetically (before internet, at least), and don't read the ads (I am guessing, WLU, you are in that same 10% minority.) But 90% just read the ads and look at the pictures. Per MEDRS, "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information". I think a typical reader of a medical article, is probably a person ignorant enough of medicine to bother considering acupuncture (after reading 2009 Cochrane, I would even try it for post op nausea, now.) Also ignorant enough to go first to Wiki (Just kidding, as everyone gripes about "anyone can edit", yet goes to Wiki first, like I do.) I expect a typical user would want to first know how much it hurts, then how much it costs, then would want to read only a short paragraph about what it is, then read another short paragraph about what the medical community thinks of its effectiveness, and if still interested, read about how significant its effects are. Then if I was still interested, I would want details about its effect on my particular condition. This does not typify WP users of articles other than medical ones. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be part of the problem. By writing to yourself rather than to the WP:P&G (and WP:MOS) you are constructing an article that is more meaningful to you, but you are moving it away from it's purpose as an encyclopedia. It's becoming more like Yahoo answers than Brittanica. Put another way, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a how to manual. A typical user may want to know that stuff - but we are not aimed at a user. We are aimed at someone seeking knowledge of a topic. Think more in terms of someone who encounters the topic in a novel, and wants to understand what's going on. Think in terms of an alien, discovering a printed copy of the article 1,000 years after all human life has been eliminated. Think less like someone trying to prove something, and more like someone trying to explain something. Though information like "does it hurt" is important, it is not section-heading important. It's something you integrate into a description of a typical session, or perhaps adverse effects (along with the myriad other ways acupuncture feels). Remember that our audience is as broad as possible - not just users. The information should be organized rationally, to develop over time. For me, that means history to typical treatment to research - and not front-loading a whole bunch of information on why research is hard and why definitions are slippery into the first section after the lead. Acupuncture is essentially the insertion of needles according to tradition. The fact that there are many traditions that come later and that tradition and science do not match up and that you can really define half-a-dozen different types of "acupuncture" from a research-perspective specifically is useful and appropriate, but it should come later. The fact that efficacy has multiple meanings in research alone is interesting, but less relevant here. The fact that the efficacy of acupuncture in research can be defined differently is also interesting - but clearly, in my mind, goes in the research section. Immediately after the lead - should you really see a section on placebos? If you were writing an article about aspirin, would you start with placebos? I would start with willow trees. Medical acupuncture that ignores all traditional theory is quite new, and nowhere near as well-known as traditional acupuncture. Even most doctors would be hard-pressed to say what the difference is and why it is important. Maybe later it will form a substantial potion of the page, but that is for later.

I realize I keep harping on this with a large amount of italics, but that is because I strongly, strongly believe the current setup is not helping readers, it is inserting them directly into a very complicated and nuanced view of the research on acupuncture before the discussion of what it actually is. All my experience as an editor keeps reading the section order as wrong, as listing everything that is wrong with acupuncture and acupuncture research well before it ever talks about simple acupuncture. Even read the current lead - it discusses what it is and traditional beliefs before going into medical efficacy. TCM may put the cart (it works) before the horse (so why test it), this puts the bridle, reins and blinders six feet in front of the horse with the cart still in the barn and everyone is walking to town. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to devote to this. I think it is absolutely right that the acupuncture page not be dominated by criticism. But I think it is even more important for the actual discussion of the defined (in acupuncture texts) contents of acupuncture be accurately represented. The concept that I have harped on - rivers and astrology - is just one. When I have more time I will begin - incrementally - approaching some of the other incorrect information. Again, let's use either the chiro page in english, or the french Acu page as guidelines to a truer encyclopaedic entry.Luke643 (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the "definitions" section should be broken up into small pieces, with each parts to go into sections just before the terms are first used. It came out as a chunk because I made a list as I read each of the different usages in the article, trying to make sense of things, originally assuming MOS consistency, but not finding it.

Agreed "does it hurt?" should go into the practice section. It also needs RS for claims that it does not usually hurt, or that people get used to it, or find it relaxing, All the MEDRS sources cited in the article on this were from proponents, and so not MEDRS, for this medical assertion.

I moved the history to the bottom only because it was less about acupuncture than about its history. I actually like reading history first. But I speculate that most who want to know what acupuncture is, either want to know about its practices and theory, or about what it is from an objective science perspecive.

Agreed the lede structure is good, and the article structure should follow it.

Regarding "all my experience as an editor", you have made 45,000 edits in 4.5 years. Whew! PPdd (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with WLU here. I think PPdd is being far too prescriptive. At the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia article, not a feckin' book about acupuncture. We simply can't cover all sub topics of this already very broad topic. Something has to give. Famousdog (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Luke, there are sources to support the contention that acupuncture is based at least in part on geography and astrology, and not on an objective examination of human anatomy. I believe the Chinese forbade the dissection of cadavers. If you have other sources that substantiate another origin to acupuncture points and meridians, feel free to integrate them as an alternative explanation that can share space. Keep in mind that when popular versus scholarly sources "compete", scholarly always wins. In this case, historical reviews of the topic would take precedence over even medical journals. With a topic like acupuncture, with a prescientific and ideological rather than empirical base, there will almost certainly be divergence in sources and opinions. There is no "one" acupuncture and we should do our best to summarize all of them honestly. Unfortunately, that diversity makes the page harder to work with.

Also, please stop comparing this page to other pages. Unless it is a featured article, other pages are irrelevant. Always look to the policies and guidelines instead. Unfortunately there are a lot, but any good editor should be able to point you to some sort of guidance (if you have questions, you may try edior assistance).

PPdd, it's reasons like this that I suggested working on a subpage, and still do think that is a good idea to take. Keep in mind that all changes are live, so if you have made a change to the main page that substantially worsens it, it shouldn't be there. Sub pages, you can have works in progress, utter shit, scratchpad ideas or a roughly-polished gem and it doesn't matter. If you tell other editors about it, they can edit there as well to work towards a consensus version while keeping the previous flawed but at least more polished version in mainspace. If you are making any substantial changes to a page, particularly if it is in content or tone rather than structure, and doubly-particularly if it is a busy or high-profile page, a sub-page may be the way to go. You've made probably close to a hundred changes of major and minor nature, with singificant impact. It's probably too late to do so for this page, but in the future it is something to think about. Subpages are easy to set up and work just like a regular page with an edit history, full ability to implement codes and use templates, etc. Once you've got a final version you can simply cut and paste.

Yes, we do need a source for the rather surprising fact that stabbing someone with a needle doesn't necessarily hurt. The history of acupuncture is integral to the overall context of acupuncture, I would still prefer it coming immediately after the lead but we can always do a more formal section on the page order. I agree that it is a judgement call whether history comes before practice and theory. You've got it backwards regarding the lead though - lead always follows body. If your lead and body are out of synch, the lead should be changed to reflect the body. It should be the last section of a page you edit.

As far as my experience, I've never successfully broken the top 500. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU - anatomy and points/channels: The source that is most important is the Lingshu (2nd part of huangdi neijing) and as I have explained it says nothing about the origins of the points at all, let alone basing them on geography. In warring states writing style (the style of the lingshu) the forming of logical argument was based on correlation and similarity joining seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, in the lingshu, which is absolutely the text that must be used to determine such concepts, as it is the fundamental text on the practice, we only are told that there is a neat correspondence to the 'natural' land forms (not just rivers, but mountains as organs, etc) and the flow of the calender year (not astrological, but temporal). So again, using this rhetorical device to suggest origin is patently wrong. If you use later astrological suggestions from other sources (where are these sources?) then they must be trumped by the Lingshu. And I assure you they are outliers. Nowhere in the training grounds of american acupuncturists will it be taught that the points/channels are based on rivers/astrology. It is definitely a straw man setup for discrediting the practice based on naive (and incorrect) translation/analysis of the lingshu.

as for dissection - i have to find my sources, but there was a some surgery going on in the warring states period. It was not proscribed until much later. The important part of the anatomical discussion here is that points and channels developed from palpation and massage practice, not from basis on cosmological models. The cosmological models of the lingshu didn't exist until late warring states period anyway, therefore the anatomical position of the points of acupuncture well precede these models.

Lastly, I brought those pages in as comparisons in form. Why is it not useful to compare? A side note: the dutch and german acu pages resemble the french closely. It is my feeling that our lede therefore is not consistent with common practice in europe.Luke643 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources are required, not assertions. An actual ancient Chinese text would be for one thing illegible for most readers and for another a primary source. If there is a source regarding acupuncture and astrology (a quick look says there is, but I'm not sure about the quality), it stays in. Merely being old isn't sufficient to discount later ideas, since ideas develop over time. If an actual analysis could be found, if it notes that the original beliefs about acupuncture didn't use astrology but later beliefs did, that is the information we put in. But overall - sources. If you want to say the astrology and geography relations to acupuncture were meant to be metaphorical or rhetorical, source it. My guess would be American acupuncturists aren't trained regarding the astrological and geographic significance of acupuncture points because a) it's far more obvious superstition than qi and b) much of that was purged when the book on acupuncture was literally rewritten by Mao's medical teams.

Note that surgery isn't the same thing as dissection. Barbers in Europe undertook much surgery, but that didn't really help them discover much about the body. If points and meridians developed out of massage - source it.

Note as well that other language wikipedias may have different policies, and almost certainly different sources, than English wikipedia. Here we follow the policies and guidelines, not examples of other pages or other wikis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: Your reply is simply straw man. Other-language wikis (if the articles are good) can help avoid WP:UNDUE violations, which only topic expertise can accomplish. This is useful for editors, like you and PPdd and most others here, who have no topic expertise but forge ahead anyway, making the article worse and worse IMO, almost comically so (which is why I have encouraged you both to continue, as performance art). Matuk below doesn't even warrant mention: s/he is not an expert on the subject. Ever heard of Paul Unschuld? He's the foremost scholar of the history of medicine in China. Much better than that joke of a source from Matuk. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, other language wikis have different rules than us, and therefore can not serve as a model - we always use the policies and guidelines. Despite being linked through the Wikimedia Foundation the individual rules and guidelines are generated by the editors, and bar legal restrictions exerts no oversight role - certainly not regarding content. Other wikis, being user-generated content, are not reliable sources and therefore can't be used as references. Topic expertise on the other hand, is indeed a red herring. Topic experts should have access to sources, thus their expertise is unnecessary except for being able to provide and interpret them in plain language - which any editor can do given time and a library. Please also see the Essjay controversy. In addition, while independent scholars may look at an entire field, even while specializing in a sub-section, practitioners like yourself and Luke are more likely to specialize in one type of acupuncture and have far less information on the history (and in particular historical controversies) in addition to having an ideological and financial stake in the argument. Also note that reliability doesn't come in the form of expertise, it comes in the form of reputation for fact checking. Unschuld and Matuk are both eligible for use as sources based on their ability to publish in peer reviewed journals and scholarly books, not on the basis of name recognition. The only time name matters is when we are citing an opinion from a nonreliable source where the expertise of the person makes their opinion relevant, but that generally will not occur on something like acupuncture because of the large number of actually reliable sources available. Opinions from personal webpages are generally only used for fringe topics. Mainstream topics require actually reliable sources. If Unschuld has something to say, feel free to cite him. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: Of course we use policies & guidelines of en.wiki. That wasn't my point. I love the Wikipedian idea that while it takes great, august expertise to write a secondary source, any nimrod with time and a library can write a tertiary source. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In determining the origin of the points, the Lingshu is the source, so a proper reading is important. Secondary sources, such as the Deadman Manual of Acupuncture back up my assertions, mentioning absolutely nothing of astrology, and suggesting instead that the points were unsystematically developed, based on massage and other physical practices. Moreover, the secondary source that is used on the page currently is the piece by Camilla Matuk, (who has a graduate degree in biomed comm). Her statements are underpinning the assertion that points and channels are BASED on astrology and geography, and they are based on her reading of the Lingshu (page 6 of her paper). She uses no other source, and there is no other source for this stuff on our page. Matuk is clearly not qualified to be reading classical chinese, nor assess the meaning of classical chinese texts. Additionally, the piece is about illustration of western and chinese medicine! Therefore at the very least this information should be removed, or re-sourced by an acceptable source, preferably written by a specialist in Chinese Medical history. I have presented you with my own expertise in terms of the lingshu, and that should be enough to remove the matuk info. If I cannot use my reading of the Lingshu as a basis for putting content onto the page (which I am entirely in agreement with), neither should the user of Matuk, whose sole source for the statements are, you guessed it, the Lingshu.

As far as replacing it with more accurate content on the origin of the points, I point you to the Deadman, as I said it is the industry standard for point and channel theory in America.

fair play on surgery vs. dissection. And I simply do not have time to look into this part. and fair play on the different guidelines and such. and your recent changes have brought us far closer to the Chiro page, so I am much happier with the state of the lede in form, if not content. Luke643 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference to dissections in China, page 144 of this -

John Z. Bowers, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jun. 15, 1973), pp. 143-151, Published by: American Philosophical Society, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/986539

Bowers also discusses the origins and theory of the channels and points. He mentions nothing of astrology or geography, also page 144. The piece is hardly friendly toward Acupuncture, but it is very well researched for the time. This should be sufficient to eliminate the Matuk-sourced information.

Given the date on that paper I'm not hugely surprised. China was just starting to open up to the West at that point, there would have been minimal access to most historical sources, and acupuncture had gone through Mao's "barefoot doctor" revolution less than 20 years before. The fact that this one source does not mention this hypothesis is not reason to remove it. This source can be used to supplement the information in the page, but since it does not specifically discuss the relationship between acupuncture and astrology, it doesn't impact that aspect of the page. There are other sources that make the point. I wouldn't use that source to reference the page, but I would use this one, if I can get my hands on it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His source is a book on Chinese Astrology for one reference, and his second is an article on pulses in early chinese documents which says "it is commonplace understanding that the acupuncture body is a microcosm of the known universe, a metaphor for structures that early Chinese found in Heaven and Earth." Surely this language is clear enough to support my reading and not the current page's reading. The Chinese Astrology book should not be considered as a useful source on Acupuncture. Again, Acupuncture texts should be considered as the theoretical basis for Acupuncture. If we use another of Kavoussi's references as our source, L'Acuponcture Chinoise by Georges Solie De Morant, another foundational western text, we find no statements as to the origiin of points, other than a reference to the Lingshu correlation with the days of the year (correlation, not origin from) and reference to another text which only had 338 points. He then goes on to say on page 21, in a subsection titled "What do the Points connote to the Chinese?" in which he quotes a chinese encyclopedia which calls the points, that the points are "important, sensitive areas of the human body." Another encyclopedia he quotes says this, "energy and blood circulate in the body through the meridians and secondary vessels by moving across hollow spaces;" There is no suggestion in his sources of astrology or geopgraphy.Luke643 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Houvassi excerpt has a sub-heading "science based medicine", with a keyword association titled "quackary exposed." This is problematic, as I have explained. Building up the origin of the points and channels as astrological and geographical is a rhetorical device designed to discredit the practice by attributing to it language that is considered superstition. Why are we giving this bias such a prominent voice on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke643 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, keep forgetting the signature.Luke643 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is "he" in these cases, Kavoussi or the references he is citing? Also, no source claims exclusive rights to determine a page's contents - though comprehensive and respected sources are extremely useful, can be used dozens of times in an article and can be the reference for the majority of a page, that doesn't mean it is the only source and all information included in the page must respect or duplicate it. If it is a minority opinion, we can note a minority opinion.

If the Chinese astrology book is a reliable source (solid publisher) and explicitly mentions acupuncture, it is a valid inclusion. The fact of the matter is, as a prescientific intevention we would not expect to see correspondence to objective facts. It's natural to anticipate multiple explanations for various features of the intervention. I would not support saying acupuncture points are only based on astrology, provided there are sources stating the points are based on something other than astrology. I have to gather and read the sources before I can give an opinion on specific issues, but you must realize that "netural" does not mean "favourable" and merely because a source presents a strong opinion does not mean it can't be used. If it is a minority opinion it should be attributed, not removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@WLU - "The fact of the matter is, as a prescientific intevention we would not expect to see correspondence to objective facts" - that's a really good point! That's why, prior to the scientific revolution, people had no idea how agriculture worked, or how to make tools, or how to use medicinal herbs (especially that, since they didn't have controlled studies, so herbs didn't work back then), or really, ANYTHING. It sure was a drag that people couldn't "see correspondence to objective facts" or pass any knowledge on to subsequent generations, since subsequent generations are objective. It's sad, but without the Flying Spaghetti Monster's frequent interventions, humans would have gone extinct repeatedly until His Noodly Monsterhood decided to invent Newton, Pascal, Joule, and all the other SI units (SI meaning "Science is Invented!", by FSM, of course). Your insight is certainly.... a remarkable one, and any conclusions that editors derive from it should be treated accordingly. By the way, just because I'm sometimes sarcastic doesn't mean I'm not constructive (cf. your mean removal of my comment). What is the rebuttal of silly, illogical ideas if not constructive? Well, I admit it's not very constructive in wikiality-land. Sorry about that, for any adherents. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a straw man. People could use tools without knowing how they worked, science allows you to determine how they work and how to make them work better. Witness the massive explosion in food production, the existence of effective medicine and treatments for things such as infections, cancer, pain control and nutritional deficiencies, versus the salination of the soil in Mesopotamia, the massive die-off of New World Indians after the appearance of smallpox, and the fact that we had to develop antibiotics and vaccination because herbs were, at best, marginally effective if they worked at all. Many of those herbs were chosen because they looked like the organ they were supposed to treat. Humans were no smarter or dumber than we are now, but we now have a methodology that places emphasis on data and bias-correction. Previously, much of that "smartness" was turned towards unprovable religious ideas and attempting to justify the wisdom of ages past.

When your comments are solely dedicated to baiting and mocking other editors, and not towards improving the page, then no, your comments are not constructive. Frankly, I'd spend less time on this page pointing out the flaws in the reasoning presented if editors actually used sources rather than arguments. I dislike having to deal with edits to the main page justified by nothing more than "that's not what acupuncture/homeopathy/herbal medicine is". The only reason I spend time doing this is because it tends to result in fewer edits to mainspace by editors who come in convinced of the efficacy of their particular intervention having never considered the actual evidence for it or possible explanations for said evidence.

So yes, I am justified in removing the last in a series of sarcastic comments. If you are frustrated by editing wikipedia and your inability to substantiate your points through reference to reliable sources, that's not my problem. But when you waste time and storage space on cute, annoying little comments that can never improve the main page, that is my problem. Wikipedia is not therapy. Stick to the topic at hand, provide specific references, cite specific problems, and above all, accept that a pro-acupuncture page is not necessarily a good acupuncture page. There is debate, there's not much good evidence, and this should be recognized. If you don't like wikipedia, feel free to start Acuwiki, move over to Citizendium or complain all you want at Wikipedia Review. Just don't do it here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: your comment about therapy is strange. The most therapeutic moment I ever had with WP was realize that the less time I spent with it, the better. The only evidence its proponents can point to that it matters is the same argument that astrology columns and superstitious scriptures use: "N million readers who don't know any better can't be wrong", in effect. My comments are just as relevant as anything here; if you don't like what I write, go start an organized whine about it. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to be clearer - if you find editing wikipedia frustrating, then rather than making sarcastic jibes please take a break. Your substantive comments may be relevant, but comments like these don't help anyone. They are not relevant, they add to the acrimony of the page, they are uncivil and they are very much not in keeping with the talk page guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Hi WLU (I think) - No, I don't find editing WP frustating; I find WP itself amusing and silly (except for TV shows and stuff like that, where it's really good). I think my comments that you diff'd above actually are helpful, though I think we can agree that they are not helpful to you. And that's OK; you should definitely ignore my comments if you don't like them. I'm not that active anyway, so there's not much "there" there. Enjoy your editing. (90% of Satanic ritual abuse? Wow! That's a lot of work.) --Middle 8 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are very active on this page, and your comments are aggravating, frustrating and make the talk page more acrimonious. I find your comments diffed above to be uncivil, baiting, and serve no purpose in the improvement of the page, and doubt anyone else finds them helpful, though I am sure it feels very satisfying to write them. But that is not the purpose of the talk page, or wikipedia. I fail to see how sarcasm and false praise helps anyone. Please stop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The He was Morant I believe. If you were looking at the bit about morant. The astrology book, along with a mis-reading of the lingshu, is currently dominating the lede's statements about the theory of channels and points. And I disagree that articles based on these two things are reputable in discussing acupuncture. If these sources and their content were used on a page entitled Astrological Acupuncture then I would give full credit. But they are not. I have presented two credible sources, foundational texts to the study of Acupuncture in America that have no reference to astrology or geography. And I have explained in detail why the sources you cited were poor/purposefully mis-leading/based on a primary text neither author had any authority to analyze. Additionally, one of the sources that houvassi uses as evidence of belief in astrological origins of points and channels explicitly states that these things are mere correlations, and their likening is metaphorical. This should be sufficient to change the lede information. If the astrological and geographical info is to be in the page it should both be re-written as "correspondance" and not an originating element, and it should be farther down the article as a minority opinion. The problem is that it is a minority opinion based on an article on medical illustration, and on one written with the expressed agenda of discrediting acupuncture.Luke643 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just read over some comments by WLU about practitioners, with my name included. I should explain that I am not a practicing acupuncturist, though I have been trained as one. So I don't have any financial horses in this race. I am far more interested in History (which was precisely what you said we acupuncturists are not especially interested/trained in), and I will complete a MA in Chinese History in a few months. What is bothering me about the page (which must be obvious!) is the poor content concerning what the sources of chinese history actually suggest it to be. What I am reading a lot of is what poor biomed oriented scholarship considers it to be. But the delivery method of that scholarship supporting this orientation- journals - is trumping both reasoned argument against, and other source material that disagrees. It should not. As I have illustrated in the two points I have been hammering away at, the sources underpinning the CORE material in the lede are not just poor, but in fact ridiculously poor. Yet they are being held up as equal to the fundamental source material I have presented. The lede should reflect the theory of acupuncture as currently understood in America by both scholars and those who teach acupuncture, only after this is established should critical information be presented, which is the format we have now gotten to on the page. The problem is no longer the format, but rather the content. We have a Pocket Dictionary telling us what practitioners of acupuncture think, we have an illustrator's discussion of medical illustrations telling us what the theory of acupuncture is, and it is backed up by a text designed to discredit the field of acupuncture, using incredibly poor sources (book on astrology), and insisting that a correlation is actually a cause, the most fundamental of errors in argument and experiment. So...can we finally fix this lede? Seriously.Luke643 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)24.188.2.0 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Luke643, you keep bashing an "illustrator" publishing a medical history article in The Journal of Biocommunication. That is a major peer reviewed medical journal. Histories published in peer reviewed medical journals are peer reviewed by medical historians. One problem that kept TCM so primitive is an attitude of disdain for anatomy and its sister - anatomical illustration, without which scientific medicine would not have advanced. A big part of the history of medicine is the study of medical illustration. Without medical illustration, medical texts would be almost useless. The purpose of the illustration is not just to show anatomy, but to draw or image it in a way which leads to an understanding of physiology. One area I have expertise in is xerophytic field botany, and I recently posted twice at talk WikiPoject plants about how the Wiki articles and glossaries of botanical terms lack anatomical illustrations, not just "photos", and so are practically useless. If you think the peer review panel and editors made an error, email Journal of Biocommunication with your evidence, and they will almost certainly print a retraction. PPdd (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

this is willful obfuscation. The illustrations of acupuncture points have no indications that they are based on astrology and geography. Matuk uses the lingshu as source. This must be changed. It is just wrong. What more can I possibly say? I have given sources, reasoned argument, and more sources. I know you want to believe in the anachronism of China's stagnation and inferiority, but this is getting in the way of progress on the page.184.239.126.166 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)"

Sorry, that was me. Was writing from my phoneLuke643 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article in question and think that its use in this page overstates its actual contents. I will try to re-read and examine its specific uses in the near future. I will also try to find the time to take out Needles, herbs, gods, and ghosts from the library to see what it has to say. This again underscores my previous point, said many, many times. To do a good job editing the article, you need to find and read sources. Please stop debating personal experience, stop bringing up the alleged failings of modern medicine, red herrings about big pharma and "allopathic" anything. I feel an irritating need to correct these many logical and factual fallacies, and that burns up time on the talk page with absolutely no improvement to the actual acupuncture page. Please instead spend time finding and reading sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Luke643, re illustrators publishing in Biocommunication, see medical illustration. If you think that author made an error, please provide an RS secondary source medical historian article to add a dissenting opinion to the article. PPdd (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I don't think I did any of those things that you were complaining about. I have only brought in sources. PPdd, the opinion is not mainstream, and therefore I do not need to produce a 'dissenting opinion' from the medical history field. However, I have provided multiple sources for the mainstream opinion from the field itself, not the biomed history field. If we are to present the theory we must present the theory, not the poorly sourced, loaded, anti-quack, or simply adjunctively related sources (matuk and houvassi). I plan to use Unschuld, Deadman, and Ellis/Wiseman to source my brief theory discussion.Luke643 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of bacterial infections

WlU, I didn't understand your edit summary for deletion from practices sectin of

"TCM practitioners believe acupuncture cures some bacterial infections, which they believe are caused by problems in the flow of qi, based on examination of the tongue, pulse, and other symptoms; science based medicine believes bacterial infections are caused by bacteria, and treats with specific antibiotics targeted to kill the specific bacteria, and base diagnosis on a laboratory analysis to determine the type of bacteria."

This was to round out the practices section description of what is practiced. There is little in the article about nonpsychological illness treatment practices, and psychological effects are notoriously difficult to measure. PPdd (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At the most basic level, those aren't reliable sources in general. At best, they represent what those specific practitioners believe about acupuncture or sell acupuncture to treat them. They're what I call "random website", the kind of thing that pops up when you type "infection acupuncture" into google. The first, Cinnabar Acupuncture, is nothing more than a spa's website. Even information like what practitioners think acupuncture can treat should verified by reliable sources, which would again be scholarly books and journals. These sites are particularly problematic because they claim to be able to genuinely treat and cure these conditions. Let me put it another way - if acupuncture is claimed to be able to treat infections, you should be able to justify this relatively easily with a quick pubmed search without having to resort to what are mostly sales sites. With so many high quality sources, we shouldn't be using sites like these. And even to portray these claims as justified or something practitioners believe, we need actual journal articles. There should be studies to demonstrate it being effective or ineffective. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I couldn't find anything at google scholar (I tried), and I figured the main websites represented what was actually practiced. But I like a hard line on sourcing, so I will keep looking. This addition to the article, if RS can be found on beliefs, would round out the overly psychological treatment orientation. PPdd (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are better, but I've adjusted. First off per MOS:TITLE, you don't repeat the heading title in the subsections. Second, while the clinical manual is a good source, the Thieme manual is not. The clinical manual has a specific section on infection, a whole chapter dedicated to infection in general. The Thieme manual has individual mentions stitched throughout, and isn't really a purportedly medical book in the first place. What you want is specific references dedicated to a topic, not throwaway sentences on books aimed at totally different ideas. An ideal source is one that focuses, at length, on a specific condition. I've removed the section on bleeding through the nose and mouth - first it's way too specific, second, it had the same sourcing problem. If you want to replace something similar, then the same sort of sourcing should apply - scholarly books (check the publisher) with an entire chapter or at least several-page subsection on the topic. What a single practitioner believes on their website isn't really a good source.

I also have an issue with the section on bacterial infection, which illustrates a general irk I have with the page. It places the TCM concepts on an equal footing with actual science - as in, "according to acupuncture, infections are caused by a dark qi. Science has demonstrated that infections are caused by micro-organisms provoking an inflammatory reaction." You've got magic on one hand, and, you know, reality on the other. Wikipedia does not give medical advice, and also should contain accurate information. The idea that qi causes infection is, well, pretty much wrong. A section that makes it look like acupuncture and scientific research are somehow on the same footing is flat-out wrong. Prescientific vitalism can not, does not, will not, should not compete with real knowledge. How to deal with it I'm less sure, because practitioners do genuinely believe in this nonsense. Right now my inclination is to list the conditions acupuncture is alleged to treat, with a broad overview statement of "and they think everything is caused by stagnation of the blood" or whatever, and essentially leave it at that. Once such a section was developed, it may be worth rolling it into the same section as the actual science, perhaps in a table:

TCM explanation|Scientific research

Stagnation of blood|Not supported

Congestion of blood and qi in the zhang fou|Some support with questions about the placebo effect

Overactive spleen|Symptom (pain) relief only

Astrologically inauspicious birth|Symptom (pain and nausea) relief only

But that's a long way off. And I really don't want to have to do it because each time I read about congested bullshit in the imaginary organ that doesn't actually exist, I shout at my screen. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "SHOUT" at your screen?

I should have my head examined for starting to edit on alt med articles, but I can't since my phrenologist is on vacation. And I was afraid there would be criticism since the infection section made acupuncture look ridiculous, never thinking it would make it appear somehow on par with reality.

I agree it needs to be made clear what is a belief and what is a fact, and the second sentence could simply have said "bacterial infections are caused by bacteria", which appears to be a tautology, like "water is H₂O", but even the latter may not be a tautology, since homeopathic water is believed by practitioners to be "H₂O Plus".

I agree with another editor that it is neither appropriate nor feasible to list every claim of acupuncture, but a small number of brief descriptions for general categories of claims, like "infection, reproduction, bleeding, vomiting, excrement, and psychological maladies", is feasible, somewhat comprehensive, does not take up too much space, and well illustrates thinking, beliefs, and subsequent practices common in the field.

Your proposed "long way off" structure proposal is good. An eleboration of it is "category: practitioner belief -> practitioner reasoning -> practitioner practice; fact -> basis of fact -> science based practice as comparison", which only needs 2-4 sentences per category.

(Uh, oh, either my liver fire just went up and scorched my lungs, causing my stomach to react (as would reasonably be expected to follow), or I have been reading too much alt med theory things.) PPdd (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On "beliefs"

There are no reliable sources that establish what someone believes. People lie, even to themselves. They also change their minds, usually without making any public pronouncement. This is particularly the case when they have a large vested interest. A priest may lose faith yet continue to offer mass. An lawyer may doubt his ability to find justice while continuing to practice law. We can speak with evidence as to what the doctrine of TCM accupuncture is, but not to what the beliefs of practioners are. We should confine ourselves to that for which we can show evidence. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more - see Bad faith article for more on what you just said re "people lie, even to themselves", etc.

I will add to "to do" list - change "practices" or "beliefs" to something like "TCM doctrine says", but wait for further comments before I do. PPdd (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

which aspect of the page are we talking about here? For what Acupuncture texts old and new suggest TCM treats, the answer is that they don't say it treats any biomedical pathologies, but rather a wholly different set of syndromes, that may or may not encompass biomed pathology. See Maciocia for extensive discussion of this. But again, what are we talking about in terms of page content?Luke643 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RS needed for system table

Flow of qi through the meridians
Zang-fu	Aspect	Hours
Lung	taiyin	0300-0500
Large Intestine	yangming	0500-0700
Stomach	yangming	0700-0900
Spleen	taiyin	0900-1100
Heart	shaoyin	1100–1300
Small Intestine	taiyang	1300–1500
Bladder	taiyang	1500–1700
Kidney	shaoyin	1700–1900
Pericardium	jueyin	1900–2100
San Jiao	shaoyang	2100–2300
Gallbladder	shaoyang	2300-0100
Liver	jueyin	0100-0300
Lung (repeats cycle)

Does anyone have RS for this table I deleted as NRS? PPdd (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, keep in mind that not everything needs a source. If no editors are challenging it, then there's no reason to remove it. If there is no reason to believe that it is inaccurate, then there's no reason to remove what is probably a fairly helpful summary of beliefs. I myself made that table and didn't remove the information because I didn't see anything controversial - it's a reasonable summary of what practitioners believe and was placed in a section that made it clear it wasn't actually supported by research. You are still within your rights to remove it, but keep in mind you don't have to. If you are really concerned about a source, it's worth looking for one before deleting. You could try google books for instance. If anyone has Essentials of Chinese Medicine volume 1 by Z. Liu, it may have some information on page 334 (my preview cuts off for that section).

Of course, if no-one can provide a source and no-one, not even the acupuncturists active on this page believes this, then I will eat my words and you were totally justified. I hope you're not, I hate eating my words. Makes me seem less omniscient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The main reasons I removed it was that I was trying to remove everything that had specific information, both scientific and about beliefs. Also, I did not understand the terms in the table, and I was hoping someone would explain them. I did not know how to put {{Citation needed}} tags on a table (I tried). Finally, I found it too coinidential that Chinese divisions of the day into 24 hours, which is entirely a convention, happened to coincide with western European division into 24 hours. It would be like Chinese weeks being seven days long, because God happened to take a rest after 6 days when he created China, just like he did after creating the middle east. I have been mad at God ever since, because 7 is not a very good number, as it is too prime for a nice division. A non-prime number like six for the number of days a week would have been much better (and also allowed for a shorter work week). But like you, maybe God is not omniscient, and failed to think about this when he took his 7th day rest in both China and the middle east. PPdd (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that God might not be as stupid as I thought. Since a menstrual cycle is 28 days, 7 divides nicely into it, so maybe He was trying to throw women a bone, after having made them from one (adam's rib). And He clearly made the moon go round the earth for this reason, which explains why there are 12 months in both western and Chinese calendars (the article attributes it to a lunar calendar, not a menstrual calendar). PPdd (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My point (with my intended humor removed) is that the table should be in the article, but is not yet well explained in the article body, and it would help if it was so explained, with RS. Since you edited in the table, perhaps you could do a brief addition to the article body explaining what the Chinese terms in the table mean, and what the "hours" mean (and maybe so an additional RS statement on how the definition of what "hour" is, is entirely a matter of "convention", so it cannot serve as a basis for a medicine.) PPdd (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The table may be sourced and expanded using this book, though I haven't done a comprehensive reading and I'd like to see a paper copy. See p. 399. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for acupuncture as a treatment for nostalgic delusions

In the good old “golden days” of a few weeks ago before I came to the acupuncture article, I used to think I knew what a “consistent definition” was, what “placebo” was, what a “need for further research” meant, what a “point” or “location” was, and what MOS said about defining in the first lede paragraph, or section lede paragraphs. Even MOS has only recently become only a guideline for using colons and apostrophes, not about defining for consistency of usage and organization of content... ah for the golden days. I am making a point in a humorous style, but editors should edit the acupuncture article with this point in mind. PPdd (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you make your point directly, without all the allusions? I have no idea what you're saying. Are you making some point along the lines of: "it's wikiality to even come close to the view that acupuncture is anything other than fantasy?" You were saying stuff like "acupuncture is garbage? No way, even garbage has its uses" recently. Are you reaffirming that point, modifying it, or saying something entirely different? thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The direct point is that there is much unnecessary fighting on this talk page with both sides replying on ambiguities. The ambiguities need to be kept in mind so as to have WP:Consistency in the article, and this will also stop much bickering over semantics. PPdd (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I don't see any examples of that particular problem offhand; it would help if you would flag any that you do see. On an unrelated but equally "meta" note, I see your comments going in a lot of directions at once; it might be good to pick a single issue or section (or two or three at most), work on that, and move through the article in that way. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I’m having trouble with pooping

Acupuncture is used to treat constipation and diarrhea, which are related to flow problems (of qi). I can find good RS for the TCM beliefs about this flow, but I have yet to find simplified good MEDRS for what is believed to really be going on. MEDRS at google scholar is about highly specialized studies, and basic MEDRS med texts are not available online. My only available hard cover resource is this[2], which may not be MEDRS, but I thought mentioning it might help lighten the load on this talk page, without having to get a more expensive needle poke (or non-penetrating stimulation) for the problem. (Believe it or not, that was actually a serious request.) PPdd (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re MEDRS – Some can be dug out of here[3], flushed out of here[4], and this is flowing with them[5].

Why do we have to describe the biomedical etiology & pathology of every condition for which TCM indicates acupuncture? Just wikilink to them, imo, as has been done in earlier versions of the article. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going off the WHO statement and studies indicating what may acturally work, or on what there have been studies with at least a minimal asstempt to apply scientific methodology. These seem, from my reading, to be what most modern practitioners focus on. They are mostly psychological effects, and hard to measure without the vagueness of psychological questionaires about "what level is your pain on a scale of 1-10?". But constipation, vomiting, and diarhea cross the line from measuring just psychological effects like pain relief and nausea, to something physically measurable on an objective physical puke-ometer or poop-ometor. (PS - LOL on your edit summary for this particluar section, "too much information"!) :) PPdd (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try two things - google books (if you have a google account, gmail or otherwise, that seems to help you get more preview per book) and when undertaking pubmed searches, use the "reviews" filter (on the right side of the screen). Acupuncture has no generally accepted reason for why it works (and there's still questions about if it works). An appropriate action is simply to find what you can and cite it. However, you often turn up mushmouth stuff like this where "may work" is the main theme, not "has been shown to work". Like a lot of acupuncture, it is assumed that it must work, and therefore research will inevitably find the desired results, so there's really no reason to bother researching it, let's just implement it. The pages for diarrhea, enema and constipation don't mention acupuncture at all. Note that the WHO report is seen as a problematic source at best. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you likely already figured another "thanks" was coming, as I used a google books RS. For some reason, I was googling then finding isolated google books results after long searches, but did not think of simply going to google books first. So, thanks. PPdd (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made the same mistake, google is very handy for current events and pop culture, but scholar and books are much better starting places for scholarly articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Subpages Question

Can we, I mean is it possible, to create subpages with all the separate topics and use the main talk page as an index? It's doubled in size in one week.Soll22 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) :No, there is some policy or guideline about that, but I forgot which. You can create a subpage at your own userpage and put almost anything you want there, however, and anyone at Wikipedia can see it. PPdd (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I misread your question to be about a subpage of the article, not abuot this talk page. PPdd (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If we can avoid posting in older threads, the bot will archive them pretty soon; I suggest starting a new thread if the existing one is very long. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to start a subsection about anything unresolved in the section, rather than starting a new section, as the prior context might go out of sight in an archiving. PPdd (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you start a subsection? aren't most of them unresolved, though?Soll22 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Start a subpage by adding a slash to the page you are making a sub-page of: for instance, [[Acupuncture/subpage]]. Once you've created the link to the page, simply click on it and start editing. A related talk page also becomes available. Please do so as a user subpage though, not as a subpage to an article. More information can be found at WP:SP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

So the lede urgently needs revision. 1. Dorland is not a valid source for the claims of acupuncture practitioners of what they can treat. For those claims see the NIH paper - which of course has been cited as problematic, but in determining what acu pract's suggest they can do it is perfect. 2. The rivers astrology thing has got to go. It is just wrong as I have explained above. Please review my version of the origins section. My source for the origin of points and channels is the Peter Deadmen Manual of Acupuncture, which itself is based on extensive research of the Mawangdui texts, which are the earliest known extant texts on acupuncture. The Deadman is the industry standard. Also, discussing it's difference with biomed is a construction of a loaded argument designed to discredit acupuncture, thus revealing a very strong POV. Save that stuff for the criticism portion of the intro. Also, the lede criticism is far too strong. Notice the french version:

L’acupuncture1 est une des branches de la médecine traditionnelle chinoise, basée sur l’implantation et la manipulation de fines aiguilles en divers points du corps à des fins thérapeutiques.

L'acupuncture traditionnelle est un art thérapeutique qui élabore son raisonnement diagnostique et thérapeutique sur une vision énergétique taoïste de l'homme et de l'univers : l'homme, microcosme, organisé à l'image du macrocosme universel, s'en trouve donc soumis aux mêmes règles, qui devront inspirer son mode de vie, et serviront de trame à l'élaboration de l'acte médical. Son efficacité ainsi que son substrat scientifique restent discutés. L'acupuncture a été inscrite au patrimoine culturel immatériel de l'humanité de l'UNESCO le 16 novembre 20102.

Here is my origin paragraph. I will leave the criticism section for others.

Though no clear understanding of the origin of Acupuncture points exists, Early texts suggest that points are located along channels that likely originated unsystematically through massage and qigong exercise practice.. The Channels were standardized by the Han Dynasty [6]

I hope this can generate some positive change on the pageLuke643 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a partial link to your ref. You do not need to have an online source, just pagge numbers, but it will might cause problems with some editors if it cannot be viewed and contradicts another online reliable source. PPdd (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

the second paragraph from the lede (which i have examined below) is inaccurate, overly POV and sounds like it was written by a high school student making stuff up to get a paper done.

Ideas of what constitutes health and healing sometimes differ from concepts used in scientific, evidence based medicine.

--> of course, it is an entirely different medical system created by different culture before the modern scientific system existed. maybe it could be said minus the POV which slants the rest of the paragraph.

Acupuncture was developed prior to the science of human anatomy and the cell theory upon which the science of biology is based.

--> channel and meridian theory is an anatomical system, created and used in china. it is not the same as the biomedical system but nonetheless it is a valid anatomical system used in referencing the body.

Disease is believed to be caused by an imbalance of yin and yang (a metaphysical balance) caused by a "blockage" or "stagnation" of metaphysical energy known as qi, not by infectious agents.

-->external pathogens have been included in TCM since its inception and biomedical concepts, including infectious agents, have been incorporated into TCM since first contact with western systems (17th century). imbalance or stagnation makes one more susceptible to pathogens.

Location of meridians is based on the number of rivers flowing through an ancient Chinese empire,

-->this part of the sentence literally makes me laugh "a number of rivers", "an ancient chinese empire" --overly vague and really not true. i would agree that the concept of channels is related to the flow of rivers (much like how biomedicine teachers will make an analogy between rivers and veins) but not the number of channels. this has been debunked twice by two different people i have no idea why it is still there.

and the location of acupuncture points on the meridians are derived from Chinese astrological calculations,

-->original there was a number here (365), which claimed to be the number of acu-points derived through astrological means, which was proven to be inaccurate (by another wiki page no less!). making the statement more vague by removing the number does not increase the overall accuracy of the statement; it just makes it more absurd. i would love to see how the locations of the points on the body were derived by astrology without somehow referring to anatomy. i have read over the names of many of the points and i can't seem to find any that correspond to chinese constellations or astrology.

and do not correspond to any anatomical structure.

--> they absolutely do; each point has a very specific location which corresponds to anatomical structures. several even have anatomical landmarks in the name: Lu-5 is called chi ze, which is translated as cubit marsh. it is located on the cubital crease, in the depression (marsh) on the radial side of the tendon m. biceps brachii. St-43, Xian Gu (sunken valley) is located in the depression (valley) distal to the junction of the 2nd and third metatarsal. these are only two points chosen at random, there are a tonne of examples.

No force corresponding to qi (or yin and yang) has been found in the sciences of physics or human physiology.[6][7][8][9][10]

--> seems reasonable but i am not sure if this is the best location for the sentence. it would probably be better to have introduced qi, yin and yang more thoroughly before critiquing them.

also the lede above by luke643 (?) seems pretty NPOV and more inline with what i think of as a reasonable well written encyclopedia article.

metabradley mb (i forgot to sign in first) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.140.30 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, starting the lede about a health care profession which is not a bio-medical with a sentence derived from a bio-medical source is not appropriate and creates an immediate bias towards a medical POV, which in this case is also a direct question of the validity of the acupuncture field, therefore a non NPOV. The lede does not accurately summarize the body of the entry, is loaded with bio-medical references and uses minority POV's that do not agree with mainstream POV's regarding clinical and historical aspects of acupuncture, which are present in the entry.Soll22 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Science's inherent POV problem

Here is an edit someone did -

"A review by Edzard Ernst and colleagues in 2007 found that research is active and that the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions". Researchers using evidence-based medicine have found good evidence that acupuncture is moderately effective in preventing nausea."

That is about all that is said in that article's science section.

But acupuncture is used for thousands of things or more. By devoting much time to a barely detectable treatment for one kind of pain that is no better than a nonstimulating placebo treatment (which may be no better than another placebo for that placebo, stimulating another point, or point nearby), and postoperative vomiting and nausea (I am still dubious that Cochrane did not miss some confounder, like giving acupuncture for pain and nausea, vs., e.g., antiemetics and nauseating opiates), it makes a reader think that there is some kind of balance between conditions acupuncture treats and those it does not - "acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions". What sloppy use of language! The wiki article suffers from the same problem, in that the science section is all about the minute number of conditions that Cochrane looked at, which leaves acupunctures generally utter uselessness for almost all of its claims unstated, or unemphasised, in the science section. If most scientific sudies are on pain, a small part of acupuncure, there is an inherent POV that "acupuncture" usually means "pain treatment", when it does not. I have no suggestion to deal with this, and its no one's fault, but maybe someone has ideas how to balance the science section out, while maintaining scientific objectivity. PPdd (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources citing possible physical correlates to TCM concepts

The article as it stands now states and implies that there is no physical correlation to TCM ideas at all, placing TCM on the same scientifically-improbable tier as homeopathy. A couple of generalized, pejorative quotes are used to support this assertion, but there is a good secondary source -- an Ernst review -- that does not support it.

Ernst mentions Langevin's research on connective tissue planes (and their correspondence to meridians) in his review article "Acupuncture - A Critical Analysis", currently source #11 in the article, here (pdf). quote:

"There is some tantalizing [e.g. 32, 33], but no compelling scientific evidence for the existence of either meridians or acupuncture points [29]."

Reference 33 is a review article by Langevin et. al. discussing her research on conective tissue planes: Ahn AC, Wu J, Badger GJ, Hammerschlag R, Langevin HM. "Electrical impedance along connective tissue planes associated with acupuncture meridians." BMC Complement Altern Med 2005; 5: 10. This means that we can cite the primary source Langevin (the germaine body of work), with care not to contradict the basic thrust of secondary source Ernst. (Update - Both Ernst's review and Langevin's are citeable. --11:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

The paper most relevant to a possible physical basis for meridians is this one (pdf): Langevin HM, Yandow JA, "Relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes", The Anatomical Record (New Anat.) 269:257–265, 2002.

Langevin's papers, and Ernst's citation of her research, are sufficient to put something like this in the article (quotes are from the paper above):

research by Langevin et. al. suggests, but does not prove, that there exists an "anatomical relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes". Langevin hypothesizes that this relationship is relevant to acupuncture’s mechanism of action.

BTW, in that same review article Ernst[7] says: "Health is seen by traditional acupuncturists as a balance of two opposites, Yin and Yang, sometimes likened to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems [30]." His reference 30 is in German, but his summary of it, being in English, is citeable. (It's not clear whether the correspondence is seen as metaphorical or if it gets down deeper into TCM therapies having particular effects on the nervous system, but a simple mention will do for now, and will buttress the older NIH statement along similar lines.)

So we have a secondary source supporting scientifically plausible correspondence of meridians with connective tissue planes, as well as a correspondence between yin/sympathetic- and yang/parasympathetic-nervous systems. The article has been too one-sided for too long in citing only glib denials and ignoring sources that suggest TCM ideas may have biomedical correlates. Such correlations are not settled, but they are legitimate hypotheses that are verifiable and adequately weighted (cf. Ernst), and it's misleading to cite Mann as the last word on the subject. It's plainly time to include these well-sourced hypotheses or ideas. Acupuncture is not a priori scientifically improbable in the same way homeopathy is; good sources have said as much; it's time for WP to include them. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that means we should put in Ernst's actual statement - citing Langevin directly is not appropriate per WP:MEDRS which prohibits the use of primary sources unless there is good reason. We cite secondary sources, we don't use them as evidence that primary sources are citable. The overall thrust of Ernst's statement is that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of acupuncture points, the best way to summarize the statement in my mind would be with a direct quote. Calling it plausible is incorrect, "tantalizing" isn't the same thing as "plausible".

Stringing together two Ernst statements is WP:OR. His statement about the sympathetic/parasympathetic is about him saying acupuncturists have claimed a link. He's not saying there's a correlation, he's saying other had claimed it. Such correlations (and it's not a correlation, it's a supposition) are not settled, but that doesn't mean it's proven. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure we quote Ernst. Obviously, the good reason for also quoting Langevin is to clarify what he means when he means by "some ... evidence".

What you refer to as "(t)he overall thrust of Ernst's statement" is not just the part you like. You don't get to excise "tantalizing" out of personal preference.

Citing two Ernst statements from the same review isn't OR; Ernst is already talking about possible TCM-biomedical correspondences in the brief overview in the intro. I agree that the second statement is probably not on the order of the first, but if Ernst's mention of that poor-quality Matuk article justifies citing it in the article, then the same goes for his citation of the opinion of some acupuncturists a/o doctors a/o scientists. CSICOP already makes a similar point (or used to; not sure if it's even still in the article). --Middle 8 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see utterly no reason to cite Langevin, that seems like little more than an attempt to shoehorn an unnecessary primary source into the article when we have a secondary source that is perfectly acceptable. His overall point is the lack of evidence, no reason to go into detail on what that tantalizing, unreplicated, 10 year old evidence is. we cite Matuk because it is a reliable source, not because Ernst mentions her. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Ernst citing is a must though, covers the langevin stuff just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke643 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ernst at a minimum; Langevin's research is an ongoing program and is nontrivial, and most importantly, not fringe. Readers will have heard all sorts of stuff about acupuncture, and deserve to know (in a sentence or two) the nature of the research Ernst cites, and not just the fact that Ernst says it is tantalizing but not compelling. Most readers will, I think, be curious as to what is tantalizing, and MEDRS certainly allows enough latitude with citing primary sources to allow it here.

I just noticed that the particular paper Ernst mentions is itself a review article[8] and that it cites Langevin, 2002 (pdf). I don't have access to it, but I'm pretty sure it passes MEDRS, and deserves more coverage than it's getting in the article. As I recall, one or more editors on the "acupuncture is bullshit" spectrum only wanted to cite the "not conslusive" part and not the "suggestive" part. I'm pretty sure that there's a policy or two on WP having to do with adequately citing sources -- oh yes, NPOV and VER.

Just as WLU believes I am biased too much pro, I believe s/he is biased too much against. We'll need to hear from more people, I suppose. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read the conclusions. The authors found their sources to be inconclusive on the whole, but suggestive for meridians, and suggested further, better research was needed to follow up on these 'suggestive' results. Here is an interesting line from the article: "Preliminary interpretation of the data suggests that deeper, subcutaneous tissue layers may be an important component in the increased capacitance and decreased resistance reported at acupuncture meridians."Luke643 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for having a look at the full version. That line you mention sounds like it's quotable, along with sufficient caveats. The article is certainly a MEDRS and a sentence like that one is a good summary of the "suggestive" parts. Wikipedia doesn't only cite "definitive" material; in fact I would say that the majority of articles on scientific topics that are any good do, in fact, mention topics that aren't settled but are presently being explored in the field, including notable hypotheses such as the one here. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Langevin's articles are six and nine years old respectively, and haven't been replicated by independent groups. Again, this is "tantalizing" but flawed evidence with no real support. Put another way, if this were the generally accepted explanation for acupuncture points, demonstrating they are real and have an objective existence that is accepted and researched by at least a substantial number of people, then I would expect to see this rationale invoked in articles, rather than qi, meridians, or any other competing explanations. There are multiple competing explanations for meridians, acupuncture points and acupuncture's effectiveness - historical (qi), biochemical (adenosine from the Nature paper), psychogenic (placebo and ritual), biomechanical (Langevin's connective tissue planes hypothesis). In both regular research articles and review articles, which are mentioned? Normally qi is the dominant one, the rest are competing and the competition is ongoing - primarily because no single set of research studies has been successful in demonstrating, unequivocally, repeatedly and across reserach groups, that X is the ultimate. Though Langevin's hypothesis is one possible explanation, and makes more biological sense than magical energy that can't be measured, it's still not the explanation.

The line quoted from Langevin is not quotable, it gives undue weight to a primary source that is the per Ernst equivocal evidence for a possible explanation of a phenomenon that is not the widely held explanation for how, why or whether acupuncture works. It may not be trivial, but it's certainly not widely accepted. MEDRS supports the citation of primary sources only in limited situations: "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field." Whether meridians and qi exist, whether acupuncture points are a prescientific representation of a real phenomenon, this is controversial, unsettled, and one or even two studies with a total of less than 100 subjects should not be presented as if they were the most compelling argument. I'll be arguing against the adenosine paper for exactly the same reason. Ernst doesn't even discuss the hypothesis, merely mentioning that some researchers believe it. It is yet another explanation offered for acupuncture points, meridians and qi that hasn't been demonstrated sufficiently yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, please see Luke's comment a little bit above (dated 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)). It turns out that there is also a secondary source with Langevin as co-author, so we don't have to worry about primary sources. It's actually already used in the article (or recently has been; it's hard to keep up) for the "not proven" bit but not the "suggestive" bit; the latter should be mentioned as a fair depiction of the paper's central thrust. Luke mentions a quotable quote from that review in the comment I pointed to above. On your argument: Yes, there are multiple, competing explanations, but which of the biomedically-based ones besides placebo have made it into a secondary source? Just Langevin's connective tissue hypothesis. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

An article with Langevin as an author appears three times on the acupuncture page. In each case it is to say no anatomical correlates have been identified. We have discussed this source before - it's negative. It's about electrical properties. The concluding sentences of the abstract are "The studies were generally poor in quality and limited by small sample size and multiple confounders. Based on this review, the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are electrically distinguishable. However, the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data." Lots of biomedical explanations have been proposed. None have produced fruitful, replicable, high-quality evidence that supports the hypothetical constructs of TCM and acupuncture. Tantalizing, promising and preliminary evidence is not support, it's suggestive of future research. Even Langevin says this. If I am missing the source being quoted or summarized, please let me know. So far none of the ones I have looked at have supported any assertion that there is a widely-accepted, evidence-based explanation for TCM or acupuncture. Placebo unites much data, but that's still a minority opinion and still being tested - though passing most tests to date. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: Above you agreed with putting in Ernst's ""tantalizing but no(t) compelling" remark even though it's not about rock-solid evidence. You were correct, because Wikipedia doesn't require our sources to report only rock-solid evidence. Hypothesis are acceptable as long as they pass our content guidelines, and both Ernst's and Langevin's reviews do. Langevin's review article is not only negative, despite being portrayed in the article as such. Luke has cited a sentence from its conclusion (not the abstract; full paper requires access) that we might use, along with Ernst: "Preliminary interpretation of the data suggests that deeper, subcutaneous tissue layers may be an important component in the increased capacitance and decreased resistance reported at acupuncture meridians." The only other objection you've expressed, WP:WEIGHT concerns about Langevin as a primary source, have been met with a secondary source from Langevin to go along with Ernst. Langevin's fascia hypothesis is the only biomedical explanation, besides placebo, to make it into recent secondary sources, as far as I know. So there's no NPOV/weight problem with citing them, and in fact there is one if we don't. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Copyedit

I'm doing a fair amount of copyediting, including linking unlinked terms, removing overlinking, rewording some sections, clarifying ideas, and so forth. I just reverted this change to cut down on overlinking and because the latter term ("supernatural") is shorter and more precise than "metaphysics (beyond natural law)", and is also the title of the target page. I just wanted to clarify the reason for my revert, PPdd, since the edit summary is too short to really get that idea across.

On another note, there is a substantial amount of seemingly POV wording throughout the article, which I'm mostly not trimming down since I'm not well read on the sources. One such example was on the painfulness of acupuncture, where a paragraph was littered with "incidentally", "isolated cases", and other qualifying terms wholly unsupported by the sources. As it is, the sources we're using for that section are probably less than ideal anyway... but not being familiar with the literature myself, it's hard for me to track down more appropriate ones. If anyone else is more familiar with the topic offhand, that section really should be entirely reworded to convey actual studies on the topic, and actual consensus (to the extent that it exists), rather than synthesizing unrelated studies to draw original conclu:sions. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the civility. I agree with all your edits so far. I fully agree that something like qi, that is above (super) natural laws of physics is best and most preciedly described as supernatural, and metaphysical is a weasel word (like "complimentary" or "alternative"). I did all the overqualification in the "does it hurt?" section only because at that time, there had not yet been consensus at MEDRS to allow peer reviewed remarks on generally accepted things, but published as incidental remarks in a primary source study about something unrelated to the incidental secondary remark, in this case "it may be painful". There has been consensus at MEDRS that this is OK, so all my admittedly excessive qualifiers can be removed. PPdd (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

supernatural is not shorter than metaphysical; they both have 12 letters in them. supernatural is way less precise. lets not boil Chinese metaphysics and philosophical theory down to supernatural just because you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

finding consensus on the theory of points and channels

So, can we find some consensus on this please? My position: For the lede, particularly the stating of the basic theory of acupuncture points and channels, the language of rivers and astrology as origin of points and channels should not be used. The sources behind the statement are unrelated to Acupuncture theory, and themselves are based on a)misread primary source material, and b)a book on Chinese Astrology. I have presented several sources for acupuncture theory, an explanation of the systematic correspondance theory (as elaborated by Unschuld in his book [9]) that helps us understand the parralellisms of the lingshu, and an alternative (and sourced) version of the theory of acupuncture section of the lede. The theoretical description I have written above (somewhere) is simple, strait-forward, and consistent with the four major American acupuncture texts (Deadman, Maciocia, CAM, and Ellis/Wiseman), and suggests nothing of scientific efficacy, or lack thereof. It is entirely NPOV. Whereas the current lede is tilted toward the highly skeptical biomed view on acupuncture, and is full of inaccuracies as to the theory of acupuncture. So please, let's all weigh in.Luke643 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with essentially all of this. The Matuk source is very weak. I'm trying to find my copies of Unschuld; do you have "Medicine In China" by chance? He talks about some early superstitious ideas that predate even medicine, stuff along the lines of bad juju, but I don't remember his saying (a) how early "witch doctor" stuff evolved into Chinese medicine (maybe bloodletting to let out xie aka "evils"?), or (b) anything about astrology. And I don't recall any other reliable source mentioning it either. Just because Matuk is published doesn't make it correct, as MEDRS mentions. "Skeptical" websites like to repeat the astrology claim to make TCM look as pseudoscientific as possible, but as I said, it's not the sort of thing I've seen in any scholarly source outside of Matuk (sp.). Agree with your take. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

as WLU pointed out, the Houvassi article also mentions it, but uses the Lingshu quote as source (which only says "correspond" anyway) and a chinese astrology book to back it up, then uses another paper as source for the astro stuff, a paper which explicitly calls all correspondances in early medical theory "metaphors." This is just rehashing what I said above...sorry.Luke643 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

so? what's the deal folks? Those who can properly edit should weigh in on this. I really don't have time to learn the process beyond the talk page. Let's get cracking on this.Luke643 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can edit the talk page, you can edit the article. The only difference is you don't sign your name, something that I'm guessing won't bother you. ;-) Go ahead and give it your best shot; I or someone else can fix any problems such as formatting issues. Or, suggest text and let's do it (see WP:SILENCE; lack of stated objection usually means lack of significant disagreement). And if anyone objects but has been snoozing through talk page discussion, they'll revert, or (if they're creative) "improve" a.k.a. modify it, and (if they're good "citizens" of this site) discuss their reasons here in more than a cursory manner.

One thing that has discouraged me in the past is the some editors are very rude and think it's OK to revert with little or no discussion (and sometimes rely on meatpuppets to take their side). Having a critical mass of good editors -- I'd say at least five, whatever their view on the topic -- makes it easier to call out that kind of poor wikiquette and make clear that it won't be tolerated. We would have achieved that by now if not for those same editors succeeding in driving away good editors (note that some have come right out and said that this is their goal; in theory, such an admission should result in a ban). So, not leaving is one way of improving the article, along with the satisfaction of seeing the ideals of WP actually followed. But it does take more than 2 or 3 good ones. Sadly there are editors here who prefer to get their way by making your on-wiki life miserable. So, there is strength in numbers of good editors willing to confront asshole editors by saying, in effect, "have you no sense of decency?" en masse. We've had that in the past, from time to time. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

AHH! the silence thing makes sense, it was just confusing me up until now. I will get started when I have some time, in the next few days.Luke643 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Luke643, if you start a new section with the same topic of an ongoing discussion in another section, or referring to an ongoing discussion in another section, then silence at the new section is not WP:Silence. It is best not to start a new section identical with an ongoing section, but rather, if you like, to continue discussing in the ongoing section, or start a new subsection if you think that would be helpful. I note that other editors have responded to you regarding this topic in the other section, but you did not respond back, but instead created a new section on the same topic. PPdd (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, essentially WP:BOLD. I haven't read the discussion here, but if you do anything crazy to the article, I (or another editor) will either fix it or revert. Generally speaking, if you see something you'd like to change, just do it. If another editor objects, he'll say so. Pre-emptive discussion usually isn't necessary unless you expect your changes to be controversial.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Bold should only be used in compliance with WP's other policies and guidelines, otherwise it might be interpreted as WP:Vandalism if they are blatantly violated. PPdd (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:VAND is an inappropriate policy to mention here - it's a deliberate attempt to worsen wikipedia. Much as we might disagree about page content, none here are trying to make the page worse. WP:CPUSH or WP:EW would probably be more appropriate to point to. No-one here is a vandal, despite any acrimony that might develop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually PPdd, I started this new one because of the silence in the old one. I had responded to all points on the above stuff in a previous talk thread, then when I got silence I got confused and started this one.Luke643 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make some changes. And PPdd killed them, with the suggestion that I look at the MOS for leads. Well I did, and nothing on RS is listed about sources. Here is what is listed: Citations: "Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." PPdd, I am not really clear on what you are doing here. The sources I used far outweigh the flimsy sources on the lead. The Acupuncture Today link included. Please explain what you are doing. RS in stating the THEORY of acupuncture should not be dominated by MEDRS sources, as the theory was outlined 2000 years before biomedicine existed, and the MEDRS sources are ridiculous. I am really tired of arguing this point. Unschuld is one of three or four of the top scholars in the field of Chinese Medical History. Deadman is the first source listed in the bottom of our page, and the most important american book on points and point theory. The very basic theory in the lead should reflect the best scholarship on the theory of acupuncture. Clearly your POV is overpowering your reason. I think my changes should be resurrected and relieved of technical errors at the very least.Luke643 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Deadman is a source for what acupuncturists may think or practice, but is not a historian, so is only marginal at best as a source for history, and his book is not peer reviewed. The Journal of Biocommunications source that you do not like the findings of is a secondary source in a major medical journal, peer reviewed by historians. See WP:MEDRS. You also knocked out about 10 sources for 2-3 sentences, and moved one source to the wrong sentence. The lede is the worst place to learn WP policies and guidlines, and MEDRS is about the most strict RS policy. Also see WP:SUA. 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Those things should have been fixed, not removed. PPdd is more than capable of fixing them. MEDRS is trumping RS on this page with absurd results.Luke643 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Trump" is the wrong word. MedRS and RS should both be followed. MEDRS is more strict than RS for the reasons stated at MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted this in another entry, but scanning through MEDRS, it seems that it is only applicable to bio-medical information, as per the Wiki MEDRS. Acupuncture ONLY crosses into biomedical territory in the context of bio-med clinical studies when an attempt is made to correlate acup. diagnosis and treatment with allopathic. Acupuncture applications per se are NOT bio-medical, it treats solely through it's own diagnostic system which is not based on bio-medicine. This is the law in the United States and the nature of the profession. Most of acupuncture practice is not considered bio-medical as per state legislation and national regulatory board, NCCAOM. Acupuncturists do not treat bio-medical diagnosis nor do they make them. Therefore MEDRS should only be applicable when discussing crossover into biomed which is a joint endeavor of med/acupuncture. Bio-med sources should only be required when discussing acu/medical interaction, which is only a small percentage of all acupuncture activity in the USA. CF my entry in nr. 16 "End run around MEDRS: Misleading by quoting medical conclusions by alternative organizations" scope of acupuncture is diagnosis and treatment according to tcm principles. Soll22 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well-put, Sol. I think you and Luke643 are correct; MEDRS doesn't apply to every aspect of alt or traditional medicines (or any medicine for that matter if we're talking about things like history or anthropology). Maciocia, Deadman, Cheng and others are verifiably good sources based on the NCCAOM and other certifying bodies citing them; they are more than fine in the article, as long as we're not trying to use them for something like efficacy. Even for efficacy, evidence-based medicine considers evidence in a tiered manner; Cochrane-type reviews are the best, but there are lower levels that EBM doesn't disregard. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Nan-ching as linked in the starting comment a translation of an original text? If so, it should be used very judiciously and we should rely on the commentary sections rather than the original text. It's also from 1986 so new discoveries, new translations and new interpretations can make it obsolete. It is also one opinion among many, and can be used only to represent what historical people thought, not what is real.

Regarding WP:SILENCE, the initial comment was posted two days ago, on a talk page that is absurdly long. Don't consider silence to be consent, and in particular don't consider it to be consensus. Also keep in mind that "good" editors are in many ways a matter of opinion.

Regarding the 'theory' of acupuncture, we must be careful. What is described about acupuncture can be noted, we should have a well-sourced section discussing how acupuncture is explained. However, claiming this is an accurate description of how the body works is quite something else. Among the TCM claims not supported by science are: acupuncture points; meridians; qi; tongue diagnosis; pulse diagnosis; acupuncture being effective for anything beyond pain, nausea, and if you're really stretching, fertility (though those studies are questionable and questioned); yin; yang; astrological diagnosis and treatment; moxibustion; herbs. There's probably more. The issue faced is that there is a short step from "acupuncturists believe X" and "X is true". This is problematic for claims not supported by actual research, and is normally addressed by stitching the "X" part together with the scientific reply - Acupuncturists believe acupuncture points exist, but no acupuncture point has been demonstrated to be specifically effective for the treatment of a specific condition (unless it has, but you better have a damned good source). Qualified statements like 'X may occur, Y may be treated, Z research may be promising' which are extremely common in the literature, is not a reason to say X occurs, Y can be treated, or Z is promising research.

Acupuncture also strays into biomedical territory when it makes biological claims - I'm going back again to acupuncture points, meridians and other statements about anatomy and physiology. Making diagnostic claims is also medicine and therefore MEDRS would apply - acupuncturists may believe X, may believe in diagnosing using the tongue - but scientific, evidence-based medicine supports the use of the tongue to diagnose only a small number of conditions and does not believe there is a homunculus of the body. And if acupuncture isn't making biomedical claims, what is it actually saying? If it's actually useful and effective, why can't this be demonstrated, particularly as the quality of trials gets better?

Please don't use the term "allopathic", it's a red herring often used by CAM advocates to make vague claims by presenting themselves as its opposite. It's offensive to doctors, and quite meaningless - not to mention hypocritical since acupuncture is based on symptoms even if the attribution of cause is different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

TCM does not claim anything. It lays out a system and works according to it. Please check my paragraph in section 16. I don't know what you mean when you say "acupuncture also strays into biomedical territory when it makes biological claims" pls. explain and let's discuss. It does absolutely not make diagnostic claims. Like I said, it treats according to tcm principles, and acupuncturists are required to note any medical diagnostic that a patient comes with in quotation marks and mark the source of the diagnostic. They do NOT work according to those diagnostics, they are simply required to master the language with which to understand them. TCM diagnostics are something like: Liver Fire, Liver Qi invading SP, Heart Fire etc etc. These DO NOT directly correspond to their western counterparts and are not meant to do so within current lawful acupuncture practice.Soll22 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The system used is a set of claims - qi exists. It is manipulated through herbs, needles and tai chi. Perhaps there are sources that say this is metaphorical, but do most depict them as metaphorical? When an acupuncture practitioner says "you suffer from stagnant qi", that sounds like a diagnosis. "Stagnant qi is stimulated by acupuncture", that sounds like a treatment. TCM very much does make claims, like all medical systems do - TCM, ayurveda, homeopathy, traditional Native American healing, they all make claims and attribute disease to causes, and treatments to cures. Put another way, your statements would suggest no TCM practitioner should bother with a diagnosis - if they're just using words with no meaning and no treatment implications, why waste that time? Why claim that fire rises through the liver into the greater burner and this causes fevers? These statements do not correspond to evidence based medicine because they are prescientific, while EBM is based on science (biology, chemistry and physics) and medicine (randomized, controlled trials). The diagnosis and other concepts may have no equivalent in EBM, and that should be noted. That's why it's important to have sources that state things like "no anatomical or physiological correlates have been found for acupuncture points or meridians"; "stagnant qi has no biological correlates". If a correlate has been found, if a reliable and consistent association can be identified between what most, or even one practitioner consistently identifies as "qi" (or whatever) and a repeatable effect that has been replicated, extended and verified, that should be noted if an appropriate source exists. As discussed above - there is tantalizing suggestions of evidence, but nothing that is universally, or even significant minority acceptance as an anatomical equivalent to a TCM concept. Claiming acupuncturists don't actually believe what they are saying is more than a little horrifying - it suggests that thousands of practitioners are essentially lying to their patients, a practice EBM discarded as unethical decades ago. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, the Unschuld text is both a translation and some commentary. His interpretation of the text and discussion of systematic correspondances is hardly a new idea, and is based on the bedrock interpretation of early chinese thought in the Sinological field. See the Cambridge History of Early China, The Ambivalence of Creation, by Michael Puett, The Construction of Space in Early China, by Mark Edward Lewis, the work of David Keightley... I could give you more if I had some time. All these sources in one way or another touch on the correlative cosmology of Yin, Yang, the Five Phases, and the rest of the basic correspondances considered to be the foundation of the earth, man and the cosmos. Medical theory is part and parcel of this philosophical discourse. It is a system that is varyingly considered in the early sources, some finding it to be real and powerful, others finding it to be metaphor. Unschuld was therefore not uncovering new territory theoretically, nor is his work outdated, the field has understood these very simple pieces of the philosophical puzzle very well for a very long time. This is why it was simply shocking for me to read in the Matuk, and echoed on the page here such a fundamentally ignorant reading of the Lingshu. You do not see this misreading anywhere else of course, Matuk, not a sinologist, made a simple and entirely forgivable mistake. To elevate her mistake to the LEAD can only be interpreted as entrenched and ridiculous dissent. Hiding behind it stinks of cowardice. This is an immense waste of my time. The frustration I have trying to improve this page is only surpassed by the frustration I have thinking about the millions of people reading it as it currently is written. At the very least we need to remove this odious line suggesting that points and channels come from rivers and astrology. It is bunk. It is ridiculous. It is keeping me up at night. There is the massive stink of Orientalism on this page, and I cannot get it out of my nose.Luke643 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

“There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints [or acupoints]... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – Ling Shu, and there are many more examples of “numerology to needles” quoted from classic texts in this book. PPdd (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU tcm does not make claims. It is a pre-existing system that is, whether you agree with it or not, a functioning and legal health care field in the United States. The "claims" you state it makes have been resolved legally nationally with the accrediting boards and licensing boards in each state. So perhaps it's not up to us to reinvent the wheel on wikipedia and go against mainstream views that acupuncture is a valid, legal and accepted field in health care, even by organizations that are listed in MEDRS. Acupuncture is a Health Care field, just as medicine is a Health Care field. You cannot apply medical research directly to acupuncture AS AN ENTIRE field because they are not in some kind of hierarchal relationship, they are independent of each other. The diagnoses it makes within it's field are proven every day by it's own guidelines. Not all Health Care fields are subject to medical analysis and approval, although some are easier to correlate to medical topics and some are harder. An EBM perspective, which you do not provide any references for - as a whole, since you are talking about the entire field, is simply a EBM POV which should be clearly stated as such. The EBM POV about acupuncture is x or y or z.

You cannot however mistake that for an NPOV, or a mainstream POV. While the medical profession is large, it is by no means the majority of the population, or even the majority of health care. An Matuk is not a mainstream industry text or a mainstream text about the profession of acupuncture. I believe we should be focusing on texts which are professionally used and only bring in RS that support the mainstream texts. An article like Mattuck's is not from the clinical acupuncture perspective, it's not even a mainstream historical interpretation. If you want to us RS, I don't believe that her writing is an RS for this entry.Soll22 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Something being a health care field does not make it actually effective - tooth fairy certification is still certification on an unsubstantiated topic. Reiki and therapeutic touch are both accredited, and they are little more than hand waving and happy thoughts - literally. Accreditation in tooth fairy science still makes it tooth fairy science. Acupuncture may be a legal field, with all sorts of accretions of administrative approvals - but it's actual effectiveness in treating symptoms and diseases is under dispute within the medical field, as is its rationale for how it works. I've never advocated for removing any information on accreditation - I've advocated for a depiction of the clash between medical claims made by acupuncturists and researchers versus the actual evidence. Claiming sticking needles into a person can relieve pain is a medical claim, and must be supported with the best medical evidence we have - Cochrane reviews usually. There is support for acupuncture relieving pain, though there is also evidence this is due to placebo rather than the effectiveness of the actual intervention. Claiming the body survives through the flow of magical energy through specific pathways and can be manipulated to improve health by needling specific points is a claim as well, that can be evaluated by science. It has been, and was found wanting in nearly every measure with a variety of articles published that were "tantalizing", or "promising" or "possible" but never clearly demonstrated. The opinion of the majority of individuals on acupuncture is meaningless and of little interest - it is the opinion of experts that determines a topic. What encyclopedia would be worth reading if it were based on what the average citizen believed? None. You go to experts. Doctors for medical claims, biologists for biological, and historians for historical. Matuk, who I have yet to re-read and examine in detail, has already been attributed as a minority opinion - but it is still a relevant opinion that should be included. Other opinions should be included as well. If better sources than Matuk can be found, they should be used. But Matuk still remains, as far as I can tell, a peer reviewed journal article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose we use the following, at least as a start, as the RS for field of clinical acupuncture. For the historical aspects, Luke643 probably has an better idea of what constitutes industry standard bibliography, but Unschuld is cited as a reference in man of these texts, so I would personally go ahead and base the whole historical aspect on Unschuld as the mainstream POV in anglo-nations about the historical background of acupuncture. This is the bibliography for the national board exam for acupuncture which is the national standard for licensing, NCCAOM. Cheng, Xinnong, ed. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2005.,Deadman, Peter, Mazin Al-Khafaji, Kevin Baker. A Manual of Acupuncture. East Sussex, England: Journal of Chinese Medicine Publications, 2001. ; ---. A Manual of Acupuncture. 2nd ed. East Sussex, England: Journal of Chinese Medicine Publications, 2007.; National Acupuncture Foundation. Clean Needle Technique Manual for Acupuncturists. Guidelines and Standards for a Clean and Safe Clinical Practice of Acupuncture. 6th ed. Chaplin, CT: National Acupuncture Foundation, 2009.; O’Connor, John, and Dan Bensky, trns. and ed. Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text. Shanghai College of Traditional Medicine. Seattle, WA: Eastland Press, 1996.

Secondary Sources: Connelly, Dianne M. Traditional Acupuncture: The Law of the Five Elements. 2nd ed. Traditional Acupuncture Institute, 1994. Kaptchuk, Ted J. The Web That Has No Weaver: Understanding Chinese Medicine. 2nd ed. © 2-1-2011 NCCAOM® Acupuncture Study Guide59 New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.  ; Maciocia, Giovanni. The Foundations of Chinese Medicine: A Comprehensive Text for Acupuncturists and Herbalists. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2005. ---. The Practice of Chinese Medicine: The Treatment of Disease with Acupuncture and Chinese Herbs. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2007. Wiseman, Nigel, and Andy Ellis. Fundamentals of Chinese Medicine. Revised Edition. Brookline, MA: Paradigm Publications, 1995. Worsley, J. R. Traditional Chinese Acupuncture: Meridians and Points. 2nd ed. Element Books, 1991. Zhang, Ting Liang, and Bob Flaws. trns. A Handbook of Traditional Chinese Gynecology. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Blue Poppy Press, 1987. Soll22 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU you are talking about experts in a DIFFERENT field. They are not experts on acupuncture. This tooth fairy conversation I am sure violates several wiki rules, plus it is disrespectful towards several editors here. How about the wiki civility rules? Why would you include a minority opinion Mattuck, when it is not from any kind of standard perspective. It is a curiosity, a selective historical, and not well researched perspective on a clinical field. It does not coincide with rs on the history of acupuncture. It is not appropriate and it is not stated as a personal historical and literary interpretation of an otherwise standardized field. If it's not noted as such, it does not belong in the entrySoll22 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Matuk is a secondary peer reviewed history of medicine source published in a preeminent medical journal, backed up by multiple other RSs for the assertions in the article that cite Matuk. That's as good as it gets at Wiki. Furthermore, the Ling Shu agrees with all these sources - “There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints [or acupoints]... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – , and there are many more examples of “numerology to needles” quoted from classic texts in this book. PPdd (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Matuk is an acceptable source in a rather specific journal - I wouldn't call it "preeminent" and I wouldn't support it being used as the final word. I think it's very much a minority opinion and should be phrased as such (as it is currently on the page). That book would probably be OK, but it's pretty close to being a primary source (i.e. a translation of the old texts) and would have to be used judiciously. I don't think it's a source that should be excluded, but neither should it be ignored.

Why am I being uncivil? Because I refuse to accept that acupuncture is as effective as claimed by practitioners? That's just critical thinking and the important thing is whether I can substantiate it by reference to reliable sources. Civility means I don't call other editors names but we certainly don't have to agree. I've expressed my opinion, referenced sources and policies/guidelines, pointed out flaws in both sides and have limited my editing to the main page. Not a single edit war have I started that I'm aware of. If my comments about tooth fairy science and acupuncture violates a rule here, please point it out - the fact is, there are a substantial number of researchers and skeptics who are deeply, deeply critical of the claims made about acupuncture and the quality of the research conducted on the subject. They have pointed out, rightly, that there is no good evidence for many of the claims of acupuncture's efficacy beyond placebo, for the mechanism it claims to work on, for the history that has been attributed to it, and so forth. I've got a reprint of an article discussing this, I'll read through it when I find the time to try to flesh the idea out more. We can use essentially any reliable source to expand the history - if there are reliable sources criticizing or refuting specific statements (i.e. the idea that acupuncture is the same now as it was 2000 years ago is false - Kim Taylor has written a book on the substantial revisions made to acupuncture during the decades following Mao's revolution in China; there are sources supporting the idea that acupuncture was essentially second-tier peasant medicine that was dying out in China until the Communists rose to power and used it as a form of surrogate medicine while they were trying to train medical doctors - I've read it, I need to find the source and cite it). The fact that many books are published on one side of the debate doesn't mean that is the only side of the debate. In cases like that, so long as the sources are reliable we spin it thus: "Acupuncture was traditionally believed to be X, and Y happened, and Z happened. This interpretation has been challenged due to Q." Depending on the challenge, the details involved, the weight it carries among historians of science and China, it may get more or less text. Unschuld is certainly a good starting point and can form the backbone of the history section. But he doesn't overwrite dissenting opinions. Regarding the clinical sources - those could be used to briefly describe, say, the conditions that acupuncture is claimed to be effective for. However, in those cases a Cochrane review will carry more weight, get the final word and essentially represent the mainstream opinion on the use of acupuncture to treat that particular conclusion. For medical claims, we use MEDRS and Cochrane reviews are specifically identified as among the best sources we have for that sort of information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU I appreciate your clear writing style and your effort to have a clear discussion. I did not accuse you of starting an edit war, I haven't gotten to that part of wiki rules.....yet! The only thing I object to, as editing colleagues here, is calling the subject of the wiki entry toothfairy science or suggesting that it is toothfairy science or in the category of toothfairy science.

What I am trying to point out is that acupuncture is not a bio-medical field and should not be discussed "primarily" from that perspective. I see any discussion from the point of view of bio-medical studies to be biased in interpreting acupuncture in language and concepts not specific to it's scope of practice. I will be back with more. I wrote a larger section with a couple of links under section 16. It would be great if you could comment on that. About Mattuck, I don't mind including it but with the qualifier of it being a particular take on the historical aspect, not as the prevailing view, which, with a few days work, we can clarify that it is not. 12 hour work days don't allow for a lot of wiki time. Soll22 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

section break

Acupuncture claims to be a biomedical intervention. It can be tested as such, and has been. The tests have not supported the theory of acupuncture, and I'm still not sure why you would expect it to - why would China be the only prescientific culture in the world to manage to understand human health and anatomy before the invention of a microscope, before dissection, before the germ theory of disease? The medical aspects of acupuncture should be discussed from a medical perspective, the historical from a historical. I may call something tooth fairy science, but it's not a problem until I try to put it on the page. I don't object to you believing in something I consider nonsense - just the logical and sourcing flaws that may impact the page. My point is that acupuncture can't be assumed to work without a comparable investigation of how it works, and all those investigations have been less than fruitful.

Matuk is already used on the page, and the information is clearly attributed to her rather than being a blanket statement. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's not about what acupuncture truly is, it is what sources can be found to verify text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the sources that state that acupuncture claims to be a bio-medical intervention. Going by exact definitions: Merriam-Webster: 1. of or relating to biomedicine 2. of, relating to or involving biological, medical or physical science. I think you are confusing terms.

Like I said, by legislation under point 16 of the talk page which I have been asking you to read, acupuncture is a HEALTH CARE field, MEDICINE is a HEALTH CARE field, (excuse the caps, I am not shouting I would have preferred italics, which I am trying to put in but am unable to.) Medicine is a subfield of health care. Acupuncture is a subfield. Not everything that is health care is biomedical. That something can be tested as such does not by any means imply that that field makes such a claim. There are "investigations" going on to determine whether or not it can be stated that acupuncture has efficacy in bio-medical diagnosis and treatment. That is a separate issue from the actual definition of the field. The field of acupuncture is defined by it's own paramaters which take special care to exclude biomedical terms.

Mattuck does not belong in the lede, she is a minority, specialized view point that does not accurately SUMMARIZE (again not shouting but bolding in absence of italics) either a clinical or historical perspective on acupuncture. The lede is supposed to be a summary or conclusion of different paragraphs in the body. Please explain how it is that the Mattuck summarizes anything and belongs in the lede.Soll22 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I also checked out the body of the text, she also does not belong in the section she was in without a specific mention of a "minority" POV, as per wiki NPOV page. Please do not reinsert without defining the mainstream POV and discussion the particulars Mattuck's minority POV as well as stating the provenance of the POV.Soll22 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I just read the article cited, finally, trying to find the sentence cited. I find it cited out of context and misleading. This is the paragraph from Mattuck:

"The Chinese drew mystical numerical associations, called the Da shu, or “great numbers.” It was no coincidence to the ancient Chinese, for example, that our four limbs matched the number of seasons and directions, and that in the one record of a human dissection on the body of the rebel Wangsun Qing, the hired butchers of his captor, Wang Mang, reported finding five zang (liver, gall bladder, heart, spleen, kidneys) corresponding to the five planets; 12 vessels circulating blood and air corresponding to the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kindgom; and 365 parts of the body, one for each day of the year (Lingshu 13/311 )."

The statement that you propose as a defining theoretical background for the Acupuncture channels and points, is actually described in Mattuck's article as a mystical numerical association typical for the ancient Chinese. This is not a "founding principle" upon which the acupuncture channels and points are based but a parallel association, such as comparing the numbers of limbs on the body to the 4 seasons and directions. The wiki entry states the following: "Acupuncture points are located based on a belief that the body is related to the number of rivers flowing toward an ancient Chinese kingdom (believed to be exactly 12), and the number of days in the year (believed to be exactly 365)." I find this a false conclusion from the article." Soll22 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mattuck source in fact implies that the 12 channels existed previously and independently, and the correlation was made from these preexisting channels to the number of rivers in china. Plus, the 365 days of the year are associated with the 365 body parts, not with acupuncture points, which is simply a mistake in citation.Soll22 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Claiming acupuncture can treat anything makes it a medical claim - even for what it has actually been proven to work for. Making claims about biology - i.e. that qi and meridians exist - falls under the same guidelines. Please review how Matuk is actually used in the article, particularly the lead if you are going to complain about it. Her use as a minority POV is dealt with by attributing the opinion to her specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did review it and I actually quoted it above. Please re-read and explain how it is that even though there is no mention of a correspondance between 365 days and acupuncture points, that is taken from the article? And that there is no causal relationship between the 12 channels and the 12 rivers of china. Please explain, this does not make sense aside from any ideological issues. It's simply not a logical conclusion.Soll22 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you are moving the goalposts around. I understand that you would like the acu page to clearly come from the POV that acupuncture is quackery, but this is standing firmly in the way of good scholarship. For example, the lede states that TCM is based in part on Daoism. This is wrong, and it's source, the rag "Acupuncture Today" is totally unacceptable. TCM is based for the most part (and so the lede should reflect this) on two sources, the Shang han lun, and the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Difficulties. The Shanghan lun (http://www.amazon.com/Shang-Han-Lun-Translation-Commentaries/dp/0912111577) deals with the meteria medica and praxis, and the Nanjing (whose translation by Unschuld is still the only major work on the text in English) deals with points and channel theory. Both were products of the late Eastern Han Dynasty, and had nothing to do with Daoism, which had scarcely come to exist (See Robinet, 1997, Taoism, Growth of a Religion) at this time. We can also look to Joseph Needham and Nathan Sivin, as well as the forthcoming work of TJ Hinnrichs.., although her book, (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v075/75.1hinrichs.html) may be useful. When I have time I will take a look at it. It now seems to be in agreement, by all but PPdd, that the statements regarding rivers and astrology must be moved down the page, and off the lede. So please, get to it people!Luke643 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Qi is not supernatural

Qi is a philosophical concept originating in ancient China and has been used by almost every major philosopher (Confucius, Mozi, Mencius, Xunzi, Guanzi, etc) in that tradition. Within the tradition qi does not describe something above or outside the scope of nature, it is rather the basic building block of the natural world. "Qi has bounds. The clear, yang [qi] was ethereal and so formed heaven. The heavy, turbid [qi] was congealed and impeded and so formed earth." -Huainanzi Please refer to the Wikipedia page: wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Qi metaphysical is a much better choice. From the wiki page: Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms: "What is there?" "What is it like?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs)

whoever you are, if you are the repeat offender from yesterday, who was not signing please sign your entries properly, otherwise you're just making things difficult. Otherwise, if you are anyone else, just please sign :)Soll22 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural, super-natural, is what is beyond the physical world governed by the natural laws of physics. Qi is a primary example of such. It comes from the word spirit, or breath, and has a very similar function as the spirits, or "vital forces" that haunted the blood in traditional western medcine, called the four humors. Spirit comes from the Latin word for breath, too. Qi is as "super-natural" as it gets. PPdd (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

qi does not "come from" the word spirit, qi is comprised of two characters rice and steam. neither character insinuates spirits, humors or latin. mb

• Please sign your edits with four tildas after you are done like this - ~~~~.
• The word spirit comes from the word breath, and qi comes from "food" and "breath". "Food" and "rice", and "breath" and "steam", were once the same character. The etymology of "qi" is related to humans needing food and air or they die, and lack of breathing indicates death, or no more life force. It is the same in most primitive cultures, like until relatively recently in Europe, in Traditional western medicine.
• Supernatural does not mean "forever looked as as stupid". For example, Newton's theory of gravity was considered to be "supernatural" when it came out, since it was reasoned that something could not affect another without touching it without Newton's "occlt" or "supernatural" invisible force of gravity. It just means that it is beyond the natural law of physics or beyond the observable world. In fact, "occult" means to block from seeing. PPdd (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

we all agree this is POV, right?

So why is it written with such an obvious POV? Not only are over half of the sentences and references in the lede critical or inaccurate. The tone of the lede creates a very POV reading experience. Even the parts which are supposed to be describing the practice of acupuncture are actually a (ever so slightly) veiled criticism. The lede does not represent the rest of the article.

It seems the lede is getting more POV rather than less even though it has been pointed out many times that the lede is POV and multiple non-POV ledes or alterations have been suggested. it seems anti-acupuncture POV edits are allowed directly into the article while NPOV edits are left to hang in the discussion page where only a few will see them.

Does anyone moderate changes to this article? What is their POV about acupuncture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.140.30 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I agree. I appreciate your comments. It would be great if you could sign up as a user. I'm not sure anonymous comments go over very well. User name does preserve privacy, and your email is not necessary. You sound like you know your way around though.. so I probably don't need to tell you what to do..Yes, this is definitely POV and thanks for joining the discussion. Soll22 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a good article should be neither positive nor negative, merely accurate. However, "accurate" will almost certainly come up as "no evidence it is effective beyond pain and nausea" as that is what the best and most recent sources on clinical efficacy say. In addition, "accurate" will not be kind to the existence of meridians, acupuncture points or qi as there is no evidence for any, despite much looking. But I would agree that the page is leaning more and more towards debunking rather than describing and would greatly appreciate edits to the main page slowing down. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Acupressure to be small section in acupuncture

The acupressure article only has two sentences. I propose a merge to be a small section at the end of acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPOORT Mergre. PPdd (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This seems to have already been redirected to Traditional Chinese Medicine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure but just to throw in my 2 cents, acupressure is, as a profession is more along the lines of massage therapy and shiatsu. The laws are different and scope of practice is different, at least in the United States. Certification for acupressure is something along the lines of 50 hour programs, not comparable to 1850 hours + required for acupuncture. Acupressure does not involve detailed study of channel and diagnostic methods, or supervised clinical practice, and does not require licensing. An acupressure practioner is not considered a clinician in chinese medical terms. Acupressure redirects to Acupuncture not to TCM anymore.Soll22 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is good info. Find some good sources for it and put that info in the article. PPdd (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NIH posts retraction of 1997 findings; now NRS and NMEDRS

The NIH has posted a retraction of its 1997 acupunture findings, in boldface red print at the top [10] -

"This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst simply wrong."

Since they admit to being both NMEDRS and NRS, the report should not be mentioned or cited in the article, as this would be misleading POV pushing. PPdd (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you prefer this statement from the source which the material you cited links you to: "an originally Chinese practice of inserting fine needles through the skin at specific points especially to cure disease or relieve pain (as in surgery)." [11]

I can infer you have no problem with replacing your first two sentences in the lede with a definition from a MEDRS source you are spcifically directing us to? This is current and up to date, the Dorland Dictionary cited is from 1995.Soll22 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• What I am saying is that NIH has been cited in this and other articles to make statements critical of acupuncture, and supportive of it. ALL such statements should have this citation removed, and if they are not supported by other citations, the entire statement, pro or con to acupuncture, should be removed as NRS.
• Regarding cherry picking ambiguous wording from a MEDRS source, Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines other than just MEDRS and RS, such as NPOV re ambiguities, and the MEDRS is not. Not only is it a copyright violation to use exact wording, but if the wording can possibly be misinterpreted to be a statement of effectiveness, it cannot go in Wikipedia. The attempt to try to make acupuncture look like it works by cherry picking from various definitions one which might be taken to mean that it promotes health and well being, for example, cannot go in. This was already well explained by Mann jesse, and continuing to push a WP:POINT by repeatedly attempting to introduce ambiguities in unchoise wording of isolated sources is considered disruptive editing and can result in a ban from Wikipedia. PPdd (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not cherry picking, and I have only used one definition, current and up to date, unlike the current 1995 definition. I have not used different definition to compile anything. I have not selected any material and created a new meaning from it. Are you accusing me of something? I don't understand. I am citing a source on the talk page to discuss if it can be appropriately used. I don't understand what you mean by saying the MEDRS is not. Is not what? NPOV? The MEDRS states use for general health. Is that POV? It's a health care field, what else can it be used for? As far as disruptive editing, if I make any mistakes that are pointed out I gladly learn what there is to learn. Would you mind giving me a direct citation about using statements of effectiveness in wikipedia, or direct me to the paragraph of a section which deals with it? I am confused about the rules and meaning of this concept of effectiveness. Is this something that is only MEDRS, or what?Soll22 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is not necessarily intentionally disruptive. You need to step back and WP:Writing for the enemy, and read what Mann jesse explained, and what I repeated. If there is a possibility that a reader might misunderstand wording to mean that "acupuncture promotes health and well being" means that it works, which there is, then that wording must not go in. Just because you don't read it to mean that it is effective, does not mean another will not. That is the more subtle meaning of NPOV, as in the example given in the WP:Synth article. Consciously or not, since there is nothing at all in your suggestion that is not in the first two sentences in the lead, your desire to change is only motivated by using words that are ambiguously not neutral and make acupuncture possibly look effective, instead of describing it dipassionately. PPdd (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all I am not editing, I am discussing, so I don't see why you are talking about intentionally or unintentionally disruptive editing, since no editing is taking place. I also have not been synthesizing anything, so again, I don't know what you are talking about. As far as the wording about promoting health, I think we are in need of a clear and working definition of what health is. Is health a strictly biomedical term? If so please show me the references for this. If something is meant to be used for health, then not including that would be a subtle POV wouldn't it? What is going on with the first two sentences of the lede is that the first one uses a term that is imprecise, "alternative medicine". I believe that health care profession is a more accurate, and up to date description. The other thing is the omission of the purpose of acupuncture, which is for health according to the principles of oriental medicine. The second thing is the "claim" that acupuncturists make. Claim suggests an unproven hypothesis which is put forth only by one side of the equation, in this case, the acupuncturists. Acupuncture does treat health according to the priniciples of Oriental Medicine. This is not a claim, this is a fact. It's not POV because this is the definition of the profession. This is not part of the current definition in wikipedia, and truncating statements creates a POV. That acupuncturists "claim something" is also a partial truth. Acupuncturists investigate that something or another works in different studies in a biomedical context. Perhaps in certain studies the acupuncturists involved in creating the study do claim that. In any case, making a blanket statement cannot be accurate. Acupuncturists claim that a certain treatment worked for a certain patient, but I don't believe that the field of acupuncture as a whole, as is suggested by the term "acupuncturists" claims that any one treatment is effective for any one biomedical diagnosis and that it applies to all patients within that group. This is what I read in a statement that you consider NPOV. To me that statement is loaded, and I assure you I am not the only one who give is that reading. That is why I am insisting on discussing this issue, exactly because of NPOVSoll22 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While you were writing this, I was writing on the same topic on your talk page. Disruptive editing happens on articles and at talk when an editor tries to make a WP:Point. You are nowhere near that, and I apologize if I made it seem like I thought you were. PPdd (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, you, or someone did change Practitioners to Proponents, but the "claim" issue is still there. Do all it's proponents make biomedical claims? Some of it's proponents want acupuncture to have nothing to do with biomedicine, and want to take all biomedical curriculum out of the schools. What is more significant about acupuncture is it's stated purpose of treating health according to chinese medicine principles, not biomedical claims or investigations. I do think it's important to note that clinical trials are an open investigation, that are based on a hypothesis, not a claim. But it's important to note that the biomedical considerations are not even there for fraction of the practitioners or proponents, that could be as large as 30% of but my estimate may be off. A They simply will not use biomedical language and will not engage in biomedical debates. Therefore to state that it's proponents make biomedical claims is not exactly accurate. A lot of patients who come in for treatments (a category of this "proponents") want to forget anything that has anything to do with their biomedical diagnosis. They just want the acupuncture "high" and relaxation and to start defining their health in different terms.Thx for the apology, though :), and we can continue this at a later timeSoll22 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NIH partial retratction, not full: Dicklyon's correct revert of my edits re NIH

NIH posted that its 1997 findings might be wrong. It is clear from the context that NIH was only referring to medical findings, in that new studies and analyses have emerged, and it is clear from the context that this does not apply to its other findings. Since my deletions based on NIH being NRS pertained to non-study/analysis based findings, Dicklyon's revert of my edits was correct. PPdd (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. My impression was that you were on a campaign of re-spinning all the coverage of alternative medicine, toward the POV of standard western science-based medicine. One needs to be delicate about such things. We already have armies of so-called quack busters who want wikipedia to lean way in that direction, which makes the actual coverage of the topic rather shoddy in many cases, and sometimes provokes disruptive fights, too. Go easy on it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I NPOV deleted things without even looking at the content per NIH retraction (which as your revert showed me, was only a partial retraction). Then after your revert, I noticed that all of my deletions were of statements critical of acupuncture, and had nothing to do with emerging evidence. So I likely appeared to be making the deletoins as an acupuncture proponent POV. PPdd (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Moxibustion Edits

PPdd, I did not remove the source or add any wording that was not in the source. Let's be specific with criticism of edits. I actually summarized the source in a short paragraph. The original sentence, if you checked at all, stated that moxibustion was a technique that burns the skin. In fact the source cited stated that the majority of the moxibustion is indirect moxibustion that does not burn the skin and that there are two types of moxibustion, direct and indirect. I found the sentence to be misleading of the cited source. Please check sources and different edits before reverting. The source also states several facts about a JAMA published study which I included in the paragraph, since you guys are so happy to sprinkle bio-med references througout the article. If otherwise, please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soll22 (talk • contribs) 21:55, February 18, 2011

I also disagreed with those edits - if a medical claim is made, then it is appropriate to note where medicine and science in general contradicts this.

The JAMA article was a primary source, an article describing the results of an experiment. They are very easy to cherry pick and thus must be used with caution - not to support one particular point that one particular editor liked (see WP:MEDRS, which have pointed to many, many times. I am adding my opinion to the consensus started by 2over0 and PPdd. If a sentence does accurately summarize part, but not all of a source, then the appropriate thing to do is expand, not remove. If a source states a fact that was part of a research study - we go to the research study. While acupuncture.com might be an adequate source for moxibustion, it's not for claims of medical effectiveness. For that, we need secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did expand not remove. If you check everything I did was expansion. Feel free to remove the mention of the JAMA article, but please note that that was also an expansion.Soll22 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit PPdd reverted appears to have been made by WLU here, not Sol. It seems he probably hit "cur" to check the summation of Sol's edits, and so missed that WLU had contributed one edit in the middle. I've reverted because of this, and because WLU's summary seems to be adequate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why a sentence is a better summary than a short paragraph. I have no problem with WLU summation I also find it accurate, however I don't see why my summation had to be corrected. Like I said, no problem on my part with taking out the JAMA mention.Soll22 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU's edit summary stated that he was removing a primary source and unsourced content. Personally, I prefer the paragraph over the sentence, and that could be returned if we just get a source for it. I only reverted PPdd because his edit summary indicated he might have been confused over why the change was made, and not having looked into acupuncturetoday.com, I'm willing to assume good faith on WLU's part and accept that it is not reliable for our purposes here. Do you perhaps know of a secondary source we could use to describe moxibustion in more detail?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For sure, I can get a better source for moxibustion description. It would be one of the clinical textbooks of acupuncture practice. Is that ok? Can't get to it until Monday, but glad to be having the discussion.

My paragraph was sourced from the exact same source that PPdd's sentence was, and that WLU's sentance is. I simply developed a paragraph. Maybe it turned out unsourced if I deleted some link material accidentally, but it was supposed to be linked to the same source. I am happy to leave out the mention of the JAMA article (sourced from the same article in acupuncturetoday.com) which is the only one WLU objected to as being inapropriately sourced. However, it was unnecessary to delete my whole paragraph if the only objection was the JAMA mention which was a separate sentence. WLU could have deleted the JAMA study mention, which was separate from the summary of moxibustion and not the entire paragraph.Soll22 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Soll22 removed the clear RS statement in the acupuncture journal article that moxibustion directly burns the skin, either causing blistering and scarring, or being taken off before blisters appear, here[12]. Soll22 then moved the source for the original correct summing of the “blister and scar” journal article to a sentence reporting a primary source study here[13], leaving the first sentence with no source. WLU then saw Soll22’s second sentence reporting a primary source study, and did not have to bother checking the source Soll22 incorrectly put on it, but WLU simply and CORRECTLY deleted Soll22’s second sentence as well as the misplaced source Soll22 put on it[14].

Soll22, if you don’t like what a journal specifically says, like “burn, blister, and scar”, you can’t replace this with “warm”, and remove the citation from that sentence. You cannot move a reference from the sentence it supports to another sentence that you want in the article, a source that has nothing to do with the sentence you are moving the source to. You also can’t put in primary source study sentences, which is why WLU removed your sentence. WLU did not have to bother to check the source you put on the primary source study, because even if the source supported it, the sentence could not go in. And you can't add your own unsourced sentence in front of a source that has nothing to do with your sentence. Many editors check the sources against the content of the sentence, so it will always get delete3d. The purpose of a source is to back up a sentence, not to look like there is a source to the sentence. PPdd (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd, I checked your diffs, and I still don't see anywhere that Sol "removed" a source, or indeed even moved one. I see that Sol changed "burned" to "warmed", and that he added another sentence to the section, but no other changes to the refs at all. WLU is the one who removed the ref (which you reverted, attributing it to Sol). I haven't read the citation, so I can't comment on the content, but I see no reason not to AGF for anyone here, particularly newer editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sol removed the ref from the sentence it went with, then put it at the end of an unrelated primary source study sentence Sol put in the article, a sentence with unsupported by the ref appended to it, and which is a primary source study sentence. So WLU corrrectly removed that sentence Sol put in, and what appeared to be an unrelated ref appended to it. I would have done exactly as WLU if I saw it, without following line by line Sol's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPdd (talk • contribs)

There's a miscommunication happening here... and I'm not sure what to do about it at this point. You are defending WLU's edit... but that's the edit you reverted. (Compare WLU's change to your revert). Sol didn't change the ref at all; He only added new content, which you restored after it was removed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Soll22 A clinical textbook would still be a primary source, but I think it would be acceptable in this case, since we're describing the practices of acupuncture, and not its efficiency. As long as the textbook represents a fairly mainstream view of acupuncture practices, I think that would definitely be a nice addition to the article. Good suggestion!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the secondary source journal article says –

” How does moxibustion work? Does it hurt? - In direct moxibustion, a small, cone-shaped amount of moxa is placed on top of an acupuncture point and burned. This type of moxibustion is further categorized into two types: scarring and non-scarring. With scarring moxibustion, the moxa is placed on a point, ignited, and allowed to remain onto the point until it burns out completely. This may lead to localized scarring, blisters and scarring after healing. With non-scarring moxibustion, the moxa is placed on the point and lit, but is extinguished or removed before it burns the skin. The patient will experience a pleasant heating sensation that penetrates deep into the skin, but should not experience any pain, blistering or scarring unless the moxa is left in place for too long.

To rewrite that as “warming the skin” is not POV, it is misrepresentation.

Note also that this POV pro-acupuncture journal does not even answer its own question, which should have been, “Yes, repeatedly burning the skin at various points until it blisters so much it leaves scars hurts like hell! What did you think, stupid?” PPdd (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, and this is the rest of the article:

Indirect moxibustion is currently the more popular form of care because there is a much lower risk of pain or burning. In indirect moxibustion, a practitioner lights one end of a moxa stick, roughly the shape and size of a cigar, and holds it close to the area being treated for several minutes until the area turns red. Another form of indirect moxibustion uses both acupuncture needles and moxa. A needle is inserted into an acupoint and retained. The tip of the needle is then wrapped in moxa and ignited, generating heat to the point and the surrounding area. After the desired effect is achieved, the moxa is extinguished and the needle(s) removed."

Scarring moxibustion is not legal without a patient's written consent in the USA, and generally not practiced in the United States, or in most countries outside East Asia.

I think that skewing the entry to the idea that moxibustion consists only of the burning of the skin is a misuse of the source. The source clearly states the Indirect moxibustion is currently the more popular form and that even direct moxibustion that is non-scarring generates a "pleasant heating sensation etc etc."

I also object to your general language when discussing this topic Soll22 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jess, current revision fine by me, thanks for the time. will try to bring a better source to fine tune about contemporary practices.Soll22 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've rewrote the section sourced to Needham & Lu. This is the page on acupuncture, so the section on moxibustion should be short. It certainly shouldn't note that it's good for breech births. That's blatantly inappropriate. I don't think acupuncture.com should be used for anything, not when there are myriad books on the topic, including ones like Celestial Lancets.

A clinical textbook wouldn't be a primary source in my mind, certainly adequate for describing basic information but I think Needham & Lu is a better choice for an overall source. If there are claims of efficacy, then we're better of with Cochrane reviews (as always) and other sources would have to be used with caution - but not on this page. If there is really a question about whether moxibustion hurts (and there shouldn't be in my mind, perhaps on the moxibustion page itself) then Needham & Lu talks about it, using the rather weak "practitioners say..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I am trying to find the Moxibustion section, did you include it under another heading? I also agree that a moxibustion section should be short. There are certain points and actions that are specific to moxibustion, such as rotating breech position fetuses, and hemostasis that needling (on the same point) would not have , as per CAM, Foreign Language Press, Beijing China, 2nd editon, 1999, which is the basic clinical manual used internationally. I think it's worth mentioning these special applications of moxibustion. We could also word it as a traditional use who's biomedical efficacy has yet to be determined, unless we find a MEDRS which shows either a pro or anti effect. There is a review, co-authored by Ernst that state that evidence is contradictory for most applications of moxibustion, except for breech birth "Thus, the sum of the best evidence to date seems to suggest that moxibustion is effective for breech presentation" [15]. Why do you not want that included? 24.215.187.94 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) forgot to sign24.215.187.94 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)...and signed without logging in, even better! this was all meSoll22 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

End run around MEDRS: Misleading by quoting medical conclusions by alternative organizations

Is The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture MedRS? Per WP:PARITY, "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." In the quoted material with AAMA, there is no indication of whether their conclusoins about "acupuncture" are compared to a sham treatment of random intrusive needle insertion. I don't think quoting their conclusion should be in the article under WP:Parity. I am holding off deletion as NRS to give time to discuss. PPdd (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What source and statement are you specifically talking about in the main page? In general it is hard to make broad-strokes statements. The AAMA would be considered a reliable source for discussing what acupuncturists believe and a mainstream (particularly American) summary of the material. I wouldn't say it is a MEDRS, for that I would defer to journal articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the matter you refer to was just dealt with at talk:homeopathy. But this is a bit trickier. The article says[16], "The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture (2004) states: 'In the United States, acupuncture has its greatest success and acceptance in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.' " The problem is that a typical reader would read this as what sounds like an authority is making the declaration. This is a more subtle MEDRS problem, since the sentence is true as stated, but it will likely mislead almost all readers. Most readers would think it means "a medical authority of national stature says that acupuncture is successful in general, but has great success in the treatment of pain". That is how I first read it, thinking it was a national science based "Medical" authority (that's why they choose such names). This is exactly the kind of inference MEDRS was designed to aviod. PPdd (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this as a general question about the subtle problem of "misleading by quoting medical conclusions by alternative organizations that have assumed titles of authority" at MEDRS here[17]. Continued discussion specific to acupuncture can continue in this section, but please contribute your ideas on the more general question at MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inserting another topic here that has to do with MEDRS and acupuncture.

I have another perspective altogether, based on scanning the MEDRS page. Please feel free to correct my approach, but I would appreciate it if we could really discuss the content.

It seems that MEDRS rules apply to medical fields. Acupuncture is not considered a medical field, according to it's national regulatory board,NCCAOM and to all state licensing agencies. Acupuncture is defined as a health care profession whose specifics vary slightly from state to state. The diagnostics are based on it's own traditional concepts. Acupuncturists are not allowed to diagnose or treat according to medical diagnoses. It is against our scope of practice. Health Care and Medicine are two different concepts. Health Care is all encompassing term for a diversity of fields, medicine is specific to those trained in the medical profession and designated as such. I believe that MEDRS such as JAMA do not directly apply to Acupuncture.

A discussion about medical research of acupuncture is worthwhile, it does not pertain directly to the field of acupuncture, but to the interaction of acupuncture and the medical field. Like I said before, I think this a very interesting topic to explore, but it should be given its own section but not mixed with the main body of the entry, since it does not pertain to the actual topic of acupuncture. It's more of a "perspective on acupuncture" from a medical POV.

From theNY Office of Professions site: "An acupuncturist is a licensed health care professional who, based on the concepts of oriental medicine, maintains the health of patients and evaluates and treats their illness and pain. Using the principles of oriental medicine, the acupuncturist will examine you by looking, listening, asking questions, and touching."

It is a healthcare profession, but there is no mention of medical profession. The medical professions are clearly described as such. NY State Office of Profession - Medicine. Medical doctors and acupuncturists are both health care providers, but medicine is it's own independent field, as is acupuncture. Medicine does not describe the entirety of health care professions. Acupuncture has a bio-medical component, whose main function is to facilitate communication between members of all healthcare professions as a common language. Thus a Dr. can communicate with an acupuncturist about a patient, and an acupuncturist will understand both the language and the medical concerns but will not treat them as such. Acupuncture diagnoses are sometimes parallel to allopathic diagnoses but they are generally of a different nature. All acupuncture treatments are based on TCM diagnoses, which you can find in the industry standard manuals of Giovanni Macciocia, the Foundations of Chinese Medicine, The Practice of Chinese Medicine, and Yan Wu, Practical Therapeutics of Chinese Medicine. It is in fact illegal to treat according to a medical diagnosis. All acupuncturists and patients sign forms stated as much in the beginning of every patient/clinician interaction because of the common confusion between the two (fields of health care and diagnoses).

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Soll22 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed. as i have been saying below, this is especially important to discussing the theory of acupuncture.Luke643 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just another idea to throw in there. Academy of Medical Acupuncture is general is not accepted by acupuncturists as a reference for acupuncture, since it blends acupuncture with biomedical diagnoses. That is something that acupuncture keeps it's distance from. Medical Acupuncture Certification is usually a 300 hour course, and medical doctors tend to try to understand the use of acupuncture points as directly corresponding to biomedical treatment principles, which in Chinese Medicine practice, they do not. Like I said before, an acupuncture MS degree is 1850 minimum hours in a lot of cases, 2200 hours + which involve detailed tcm based studies, which obviously, there is no time to cover in Medical Acupuncture Certification. Here's a ref on training hours, p.5 [18]So you may like to use AAMA as a biomedical source or not, however, the debatable issue is whether it really is an acupuncture source.Soll22 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattuck Reference, please discuss.

This is the exact text from the Camilia Matuck article which is cited:

"The Chinese drew mystical numerical associations, called the Da shu, or “great numbers.” It was no coincidence to the ancient Chinese, for example, that our four limbs matched the number of seasons and directions, and that in the one record of a human dissection on the body of the rebel Wangsun Qing, the hired butchers of his captor, Wang Mang, reported finding five zang (liver, gall bladder, heart, spleen, kidneys) corresponding to the five planets; 12 vessels circulating blood and air corresponding to the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kindgom; and 365 parts of the body, one for each day of the year (Lingshu 13/311 ) ."[19], p6, paragraph 1

To my reading, in plain english and to paraphrase, this means the following: "The [ ancient] Chinese made mystical number associations. The four limbs matched the number of the seasons. The five organs were found to correspond to the five planets. The 12 vessels (of qi and blood) correspond to the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kingdom."

Here is the text adjusted by PPdd in the entry:

"Acupuncture points are located based on what historian of science Camilla Matuk calls "mystical numerical associations", in that "12 vessels circulating blood and air corresponding to the 12 rivers flowing toward the Central Kingdom; and 365 parts of the body, one for each day of the year".[7] No research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."

I cannot see the correlation between the article and the causal relationship in the wiki entry which states that the acupuncture points are based on mystical number associations. The acupuncture points are not mentioned in the citation, only channels. The channels are not are based on but are used as part of a numerical number association. There is no mention of a location in the cited text, only numerical associations. There is no mention of the location of the rivers serving as a base for the channels. There is only a correlation which states: there are 12 channels just as there are 12 rivers flowing towards the Central Kingdom.

This is the text in the lede:

"The location of meridians are based on the number of rivers flowing through the ancient Chinese empire, and acupuncture points were originally derived from Chinese astrological calculations.[7][8]"

Same issue: the cited text states, does not make, an existing correlation, not a causal relationship between either the number of the rivers in China and the acupuncture channels. The location is not even mentioned in the citation.

The statement about acupuncture points being originally derived from Chinese astrological calculations comes from the website www.cancer.org, which is does not seem to be an RS for acupuncture information since it does not give direct citations for the information it reports. Not sure how websites are designated RS or not. Happy to hear any input pro, or anti. ThanksSoll22 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the www.cancer.org site you say is not reliable is the American Cancer Society. I added two refs inline for the sentence following the Matuk quote.

No, I did not notice that the site is the American Cancer Society. I was browsing through wiki source definitions to find out what makes a website RS. Would you mind giving me a def for that? Is it automatically an RS because it belongs the the American Cancer Society? Also, what makes the American Cancer Society an RS for acupuncture historical information? I am not trying to be provocative, I simply do not know how RS for one topic or another is established. I could not find info related to reliability of websites as a source. I also see some anonymous edits in the main entry related to the phrases I just discussed here. Aren't anonymous edits supposed to be deleted?Soll22 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous edits are fine, although they are almost always highly scrutinized by many other named editors. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS discuss sourcing. PPdd (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS rules do not apply to non biomedical information, as per wiki MEDRS. This is an exact comment about historical provenance that does not have a direct citation, albeit from a potentially MEDRS source. That is my question. Is this correct according to RS? I also do not find an exact discussion of websites.Soll22 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, besides pointing out a potentially MEDRS website, you are not really discussing the main topic of this entry which is the Matuck citation.Soll22 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

“Originally, 365 acupoints were identified, corresponding to the number of days in a year.” – American Cancer Society cited. PPdd (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there reason why you don't want to discuss the Matuck citation?Soll22 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but it's probably because it's a lot to work with all at once. Often, editors have time (or energy, motivation, etc) to work on only specific or smaller issues... so his not responding doesn't necessarily mean he's avoiding anything. In any case, I'll give my input as best I can. I'm working just from what you have written here, not from having read the sources in question myself... but I'm having trouble following your objection. From what I've gathered, you're saying that the source doesn't develop a casual relationship between, say, the 12 rivers and the acupuncture channels. Is that right? However, what you've quoted above does appear to say that by using the word "corresponding". That the 12 channels correspond to the 12 rivers in China does indicate that the former is based on the latter. Perhaps I've misunderstood something here, and you can clarify for me. I'll read through the sources in more detail if necessary and when I have a chance.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Soll22, I have responded, when you participated in this exact discussion above. I responded again,

“There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints [or acupoints]... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – Ling Shu, and there are many more examples of “numerology to needles” quoted from classic texts in this book. PPdd (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And again,

Matuk is a secondary peer reviewed history of medicine source published in a preeminent medical journal, backed up by multiple other RSs for the assertions in the article that cite Matuk. That's as good as it gets at Wiki. Furthermore, the Ling Shu agrees with all these sources - “There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints [or acupoints]... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – , and there are many more examples of “numerology to needles” quoted from classic texts in this book. PPdd (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And those are not the only two places where the exact same thing came up.

Soll22, after repeatedly responding to you and Luke643 on this, you simply ignored my response and started a whole new section on the same question to which I twice responded. Pretending that Matuk is talking about a different 365 and 12 than the points and meridians on which they are located can’t be sincere, and pretending that I did not respond by starting a new section is also not very sincere. PPdd (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

i believe the whole second paragraph is garbage. i have tried to make it less POV for weeks now but with no success. this is by no means an accepted theory. something more acceptable would be the theories included in the deadman text as included in the alternate lede by Luke643. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Metabradley I don't know what "theory" you're referring to. The second paragraph seems good enough to me. Are you talking about biology? Or, perhaps, that bacteria can cause health problems? Both of these are strongly accepted within the scientific community, and we definitely have to report that.

@PPdd, In fairness, I suggested on my talk page that Sol start a new section to discuss any refs he felt were being treated improperly. I definitely do not think he's trying to do anything but edit in good faith; He was simply following my suggestion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry about my last comment above, Sol. PPdd (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jess, if you read the paragraph carefully, it says that as there are four limbs to the body, there are four seasons in the year. There are 12 channels as there are 12 rivers in China. This does not imply a causal relationship, the number of channels was not based on, or selected according to the number of rivers in China. It is an observation of correspondence which the author makes, and states as such. The number of channels cannot in any case be attributed to the number of rivers in the China, as China's geography in the period during which the Nei Jing was codified varied from a small state to unified China back to multiple warring states. Also, there the Nei Jing is believed to be a compilation of many sources, and contains 162 chapters many of which offer information that does not necessarily agree. The astrological or river correspondance is in 1 out of 162 chapters. Soll22 (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Sol Are we talking about the same source, which says: "It was no coincidence..... 12 vessels circulating blood and air corresponding to the 12 rivers"? This seems fairly clear to me that one is based on the other. I don't know how else to translate "corresponding to" except that there's a causal relationship between the two. You seem to be familiar with the source... is there another section (or another source entirely) which states that the numbers are based on something else?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@ppdd: what are the names of the 12 rivers? --the link (which makes it seem so official) goes to a list of over 130 rivers in china. and what ancient chinese empire is the quote referring to? it all seems so ambiguous. i felt that the quote should have been removed when it was shown that there was a different number than 365 points and that they all have specific locations on the body, idicating a systematic analysis of the body (aka anatomy --but admittedly different that the one you are accustomed to) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jess· Δ♥ haha. funny. if you notice i referenced Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture and Luke643, neither of which are disputing biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

the Mattuck quote seems overly esoteric/obscure and certainly not a theory that is accepted by most practitioners --maybe it would be appropriate for another page on esoteric acupuncture? also it is not covered within the main article so it should not be in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what "theory" you're referring to above. The word "theory" isn't used anywhere in the second paragraph. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Hitting edit conflicts with SineBot every time I respond to you can get a bit tiresome.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@jess, I don't want to be a pain in the butt, seriously, and your writing style and ability to pinpoint problems are mind-blowing to me as a beginner. The definition of corresponding to though, I will make you a link for Merriam-Webster: 1.having or participating in the same relationship especially with regard to the same or like wholes. 2. related, accompanying. It does not state a causal relationship.Soll22 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Soll22 is correct, the correspondence could mean that the number of days in a year is based on the number of acupuncture points, rather than the other way around. PPdd (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Mann jesse, for your patience and valiant efforts in teaching the newbie to sign, you have made the third entry in WP:BJAONDN. :) PPdd (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd, duck! You almost hit your head on a self referentiality paradox. PPdd (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Metabradley- re your question "what are the names of the 12 rivers?", The Ling shu is silent on that matter, so I consulted texts for "Medical" Acupunture and Integrative "Medicine", which informed me that Ling shu was incorrect, and there are not 12 rivers. These scienctific sources also say that Ling shu was also incorrect in that there are not 365 days a year. There are 3651/4 days a year, so they are currently applying for still more scarce medical research grant money for their acupuncture research to try to find the location of the 3651/4th acupuncture point, as their calculations show the need for further research, and then they will do more studies to determine the efficacy of needling this 3651/4th acupuncture point. PPdd (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd, actually, no. the number of days in a year being based on acupuncture points is also causal. Try the Merriam-Webster linkSoll22 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right again, and darn it, but I was hoping I would have a few extra days each year as medical acupuncture continued to discover new points. PPdd (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh! Thanks PPdd. It's particularly ironic because that has to be the first time I've forgotten in over a year. :P Anyway, I'm still having a hard time interpreting the source that way, but I'm willing to cede that it may just be my ineptitude speaking. Do we have any better source which explains the reasoning behind the numbers without ambiguity?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - “There are 365 days in the year, while humans have 365 joints (or acupoints)... There are 12 channel rivers across the land, while humans have 12 channel” – Ling Shu[20]. I included it as a ref, along with the American Cancer Society ref on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPdd (talk • contribs) 11:52, February 21, 2011

To be clear, I think both of those sources are sufficient, but the original objection was that the authors aren't necessarily stating the relationship is causal. While I don't think it's necessary to improve the sourcing, I do think it would be nice to handle that objection if we can, and it seems if there's a strong enough link between the two, it should be easy enough. Is there some sort of "history of acupuncture" source we could use which explicitly states "these channels were based on these rivers"? Alternatively, for those objecting, is there a source which gives a different explanation?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is a complicated issue that can't be settled with simple, absolute statements. Needham & Lu state that the number of tracts are linked to rivers, "For example, each one of the twelve regular tracts...was placed in symbolic correlation with one or other of the great rivers of the Chinese home-land...We are thus clearly in the presence of an important doctrine arising from the idea of the microcosm, the body of man representing the macrocosm in little" [21]. The theory and explanations of acupuncture is complicated, altered over history, and involves lots of analogies. I don't think we should say "X was the origins for the number of acupuncture points and meridians" because I do not think there are sources adequate to represent this as a universal statement, either now or historically. I don't think we should use a single page from a single book that represents one view of acupuncture (daoist) merely because it unequivocally supports a point. Overall it seems like the page is running towards a conclusion when it should be plodding - on a subject with 2,500 years of practice, debate, investigation and history with considerable skepticism and promotion, evolving within a difficult political climate (anyone read Kim Taylor's book? I've started it twice now) I don't think we're going to do a good job rewriting it in a couple weeks. It'll take that long to read just one of the books I have on the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

doesn't "placed in symbolic correlation" mean that there is no causal relationship, in plain english? that there is a symbolic correlation, as both Matuck and you new source state? It seems that only a text which discussed the exact geography of the 12 rivers and showed that as a direct source of the anatomical placement of the channels would provide more information, and be a reputable RS Just trying to be logical. Saying that x corresponds to y, even in scientific terms, does not amount to anything more than a correlation study, not a determination of cause and effects, which would mean x is determined by y. This is not a ref, but an informal explanation of the distinction between correlation and causation [22] I believe that since this issue dates to an unresearchable time, there is almost a cerainty of not being able to establish a causal relationship. Soll22 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed. "symbolic correlation" is not an uncertain term.Luke643 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede opening sentences

I just created two new sentences for the lede based on the definitions from the National Library of Medicine, and the licensing agencies of two of the states most prominent in establishing acupuncture legislation, California and New York. I hope no one will find issue with this. I slightly modified the existing opening sentence which contained the descriptor "alternative medicine" which has just today been objected to as belonging to the category of "weasel words". I assumed no one would object to removing something that potentially belongs to that category. Aside from removing "alternative medicine", I expanded the first sentence according to the exact description at Medline Plus, the National Library of Medicine Online. Please discuss before making any changes, I am available.Soll22 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, I see you reversed my expansion on the lede. Please explain, like I said I am available for discussion. I absolutely did not delete any sourced material. I fully explained my changes in the paragraph above.Soll22 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about alternative medicine being weasely. If our reliable sources describe it that way (which they do fairly consistently) then we definitely should be representing that. Perhaps you're referring to something elsewhere on the site which I haven't seen? In any case, I re-reverted the changes to the lead because they go against the MOS. We need to begin the article with a definition per WP:LEAD#Introductory text. In other words, we need to begin with "Acupuncture is", and not with "X group says Y about acupuncture". To be honest, I sort of like the way the article starts out right now. Of course there's always room for improvement, but it concisely sums up the topic, covering the definition, history, scientific reception and so forth all in compliance with WP:LEAD and other policies. I'm not convinced that some of the new information introduced really should come before all of that (such as, for instance, the scope of licensure. Is there a broader issue you're trying to address?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Sol is referring to where on another page I cited a source (Science Based Medicine, maybe?) ctriticising the introduction of the expressions "alternative medicine" and "complementary medicine", in order to make it appear to be real medicine, or to complement real medicine. That critic (I think he is at Yale medicine) was complaining about the new expression "integrative medicine", and he cited another critic who said it is better called "quackademic medicine", especially as its leading national proponenent just published in New England Journal of Medicine that the most resent systematic review showed acupuncture no better than a sham treatment, yet then recommended that it be used as a "complementary treatment", essentially recommending lying to patients in order to get a placebo effect, and this recommendation got through the peer reviewers and editor of NEJM and was published. I was in email correstpondence with the chief editor of NEJM for a while, and he never bit the bullet and admitted the mistake, instead weaseling around and saying "yes, it was a controversial subject, when the real complaint wasn't about whacky CAM, but about NEJM publishing a recommendation to lie to patients with a placebo treatment. PPdd (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

good job on the first paragraph! now lets see if we can remove the POV from the second one, it is full of crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

oh, it has been changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I reverted this edit as well. This edit is better (as it doesn't have the MOS concerns), but I think there are still a few issues. For instance, we already state earlier in the sentence that acupuncture is an alternative medicine, and that it treats patients. Because of that wording, saying again "to improve health and wellbeing" is redundant. More troublesome is that it also gives the impression of efficiency; What you're trying to say is that the goal is to improve health, but it instead comes off as the result. I'm also seeing an issue with the wording of "inserting needles into specific body points", since this article also covers random needling, which that def doesn't include. As far as I can tell, the current def encompasses all forms of acupuncture that this article contains, so it should be sufficient. Again, is there a broader issue you're trying to address? We might be able to go about tackling it a different way.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the alternative medicine label. PPdd just described it as weasel word earlier today on the talk page, which is why I thought no one would object. Yes there are other issues, but will discuss at a later time, it's more complex. Would you mind taking a look at above entry about the Matuck citation? This is an small but insidious issue that I have brought up several time as a direct comment to both WLU and PPdd and neither will make a comment about the information I am discussing. PPdd seems to deflect by repeatedly bringing up the cancer.org citation. That is not the main point of my inquiry. Thx..Soll22 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I already responded there. I may have misunderstood you, though, so please jump in and correct me if so. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

i preferred the opening paragraph before <alternative medicine> was added, i have no idea how many edits ago it was, changes happen so fast i can't keep up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

the sentence: "Its practitioners variously claim that it relieves pain, treats infertility, treats disease, prevents disease, promotes general health, or can be used for therapeutic purposes." seems too narrow. people other than practitioners (non-tcm medical professionals that recommend acupuncture, and patients that have received it and felt it worked for them) assert these things too. maybe it could be broadened? also, the implication of the word <claims> doesn't sit too well with me, maybe <assert> instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metabradley (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "its practitioners" adequately sums up the topic without being weasly. If we were to change that section, it would have to be more specific, not less (i.e. "The X Institute claims", not "Some people claim"). I also think the word "claim" is perfectly appropriate here... "Asserts" tends to imply less evidentiary backing than "claims" does, so changing it would do the opposite of what it seems you're trying to. With that said, I see no reason to make a distinction between the two, and "claim" flows better and is more common than the alternative.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd changed "practitioners" to "proponents", which also seems acceptable to me... though, the two seem synonymous in this context. Does that address your concerns, Metabradley?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to preserve or use the final part of the sentence that Jess deleted, coming from Medline Plus. This is the reason why, which I have been trying to present previously in various headings on the talk page:

Acupuncture, as I quoted before, through legislation, is a health care profession. Restoring health is not the exclusive domain of biomedical fields. Health is defined in many ways, emotional health, mental health, physical health, not all of which are treated exclusively through biomedical intervention. Counseling, social work, and other therapies are not defined in biomedical terms, yet they are considered health care professions. In acupuncture and tcm, health is achieved through treatment according to chinese medicine principles. This is in the wording of the law, therefore it is an accepted term and not subject to debate. Whether or not acupuncture can prove it's efficacy in medical trials is another thing. But acupuncture is effective within it's own parameters of establishing health. Acupuncture does not need validation from clinical trials to continue existing in it's current form. It is already approved as a health care profession. What clinical trials are trying to establish is the usefulness of acupuncture in a biomedical context, which is not the only context in which the human race defines health. Whether or not acupuncture will be approved as a sister to biomedical treatment in biomedical institutions is up for grabs. That acupuncture restores health under principles of chinese medicine is already established. I find that the entire entry is skewed to the sense that acupuncture's entire validity as a health care field is dependent upon proof in biomedical trials. This is untrue. Acupuncture as it stands now is an accepted health care field. It is important to state this in the lede, as this is the current accepted standing of acupuncture, and to distinguish the biomedical claims from claims of efficacy according to it's own parameters.Soll22 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sol. Thanks for the clarification. Per WP:Weight, we have to give due weight to the prominent scientific view, particularly of medical practices. I don't know what "final part" you're referring to specifically, but generally speaking, we can't simply throw out the scientific view and state acupuncturist's claims uncontested. Indeed, the majority scientific view has to be presented prominently within the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I am refering to Acupuncture is the practice of inserting thin needles into specific body points to improve health and well-being. That acupuncture is not just the practice of inserting thin needles in to the body or points, but it does so " to improve health and well being." That is the final part we are talking about, and it is cited in a MEDRS, the medical dictionary of the National Library of Medicine. The Dorland citation which is used as the definition is from 1995. If a MEDRS source states efficacy in general terms, shouldn't that be the accepted view?

That being said, there is no prominent scientific view on acupuncture, there is a general back and forth, especially on this page, though it's now it seems evenly represented since you cleaned up the article a bit. Scientific claims are one thing, and should be discussed as such. In fact, there is quite a bit of acceptance of acupuncture. However it is important to state that acupuncture is a valid health care profession that does not need biomedical validation to continue in it's present form and I don't see that clearly state in the entry. Acupuncture diagnostics and treatment are not carried out in biomedical language, and do not treat even things such as headache or lowback pain. Acupuncture diagnosis refer to an organ/channel + a pathology of that organ/channel. Any biomedical diagnosis is noted in the notes, but not adressed as such. I have spoken about this yesterday in a different entrySoll22 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What I was trying to address was the claim that "Acupuncture is a valid health care profession that does not need biomedical validation [or clinical trials]" and that we should represent that in the article. We can't do that because of policies like WP:Weight, which indicate that the majority scientific view needs to be presented prominently. To my understanding, there is not currently a majority scientific view that acupuncture is ineffective, but some day, if repeated clinical trials say that it is, that majority scientific opinion will form. If you have a reliable source which states that acupuncture operates independently of clinical trials, then we can (and should) represent that the RS claims as much somewhere in the body, but we can't state it as fact in wikipedia's voice, because that's saying that "the scientific opinion doesn't matter", which goes against policy. Does that make more sense? I'm pretty tried right now, so my wording may not be stellar.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mann jess, I agree with your overall point - acupuncture can and should be investigated through clinical trials. However, there has been considerable investigation of acupuncture and overall, the results (possibly preliminary) are in - it has been proven effective in the treatment of pain and nausea (both of which are highly susceptible to the placebo effect), and possibly fertility treatments (I can't remember if it's in vitro or in vivo). Nearly every other investigation, particularly as summarized in the best MEDRS, are essentially negative - it's useful at best to treat two symptoms, and no diseases. A common claim of CAM advocates is that X modality can't be investigated with science, which skeptics see as special pleading for the many negative investigations that have occurred. If you're looking for a quick read of the skeptical perspective, may I suggest starting at page 39 of Trick or Treatment. The book goes into detail on why much of the evidence for acupuncture is actually questionable (up until around the year 2000, there was no truly effective placebo for the "skin penetration" effects of acupuncture, and there is evidence for considerable publication bias in China) but also states, pretty unequivocally, that it is, to the best they can tell with good-quality trials, effective at treating pain and nausea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

jess, yes I understand better what you are trying to say. What I don't understand is what is an acceptable source that states that acupuncture operates independently of clinical trials?

I would think current legislation that approves acupuncture as a health care profession which treats health according to principles of oriental medicine (which obviously are not subject to biomedical clinical trials) would be an RS? I will look into it though, and try to come up with a more substantial answer.Soll22 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't have any problems with the trials stuff, fire away at acupuncture from the biomed perspective, in the criticism of acupuncture sections. However, the history and theory of acupuncture should not and cannot be based on biomed journals. It should be based on RS from Chinese medical historians and common theory as taught in American acupuncture schools. After this is accomplished, then again, fire away with the criticism from biomed. The page is massively muddled and bloated, and one of the problems is that these two things (scholarship of history/theory vs. biomed criticism) are not separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke643 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed "merge" of Acupuncture point to this article

The Acupuncture point article has no content at all that is not already in acupuncture. I propose it be merged to acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT merge PPdd (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I think this would be acceptable now, but I don't think it's what we want long-term. Particularly with the extensive discussion above regarding what acupuncture points are based on, their history, and so forth. All that information really should be contained in a separate daughter article. This article is already rather long, totaling around 69Kb, so splitting on those topics would be appropriate as it is. If anything, we want to be moving information out, not adding more in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to merge, since it was pretty much just a copy of stuff that got deleted as nonMEDRS in this article, and apparently moved there to hide from RS hawks. You are correct, however, about this one being too long. The problem is that every study about TCM acupuncture switches back and forth between describing acupuncture and acupoints, so they really can't be easily separated. PPdd (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - Article already too long. Using MEDRS to prune it indiscriminately is not the way to go. Right now, PPdd, you are moving way too quickly and on way too many fronts. Please slow down, let's focus on this article, and then see what should be merged and/or spun off. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS: Soll22 and Luke643 TCM point location "standardized" or "observationally based"?

MOS requires consistency in the article. On these talk pages, proponent POVs like Luke643 aqnd SOll22 have argued that TCM points are "observationally based" (without citing RS for the claim). The same proponents changed the to-do list at the top of this page with an edit summary that TCM point location was "standardized". How can comething that is claimed to be "observationally based" be "standardized", when the two expressions are MOS inconcistent? PPdd (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

TCM points are standardized as they are taught and used. Where did I argue it was observationally based? They are not observationally based, they are historically based.Soll22 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

actually TCM points don't even need to be called standardized, it is understood they are standardized. I don't have the refs now, but all the traditions and heads of traditions and acupuncture lineages were gathered together in an Acupuncture Council, and the most common points were selected and agreed upon for location, and standard use. Will provide refs later.

It is these standardized points that are used in all trials for biomedical efficacy, so there is no need to qualify them as standardized as long as there is a section that explains the provenance of modern acupuncture points. Soll22 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But, if you want to have the points noted as "traditional TCM acupunture (sic) points" I have no problem. It will be a clear indicator for any reader of knowledge base on which this entry is written, as good an indicator as the grammar, which thankfully someone who's corrections you accept has been cleaning up for you.Soll22 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle8 implied the locations came from observation, not the number of rivers and days. When you argued that there was just a correspondence, and that one did not cause the other, I took that to mean that you thought the locations came out to 12 and 365 by observattion, since what other methods are there that could come up with 365 and 12, coincidentally the same as what were thought to be the number of days and number of rivers, if not a coincidence of what is observationaly based, or astrology? PPdd (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed it: I cited Deadman for the observational base. The points were standardized by the late Han Dynasty - a claim I also sourced (Unschud, Nan-ching).Luke643 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)