Talk:Qigong/Archive 2

Scientific Evidence

I'm very skeptical of qigong, and trying to find any trials that could disprove effectiveness of qigong I stumbled on the the following page referencing and citing over 20 publications that claim effectiveness of qigong. Publications of research Though the content of the website itself can be biased, there are definite references. So a further review of these studies/publications is needed to determine their credibility.

I also found a skepticism article here: Sima Nan: Fighting Qigong Pseudoscience in China, which however quotes almost no research, but features a view of a skeptic who's been involved in qiqong community.

The following webpage gives a thorough analysis of current scientific evidence, references corresponding studies, but also notes that most studies suffer from small sample size, are not double-blinded etc. Scientific Evidence for Qigong and Conditions where it seem to be effective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.127.206 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article has been rewritten with enough external references to address the issue of skeptics. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input & effort Ottawakungfu (71.215.152.102 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the comment. The quality of the article depends on everyone! Keep it informative, keep it unbiased. Use appropriate references ottawakungfu (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

qigong and reiki

I don't know much about qigong or reiki, but they sound very similar. I would like to see each article mention the other and briefly compare the two. Bhami (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't compare them in the article, that would be original research on our part. We can report if someone else compares them in an independent mainstream reliable source. On a talk page it is safe to say that qigong is a much bigger subject, with a lot more variety. Qigong is Chinese, reiki, while a Japanese word, pretty much only exists in the west, reiki relies on channeling spirits and making magical squiggles in the air, while qigong is a person breathing in various patterns for various reasons. There are other differences, but that is a good start. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The similarities is probably due to the nature of the energetic arts. Article has been rewritten to point out that qigong have some resemblance to those ideas. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that there IS more to these things than meets the eye. To my own surprise, as someone who always used to discount such things, I have self-realised Reiki after the fashion of the original methods taught by Usui back in the 1920s. This is a wider set of practices, including diagnostic techniques, than the current western style, which by comparison is watered-down 'just send it in' approach. I'm amazed at what is possible, but what will be will be. Google 'steve the healer' for info on me. I stand by what I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.215.5 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

the exercises

There's nothing about what the movements or breathing are. The pictures show what look like tai chi moves, and the only description of the breathing is "the inverse breath of inhaling to the back of the thoracic cavity rather than diaphragmatic breathing", which means nothing to the layman. (What's an inverse breath? What's the thoractic cavity?) A simple description or example is needed, and also how qigong is different from tai chi and yoga. (The talk archive says a bit about tai chi in the "Types of Chi-Gong" section.) Sluggoster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the movements, there are so many variations. Some movements are fairly common but others would be individual to one of the 100s or 1000s of styles in existence. Re: reverse breathing, it could be described but descriptions vary a lot and I doubt anybody would really understand even from the best of descriptions. --Simon D M (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. We should be more general. There's no way we could describe the hundreds of different variants from style to style, or even the likely dozens of variants within styles. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is now reference wikipedia links on representative qigong exercises. Taht should address those comments. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs an Overhaul (Comments applied to article before Major Revision in June, 2010)

I'm an acupuncturist and certified Qigong instructor. I unfortunately don't have time to rewrite this article for at least 6 months, but I need to point out some important inaccuracies. The section titled "the Rise of Qigong" is completely wrong regarding the origins of Qigong. The primary work cited is a book on a single, fairly new form of Qigong (Falun Gong). But Qigong predates Chinese medicine, kung fu, tai chi, and all other systematized arts based on Qi. Qigong is, in essence, more "raw" than these other arts -- it is essentially the practice of perceiving, cultivating, and manipulating Qi for spiritual, martial, or health purposes. According to Daniel Reid, in "Harnessing the Power of the Universe: A Complete Guide to the Principles and Practice of Chi-Gung," the earliest forms of Qigong are probably about 10,000 years old, and were the domain of tribal shamans. (Qigong of this era took a form similar to dance.)

Regarding the sections discussing the PRC government's role in the process of promoting and organizing Qigong, this needs to be put into proper context. Much of the history of Qigong has been fairly secretive, with master-disciple lineages similar to the kung fu tradition. Until recently, the government had no particular role in Qigong aside from threatening its practitioners. Even now, it seems the government's involvement is a concession to Qigong's great number of adherents, with the clear ulterior motive of suppressing mass organization. However, there is probably some earnest interest in proving its merit as a health supporting practice.

In the Uses paragraph, it is misleading to say Qigong employs a particular style of breathing, or even that "Taoist qigong employs..." As with kung fu, there are innumerable styles of Qigong, and certainly no unified theory or practice. As for making any claims of "Taoist Qigong," most Qigong masters probably consider themselves Daoists (more or less), and many would say their Qigong is based on Daoist principles. There is no single "Taoist Qigong."

I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but this article was written with a poor and incomplete survey of sources.

Anahata9 (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What you see is what I call a "bulletin board" article; a compendium of at least 4 or 5 years of drive by editing, with almost every editor promoting their own school. If you can improve it, please feel free whenever you have time (I don't have much either) and especially if you have the sources. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You fail as an qigong instructor without knowing what really is qigong. As the original article said, qigong in its modern form with different schools and types only appeared in post-mao china. There might be mentions of "qi", "neigong", "neijin" in Traditional Chinese Martial arts but they are not "qigong" as you know it today.

Just because the concept of "qi" existed for a long doesn't mean that it's qi gong. If there aren't any accurate sources saying hw those earlier forms became the "qigong" you know today, then it isn't qigong. The concept of qi is not qi gong. It's like saying Judaism is a Abrahamitic Monotheistic religion, Islam is a Abrahamictic Monotheistic religion. Therefore, Islam existed the moment Judaism began and Islam is Judaism. That is just plain ignorance.

Have you even wondered why the term "qi gong", just like "wu shu" didn't even exist in Chinese texts in pre-communist china? "Wu shu" is a watered down,exhibition oriented sport derivated from chinese martial arts. Wushu is not kungfu. Just like how the concept of qi is not qigong. Go look at the history of Chinese Martial Arts, there are no sects, schools, clans or families practicing or teaching qigong. Don't get influenced by wuxia novels and by poorly researched books. Although Qi Gong can has its origins traced a long way back, Qi Gong in its form today only existed in the modern era. 60.52.103.141 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will help you understand what Qigong means.. Qi (also 'Chi', 'Ki') literally means 'Energy'-- Gong (also Kung [as in kung fu, etc.]) literally means 'Work', or a work-in 'Practice'.. It is the 'Art/practice' of 'working with energy'... This may help you understand 'origins of Qigong' -- there really is no 'origin' as describing the source of Qigong is like describing the source of languages, it is not something you can go "Oh yeah it was year XX B.C. when the book 'How to use Energy' was written". No.. it is not that simple. This wikipedia article is sincerely in need of a total Re-Haul! And please, skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed. Also..

"User talk:60.52.103.141 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)", you are completely wrong. You fail to understand that Qigong, as with ALL ancient-spiritual traditions, has evolved due to modernization of the planet - it has not 'emerged' as a 'new form of qigong' as you say! It is not just Qigong, it is EVERY ASPECT of our life too - specific political ideals, specific cultural taboos/acceptances, specific technologies, etc. it is only recently that there has been a 'globalization' of cultures and hence traditions..

If anyone, somebody like Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming should be writing the Qigong article! Or at least source his knowledge in this wikipedia article.. Wouldn't it be stupid to have first-day students teach the class instead of professors who have Ph.D's and/or years of relevant experience in the subject? Just so, it is STUPID to have these 'blatant close-minded' 'snippets' compose a wikipedia article. If you skeptics of qigong must, then treat the article as if it is make-believe, does it harm you to have the article written by Qigong masters and experienced practitioners? Or are mostly just disinformation agents? (71.222.36.171 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Overhaul completed. The tone of the article is more neutral and should be more informative. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what 60.52.103.141 said is correct, the concept of Qi exist for a long time but the Qigong concept and the practice of Qigong as an exercise really did only exist in post communist China. Unlike what those Qigong practitioners tell you, Qigong doesn't cover all aspect of life pre-communist China and although it was taught this way to current practitioners, it doesn't mean that it's true. Brush up on your history if you can. TCM is based on Qi concepts but doesn't use Qigong (like how some Qigong practitioners do nowadays) to heal patients. Martial arts/Kung fu like Taichi doesn't use Qigong. Qigong is mysticism mixed with semi-knowledgable martial arts breathing techniques after the Cultural Revolution purged and oppressed a lot of religious people and those who knew martial arts. Here's a google ngram on emperor, wushu, kungfu and qigong. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=%E7%9A%87%E5%B8%9D%2C%E6%AD%A6%E6%9C%AF%2C%E5%8A%9F%E5%A4%AB%2C%E6%B0%94%E5%8A%9F&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=11&smoothing=50 by using the emperor as a point of reference in chinese texts. Here's wushu, kungfu and qigong. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=%E6%AD%A6%E6%9C%AF%2C%E5%8A%9F%E5%A4%AB%2C%E6%B0%94%E5%8A%9F&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=11&smoothing=50 . Notice how the mention of wushu and qigong in chinese texts only rises post-communist China? This is coming from a Malaysian Chinese who had first hand experience with TCM and Chinese Martial Arts. We don't use qigong in TCM and Chinese martial arts, the claims of Qigong practitioners are exaggerated actually.--175.137.84.105 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The revised article tries to provide a balance view on the history of qigong from all perspectives. Independent research and anecdotal examples should not be used. ottawakungfu (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Health" as an analogy

I wonder how much of Western confusion results from a very literal interpretation. To make an analogy, consider the Western concept of health.

Everyone knows that a person can have good health or be in poor health. We may even say that a person can be stricken or afflicted with bad health, or lost his health due to unhealthy activity. We have buildings that say "National Institutes of Health". Yet there is no physician who can dissect the health out of a cadaver (reasonably enough) or even a healthy person. No one can say how much health weighs or what color it is. Two doctors can look at a patient and disagree about whether he is healthy or not. By far most of the times we see the word printed on the side of a box of sugared cereal extract or a jug of fortified juice-flavored high fructose corn syrup it means nothing about whether a person will get sick or not. In fact lots of people talk about health but only a subset of them are actually helpful. I hope that people who are fluent with both cultures will consider whether something similar applies to qigong, or if it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than this. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of linguistic constructs is addressed somewhat at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine where Manfred Porkert is quoted as saying:

Chinese medicine, like many other Chinese sciences, defines data on the basis of the inductive and synthetic mode of cognition. Inductivity corresponds to a logical link between two effective positions existing at the same time in different places in space. (Conversely, causality is the logical link between two effective positions given at different times at the same place in space.) In other words, effects based on on positions that are separate in space yet simultaneous in time are mutually inductive and thus are called inductive effects. In Western science prior to the development of electrodynamics and nuclear physics (which are founded essentially on inductivity), the inductive nexus was limited to subordinate uses in protosciences such as astrology. Now Western man, as a consequence of two thousand years of intellectual tradition, persists in the habit of making causal connections first and inductive links, if at all, only as an afterthought. This habit must still be considered the biggest obstacle to an adequate appreciation of Chinese science in general and Chinese medicine in particular. Given such different cognitive bases, many of the apparent similarities between traditional Chinese and European science which attract the attention of positivists turn out to be spurious.

Inductive logic is faulty compared to Causal logic because of the Base Rate Fallacy and other related cognitive biases. Because of this, choosing inductivity before causality is just plain irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

--Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Wnt is seeking to discuss how health is treated as quantifiable in western medicine and whether or not a similar concept of health is applied in qigong theory. My understanding is that it is not, but I'm just trying to focus the topic, not provide an opinion on it. This quote seems ot be about something different. I believe Porkert is discussing the nature of causality and logic in Chinese medicine. In a sense, he is showing that TCM doesn't conform to the scientific method and relies on different standards for verifiability of claims (primarily induction rather than deduction). This is not linguistic: it is a cognitive paradigm. --Shaggorama (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Let's put it this way. If someone holds his hand against you, there are several scientific things that emanate from his hand - warmth, sweat, germs, dead skin cells. There are several unscientific or fraudulent things that could be said to emanate from it - "aura", "life force", "healing energy", as these terms would be defined by most Americans (i.e. as simple physical forces that could be detected by Kirlian photography, rather than as descriptions of a possible or desired net effect). And then there are intangible things: comfort, help, curiosity, friendship, love, concern. I am worried that some of the perceived difference in perspective may be the result of confusing the intangible with the unscientific, but only if I were intimately familiar with both cultural perspectives would I be able to know for sure. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clean up your lingo a little, let's use "empirical" and ob"objective" instead of scientific. I think that the difference in perspective, first off, is not just perceived; it rests in the differences inherent between the two paradigms and the incommensurability that results. The main confusion is that in china, the "intangible" is treated as empirical. The literature on chinese medical examination and treatment by acupuncture, for instance, goes back hundreds of years and has been evolving since. The problem is that in the west, we only treat something as measurable if it can be quantified by a machine (our version of objectivity), so although Qi is treated as empriical in China, it isn't in the West because it can only be examined subjectively by practitioners (although some folks claim to have "field reading" type devices that are suitable for TCM). Moreover, the emotional "intangible" notions you described are intimately tied into "tangible" chinese concepts, such as accupoints and qi. Basically, in the west there is a distinction between signs (objective) and symptoms (subjective), whereas in the east they are the same. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I practice Qi Gong. There is nothing intangible about the things I feel inside my body when I do it. Or even when I'm 'not' doing it. 90.205.92.84 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Such arguments are beyond the scope of this article. Facts should be presented in a neutral tone and it will up to the reader to make their own judgment. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

link to a qigong site with more then 100 different persons report on their results from qigong training

I think it could be of interest to read about people who have practiced qigong for some time. Here is a site where more than 100 people have related their stories with name and photo. The site also relates to research and projects observed by medical doctors with significant result.

ArneNordgren (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)ArneNordgren

Wikipedia is not a link farm - independent (not peer review) research is not considered to be credible references. Anecdotal evidence should not be used in citations. ottawakungfu (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Balance science view and eastern beliefs

Hello all. There are some views that qigong is pseudo scientific. Some of those come from pretty well meaning Chinese people and literature. But I do feel that this article should represent more about what is meaningfully symbolic to certain cultures concerning qigong. Phdarts (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the re-write as of June 2010, the history of qigong provides this balance. ottawakungfu (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

oh c'mon

Comment prior to the June 2010 rewrite

Seriously people, this article drives me sick. It is so biased it pains me to see it's wikipedia content. It manipulates content in a way of making more relevant arguments made by believes of supernatural stuff. This is an encyclopedia, and not a self-help book. Even the definition of the article doesn't have sources. This is a pretty controversial article, yes - write about it in an unbiased way, talking about different groups' opinions and views. Repetitive but necessary: this is an encyclopedia.

200.158.99.250 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

since it's about qigong it should obviously be written from the perspective of qigong. other views are also relevant, but it would make no sense to write an article about something which is understood to lay outside the realm of material science in terms of material science--that would obviously be meaningless. such views go in a criticism section or whatever. Pretty simple. this isn't validating any particular subject, it's just allowing each subject to establish its own ontology, and I reckon that is the only sensible way to do things. --Asdfg12345 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

user Asdfg12345 wrote "since it's about qigong it should obviously be written from the perspective of qigong." Sorry, but that's rubbish. Should an entry about fairies be written "from the perspective of fairies" or those who believe in their literal existence? Should the entry about Scientology's character "Xenu" be written "from the perspective of Scientology"? Hardly! When supernatural claims are made, the position of an encyclopedia MUST be one of skepticism. 209.79.149.202 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, I don't really care. But to assume that the subject is made-up, false, fake, nonsense etc. to begin with, is not encyclopedic. I'm saying it should be discussed on its own terms, and its meaning clarified in relation to the dominant paradigm, rather than cast the whole thing only in terms of the dominant paradign. I see this as quite a simple and straightforward idea, and one which doesn't require any ideological struggle. It doesn't seek to diminish materialist science, but merely say "This is how qigong understands xyz, this is its ontology. Science says it's all rubbish." Readers can take their pick. Anyway, no one is looking after this article to begin with, so our talk is fairly fruitless. Best wishes.--Asdfg12345 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Perspective == Point of View. Wikipedia tries to adhere to a Neutral Point of View. Why are we having this discussion again?

Anyway. If there are no empirically relevant health benefits in Qigong, so be it. If it makes you feel good more than it does you harm, it's still a good thing -- even if it won't cure your cancer or Parkinson's or regrow an amputated limb. Just accept it as what it is: a technique of meditation and relaxation. Placebos aren't entirely useless. Even less so if they make some people feel better. It's supposed to be an internal technique anyway. Maybe someone should do a couple of psychological studies rather than medical ones -- life isn't only about survival. -- 134.95.158.199 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make the Qigong article any more 'skeptical'. Because honestly I have researched Qigong for many years, and when I read the Wikipedia page on it just today, I couldn't help but flinch at the bias towards the skeptical side. But that's wikipedia for you, it's 'home for the skeptics' for sure. If some of you guys would actually do some open-minded research, and read a few books written by actual descendents of true Qigong practices/traditions (rather than 'American-ized' Qigong) you would realize that every human being 'practices qigong' on some scale day-to-day. To deny Chi or Qi exists, is to completely misunderstand what Chi or Qi is. I could go deeper into the subject of Qigong, but I will stop here. Peace. 71.222.44.231 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In the re-write as of June, 2010, the neutral point of view is implemented. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious credibility problem

The final sentence of the third paragraph of the first section reads "There is a great deal of verifiable evidence (6,000 years worth) of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" The citation at the end just leads to a footnote that says "Felix Mann", and links to the WP entry on him. However, that entry reads "Mann has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians.[4]" The citation listed there takes one to a footnote and an interview with Felix Mann, in which two passages from Mann's book "Reinventing Acupuncture" are quoted: "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" (p. 14) and "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians." Clearly, Mann does not provide "...verifiable evidence...of an anatomical or histological scientific basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", as the entry would have us believe; he argues against them. Consequently, I'm striking that sentence and its contradictory footnote. Once a supporter of qigong and "meridians" can provide something resembling "verifiable evidence", they may have another crack at it. Bricology (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I pruned out more nonsense: the final sentence of the third paragraph of the "Uses" section reads "Improper use of diaphragmatic breathing can lead to reproductive pathologies for women. [3]" "Reproductive pathologies for women" is nonsensical, and the citation footnote is for a book called "Meditation and the Cultivation of Immortality" -- hardly a credible scientific source. Bricology (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In re-write, such points are not included. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhong Gong

FYI. Ikip (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Journal article

Structure and property changes in certain materials influenced by the external qi of qigong. Claims to have produced structural changes in inanimate objects via qi. Andre (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are reports of this phenomenon but the problem is reproducibility under control conditions. Such information is included in the re-write with the appropriate reference. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Who?

"Association of qigong with practices involving spirit possession have added to establishment criticism. Some experts in China[who?] have warned against practices involving the claimed evocation of demons,..."
The "who?" is for example the selfstyled Supermaster of Falun Gong, Li Hongshi, who hints meanwhile that he is an extraterrestrial. In his writing Zhuan Falun he warns explicitly against other forms of Qi Gong, since only his invention is the only true method. Foxspirits might jump out of other Qigong books (no kidding! That is what he writes.)
That might answer the "who?" if one is willing to call Li Hongshi an expert. I don't want to change anything in the article, because I'm not so confident of my English. JonValkenberg--92.194.4.45 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

btw JV-- your "English" is spot-on. We can wish the rest of WP would be written so well. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement has been reworked. No explicit personal viewpoints are included in the re-write. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

David Ownby reference

A single page from a David Ownby text is cited 8 times in the History section, but the title of that text has either never appeared, or has been eaten up by edits. Can someone dig up this reference and properly cite its title and publication info? Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I can try. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownby is now properly referenced ottawakungfu (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External link

• Walking Qigong, The Anti-Cancer Qigong

please start discussing why is it that that article should be added to section external links. see also Guo Lin, Guolin Qigong, Walking Qigong

Austerlitz -- 88.75.195.11 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, external link is not encouraged. In general, some reference to Guo Lin is included. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Idea for improvement

Would anyone be opposed to a radical clean-up of this article? I have David Palmer's Qigong Fever here, and while it isn't perfect, I think there is much useful content for structuring this article. I will begin adding information from it. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• TheSoundAndTheFury, please do so. I read reviews from Palmer's book, it may the best starting point. For now. But consider adding information, not controversial issues (such as those written into the current article). If possible, we (you, I and anybody interested in this theme) should dig up facts/info bridging the present day qigong (from the communist cadres to the "big bucks masters") and what ancient texts refer to as "way of energy" or "work with life energy" (these are references I found in martial arts - not wushu - texts). MikeLousado (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Information from David Palmer, David Ownby, Ian Johnson and Nancy Chen plus many others are now referenced. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously flawed, biased

Of course, this article should be fair in its assessment of Qigong. If the author(s) took the liberty of inserting criticism and controversy issues into this article, why not insert also the accounts of famed, established Physicists and other Scientists and Physicians who are or have become qigong practitioners? Why give credit or mention to ludicrous claims of paranormal or supra-normal activities and prowess? Why mention charlatans at all? Do we have to remind everybody that Western Medicine has its own count of charlatans, even during the 20th Century? What about psychosis and other qigong-related illnesses, all the while forgetting that psychiatrists and oncologists have their hands full of people who reacted BADLY to conventional treatments and some even died? As I said, a heavily flawed and biased article. From what I have seen and heard from otherwise skeptical (and science oriented) persons, Reiki and Qigong WORK. Period. This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are. Please, improve it. MikeLousado (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New article tries to maintain a neutral point of view. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously flawed, biased - part II

At some point in the article, this sentence comes up: "Also known as "qigong deviation" (氣功偏差) among psychiatrists, the condition could cause, in extremis, death through delusions of omnipotence." The sentence quoted above is intended as detrimental, but a simple investigation reveals how flawed it is. Qigong deviation is a Transliteration of mental disturbance caused by qigong practice. According to Chinese medical literature, the term for this is exactly zhuhuo rumo, which literally means "inner fire out of control" or "entering the realm of Mara". This is also a qigong term for patients suffering from mental illnesses.

If one digs deeper, it becomes obvious that this "deviation" is caused, according to Chinese qigong-literature, by misdirected use of Chi. Meaning, the justification for this criticism lies in the badly application of chi/prana. MikeLousado (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• MikeLousado, did you read all the excellent Wikipedia policies and guidelines? You are free to edit the article to correct it. If you do so with reference to scholarly material, your contributions will be most welcome. Regarding the controversies, it is possible that they currently take up too much of the article. Then, you would be justified in cutting them down, or paraphrasing them. Clearly qigong is not as well accepted as the whole of Western medicine, however, so perhaps the controversies surrounding it - particularly in terms of first principles - may be more. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• TheSoundAndTheFury, I know policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Otherwise I wouldn't read anything in it or post anything in it. I, and probably many others, tried to give the author(s) of the article the chance to rewrite it.Now...Qigong, Chi-Kung or even the principles of Reiki, have existed for centuries more than our "Western medicine". By that alone, it deserves adequate treatment, an equal opportunity to be well explained.You say "Clearly qigong is not as well accepted". Based on what do you say "Clearly"? Your standards? The Western standards? Western media?You mentioned controversies surrounding qigong. There are (obviously well documented) thousands and thousands of cases around the world resulting from the application of "Western medicine", from the large scale misuse of antibiotics to the rushed development of vaccines and criminally developed pills (Thalidomide comes to mind). More recently, we have all seen more and more "Dr. Death" cases in which physicians decide by themselves to terminate the life of patients suffering from cancer. Or "suicide assisted deaths". Aren't these facts heavily controversial? Are any of these controversies mentioned in articles about "Western medicine" practices or branches? No.But more than that, qigong practice or Reiki practice or Ayurvedic practices are not intended to be the sole means to treat or help people and especially patients. These practices/alternative medicines are not intended to substitute the, or disprove the quality of, Western medicine.And if we add up the number of people which are practicing Qigong/Reiki/Ayurvedic Medicine, we may get something in the order of millions (no, no source for this number, YET). Or more. And with more and more doctors considering alternatives to current treatments for many ailments (from cancer to pulmonary diseases), and using them as complementary strategies to ward off disease, I believe a proper, honest view of Qigong should be presented here, replacing this article. MikeLousado (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There aren't really any 'authors' of this article. No one is tending to the page, editing it regularly, and making sure it's in good shape. So, you should roll up your sleeves and start doing that. If you want to rebuild the article, I don't think anyone would object. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article remains a neutral point of view. Both the advantage and disadvantage of qigong are included. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Major Rewrite on the Subject of Qigong 2010

We are trying to restructure the entire article of qigong to make it more encyclopedic. Here are a summary and rationale for the changes we have made (this section will be updated periodically)

• Stage One - Modified the introduction to recognize that Chinese qigong arise from different elements within Chinese society and encompass different methods. (May, 2010)
• Stage Two - We have edited the History of qigong to cover ancient history, provide a cultural context for the practice. We have also made the history more of a narrative and minimize the speculations and conclusions that are found in the previous versions. Expand history to include the introduction of qigong to the West(May, 2010)
• Stage Three - Re-organize and rewrite the Theory of Qigong. The section now includes the basic theory of meridians, yin yang,, 5 elements, extraordinary powers are addressed as well as the bridge towards qigong tradition and science. (June, 2010)
• Stage Four - Create a new section: "Practice" to provide an overview of the various forms of qigong. (June, 2010)
• Stage Five - rework Uses - rename to Applications Add more references. (June, 2010)
• Stage Six - Criticisms and controversies section re-written. External links, footnotes incorporated as inline citation. (June, 2010)
• Stage Seven - Comments and criticisms on the Talk page is addressed. (June, 2010)

Revision completed. Please keep the article in a neutral point of view! ottawakungfu (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say THANK YOU for the fabulously improved article. The difference is like night and day. Much appreciated!! Anahata9 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The problems with this article are not repairable. The trouble is in the concept and beliefs of those who advocate Qi Gong.

Quoted from the discussion thread above. "...This article should be as much about Qigong from the perspective of qigong and benefits derived from it, as articles about conventional, western medicine are...." MikeLousado;

"...skeptics who for some reason cannot grasp the concept that 'Qi gong' requires no 'proving' as it proves it self -- go somewhere else! You are not needed...." author unclear.

Understand what those beliefs are. If you wave your arms and legs in unison with a small group of people you command powerful supernatural forces. It doesn't matter how you state it that is the belief of this system.

The concept is nonsense and borderline psychotic. But these people function normally except for these strange beliefs. They claim and do experience psychiatric symptoms they understand as Qi Gong working.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net explained why this happens in 2003. The meditating moving people form an engine for Subliminal Distraction exposure. There is no magic or Chee involved.

Subliminal Distraction, a normal feature in our physiology of sight, was discovered to cause mental breaks for office workers forty years ago. The cubicle was designed to deal with the phenomenon by 1968. This exposure will alter your ability to think and reason critically . That's why there are the claims of supernatural outcomes from performing this exercise.

Anyone with full mental capability would not make such claims. Long term users of Qi Gong have altered mental states so that they can believe this nonsense.

There is no way to resolve these two points at issue. One claims supernaturally acquired benefits and the other says the claimed benefits are nonexistent and an expected outcome from performing this at-risk activity.

An example of these outcomes can be see in the experience of 14 Ontario schools where students have bizarre symptoms after Wi-Fi was installed and they began to use laptop computers anywhere they wanted to sit rather than observe Cubicle Level Protection while using the computers. Students have headaches, dizziness, trouble sleeping, memory loss, and strange skin sensations. Symptoms disappear on weekends and school vacations. The experience shows the wide range of symptoms SD exposure can cause. When Qi Gong users begin to have symptoms they understand it is Qi Gong working.(The Cubicle solved this exposure problem when mental breaks appeared in business offices in the 1960's.)

There are examples of other outcomes from Subliminal Distraction exposure at VisionAndPsychosis.Net. I am the copyright holder for that site.

24.96.50.139 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)L K Tucker

Notability exists, regardless of your research. Also, your explanation (still) completely fails to take into account cases where the symptoms occur in those who have only ever practiced qigong outside of a group setting. K2709 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

REPLY on 6/21/2011 out of sequence with talk page history. Subliminal Distraction exposure can happen anywhere. The Landmark Education mental breaks show that classrooms can cause limited SD exposure. The people who perform Qi Gong alone have SD exposure at another place then associate the symptoms of SD exposure with Qi Gong because of their altered belief system that Qi Gong is effective. With Culture Bound Syndromes ethnic based mental events are understood and believed to be caused by something in the local culture. Ghost Sickness was believed to be caused by too close contact with the dead. Too-small single-room living arrangements of Native Americans allowed SD exposure. Examination of the Startle Matching Behaviors show the believed "cultural mental events" actually cross cultural and ethnic boundaries. They are only named locally because when a SD caused mental events happens it is experienced in terms of local culture. The belief in the efficacy of Qi Gong is an unrecognized mental disorder. L K Tucker 24.96.50.245 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious joke article

I just have to say this article is hilarious. I've never seen such a credulous article on Wikipedia(!) that so fully incorporates the mystical and supernatural beliefs of a religion as the facts of its "science" and history.

Breathing and exercises are excellent stuff for overall wellness, but the quackery in this article is best described as evil. 174.99.110.64 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. The article aims to be informative from a neutral point of view. Information from both supporters and skeptics of qigong is provided. ottawakungfu (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is enormously biased

Just overflew this, have to agree with everyone who thinks that this article isn't nearly neutral enough. This whole thing is slanted hideously in favour of qi gong and doesn't even bother concealing that. I'd fix it up myself, but since I know from experience that this kind of thing always ends up being resolved in favour of the "wiki-squatter" who thinks he owns the article, I'm not even going to bother. I just hope a moderator or someone else in charge sees this soon, this whole article is an enormous embarrassment for Wikipedia. --188.98.180.151 (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

People like you need to spend a couple of hours digging through Google books for the information you believe should be added to the article. Be constructive. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Static qigong and Yiquan

Yiquan is not Qigong!

Raed description about Yiquan on Wikipedia:

"Yiquan is essentially formless, containing no fixed sets of fighting movements or techniques. Instead, focus is put on developing one's natural movement and fighting abilities through a system of training methods and concepts, working to improve the perception of one's body, its movement, and of force. Yiquan is also set apart from other eastern martial arts in that traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, the reason being that understanding one's true nature happens in the present, and that preconceptions block this process." Part of Yiquan caled ZhangZhuang viewed from the outside reminds Qigong, but traditional concepts like qi, meridians, dantian etc., are omitted, since 1938. The Link:

"Yiquan, a Chinese martial art derived from xingyiquan, is a strong proponent of stance training.[93] " 

suggests something else.

LG Ch. Ratka — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKRatka (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MaWangDui Silk Scroll

Before the four official forms of "energy-work" or QiGong existed (as approved of by the government of China, there was Dao Yin, as internal martial arts was known. The Silk Scroll found at MaWangDui contains 44 forms of Dao Yin. I have studied "the Five Animal Frolics"; "the Eight Pieces of Brocade"; "the Six Healing Sounds"; and looked into "the Yijinjing". I find no resemblence between these and my poster of the MaWangDui DaoYin positions. The comment that they are similar leads many not to look for themselves. Many books are written that dwell on the way energy flows through the human body. "Manufactured History" is the Chinese way of describing the effect of getting lost in the commentary about a topic, or in mysticism related to a part of Chinese culture. One never hears a simple, "no" or a "just practice". One is gotten lost in "manufactured History". Some teachers deal with questions that are seen as disrespectful, doubting in their nature in this way. Tales of immortality are another form of "Manufactured History". America has a bit of it rubbing off from "experts" who write books that lose the point. Often a simple video or DVD will teach all one needs to know for the first three years of practice. After a foundation is built, then respectfully ask a question. Teachers need not "prove" a point. My point with this long winded paragraph is that a Western "Expert" has discouraged many from looking for themselves at a piece of archeology from 168 B.C. that cannot be doubted in favor of a modern source. Ward68 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mental Health

One should know, that there not any actual evidence to support the claim that qigong can be a cause of psychosis, or any other mental disorder. That someone write a book about it, does not mean that the person deliver actual evidence. Observation followed by speculation is not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.218.140 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-write

I've tagged this article with a few maintenance tags. I also intend - with a bit of help - to completely re-write it. This entire subject needs to be a approached from a reliable scientific perspective. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Consider the Following Text as you Re-write:

Qigong Overview

What is Qigong? Qigong or chi kung (气功) is a practice of aligning breath, movement, and awareness for exercise, healing, and meditation. With roots in Chinese medicine, martial arts, and philosophy, qigong is traditionally viewed as a practice to balance qi (chi) or intrinsic life energy. Typically a qigong practice involves steady breathing, coordinated with slow, stylized repetition of fluid movement, and a calm mindful state. Qigong is now practiced throughout China and worldwide, and is considered by some to be exercise, and by others to be a type of alternative medicine or meditative practice. From a spiritual perspective qigong is believed to help develop human potential and to awaken one to one's true nature.

Etymology: Qigong (氣功 or 气功) is an English translation for two Chinese characters:

qì (氣 or 气) = breath, intrinsic life energy, vital force

gong (功) = mastery, practice, merit, achievement

Qigong as Exercise: Qigong, as a form of gentle exercise (Wu Gong), is composed of movements that are typically repeated, strengthening and stretching the body, increasing fluid movement (blood, synovial, and lymph), enhancing balance, and building awareness of how the body moves through space.

Qigong as a Healing Art: Qigong, as a healing art (Yi Gong), is an aspect of Chinese medicine that focuses on prevention and self-healing, balancing the body's energy meridians and enhancing the intrinsic capacity of the body to heal.

Qigong as Meditation and Spiritual Practice: Qigong, as meditation and spiritual practice (Fo Gong, Tao Gong), is a means to still the mind and enter a state of consciousness that brings serenity, clarity, and bliss. Many practitioners find qigong, with its gentle focused movement, to be more accessible than seated meditation.

External Qi Healing: Qigong includes a sophisticated system of health assessment and non-contact treatment (Wai Qi Zhi Liao), whereby a practitioner guides energy through his or her own body into the body of another person being treated for a medical condition.

Benefits of Qigong: Regular practice of qigong is purported to enhance health and well-being with many benefits: 1) vibrant health and longevity, along with healing of specific illnesses such as cancer and heart disease; 2) clear and tranquil mind; 3) deep, restorative sleep; 4) strong energy, including sexual vitality and fertility; 5) good circulation; 6) clear skin; 7) happy attitude; 8) efficient metabolism, including digestion, hair growth, and nail growth; 9) balanced physiology, including breath, heart rate, blood pressure, and hormone levels; 10) bright eyes; 11) strong intuition and creativity; and 12) high spiritual awareness.

Some Web Resources:

• Chi Center, Petaluma, CA (http://www.chicenter.com)

• Energy Arts, Fairfax, CA (http://www.energyarts.com)

• Pangu Shengong, San Francisco, CA (http://www.pangu.org/english)

• Radiant Lotus Qigong, Kahuna Valley, HI (http://www.radiantlotusqigong.com)

• Qigong Institute, Los Altos, CA (http://www.qigonginstitute.org)

• Qigong Research and Practice Center, Nederland, CO (http://www.qigonghealing.com)

Pmrich (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are some interesting claims, but they are manifestly untrue: "healing... cancer and heart disease" "[increasing] sexual vitality, fertility, circulation"... All those claims are as true as the Earth is flat. The claims that qigong brings a "strong intuition and creativity" is unprovable, and likewise, the claims that it promotes an "efficient metabolism, including digestion, hair growth, and nail growth... breath, heart rate, blood pressure, and hormone levels" are at best misleading. The web resources are useful, but I was hoping we could stick to scientific or medical sources, rather than qigong ones. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Some References for Re-write

Placed here to be accessible, but out of way of rewrite discussion.

Scientific Review

Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.

Concise Summary: This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated consistent, significant results for nine categories of health benefits: bone density (n = 4), cardiopulmonary effects (n = 19), physical function (n = 16), falls and related risk factors (n = 23), quality of life (n = 17), self-efficacy (n = 8), patient-reported outcomes (n = 13), psychological symptoms (n = 27), and immune function (n = 6).

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090

Manuscript: http://www.instituteofintegralqigongandtaichi.org/pdfs/ReviewRJLL0509.pdf

Qigong and Energy Medicine Database: http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/database.php

Some References to Consider

Adler, P. A., & Roberts, B. L. (2006). The use of tai chi to improve health in older adults. Orthopaedic Nursing, 25(2), 122-126.

American College of Sports Medicine. (2004). Physical activity and bone health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, January 23, 2008-1985; 1996.

Audette, J. F., Jin, Y. S., Newcomer, R., Stein, L., Duncan, G., & Frontera, W. R. (2006). Tai chi versus brisk walking in elderly women. Age & Ageing, 35(4), 388-93.

Baranowski, T., Perry, C. L., & Parcel, G. S. (2002). How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social cognitive theory. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. (3rd ed., pp. 8). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Barrow, D. E., Bedford, A., Ives, G., O'Toole, L., & Channer, K. S. (2007). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi chuan and chi kung training in patients with symptomatic heart failure: A randomised controlled pilot study. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83(985), 717-21.

Brismee, J., Paige, R. L., Chyu, M., Boatright, J. D., Hagar, J. M., McCaleb, J. A., et al. (2007). Group and home-based tai chi in elderly subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(2), 99-111.

Burini, D., Farabollini, B., Iacucci, S., Rimatori, C., Riccardi, G., Capecci, M., et al. (2006). A randomized controlled cross-over trial of aerobic training versus qigong in advanced parkinson's disease. Europa Medicophysica, 42(3), 231-8.

Chan, K., Qin, L., Lau, M., Woo, J., Au, S., Choy, W., et al. (2004). A randomized, prospective study of the effects of tai chi chun exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85(5), 717-22.

Channer, K. S., Barrow, D., Barrow, R., Osborne, M., & Ives, G. (1996). Changes in haemodynamic parameters following tai chi chuan and aerobic exercise in patients recovering from acute myocardial infarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 72(848), 349- 51.

Chen, H. H., Yeh, M. L., & Lee, F. Y. (2006). The effects of baduanjin qigong in the prevention of bone loss for middle-aged women. The Ameriacn Journal of Chinese Medicine, 34(5), 741-747.

Chen, K., & Yeung, R. (2002). A review of qigong therapy for cancer treatment. Journal of International Society of Life Information Science, 20(2), 532-542.

Cheng, T. (2006). Tai chi: The chinese ancient wisdom of an ideal exercise for cardiac patients. International Journal of Cardiology, 117, 293-295.

Cheung, B. M. Y., Lo, J. L. F., Fong, D. Y. T., Chan, M. Y., Wong, S. H. T., Wong, V. C. W., et al. (2005). Randomised controlled trial of qigong in the treatment of mild essential hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension, 19(9), 697-704.

Chodzko-Zajko, W., Jahnke, R. and Working Group. (2005). National Expert Meeting on Qi Gong and Tai Chi: Consensus Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 14-16. (Larkey, L.K: Working/Writing Group member).

Choi, J. H., Moon, J., & Song, R. (2005). Effects of sun-style tai chi exercise on physical fitness and fall prevention in fall-prone older adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(2), 150-7.

Chou, K., Lee, P. W. H., Yu, E. C. S., Macfarlane, D., Cheng, Y., Chan, S. S. C., et al. (2004). Effect of tai chi on depressive symptoms amongst chinese older patients with depressive disorders: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19(11), 1105-7.

Elder, C., Ritenbaugh, C., Mist, S., Aickin, M., Schneider, J., Zwickey, H., et al. (2007). Randomized trial of two mind-body interventions for weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 13(1), 67-78.

Faber, M. J., Bosscher, R. J., Chin A Paw, M. J., & van Wieringen, P. C. (2006). Effects of exercise programs on falls and mobility in frail and pre-frail older adults: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87(7), 885-96.

Fransen, M., Nairn, L., Winstanley, J., Lam, P., & Edmonds, J. (2007). Physical activity for osteoarthritis management: A randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating hydrotherapy or tai chi classes. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 57(3), 407-14.

Freemont, A. J., & Hoyland, J. A. (2007). Morphology, mechanisms and pathology of musculoskeletal ageing, 211(2), 252-259.

Galantino, M. L., Shepard, K., Krafft, L., Laperriere, A., Ducette, J., Sorbello, A., et al. (2005). The effect of group aerobic exercise and t'ai chi on functional outcomes and quality of life for persons living with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 11(6), 1085-92.

Gatts, S. K., & Woollacott, M. H. (2006). Neural mechanisms underlying balance improvement with short term tai chi training. Aging-Clinical & Experimental Research, 18(1), 7-19.

Gemmell, C., & Leathem, J. M. (2006). A study investigating the effects of tai chi chuan: Individuals with traumatic brain injury compared to controls. Brain Injury, 20(2), 151-156.

Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., Kelley, M. E., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., Wolf, S. L., et al. (2007). Tai chi and perceived health status in older adults who are transitionally frail: A randomized controlled trial. Physical Therapy, 87(5), 525-35.

Hammond, A., & Freeman, K. (2006). Community patient education and exercise for people with fibromyalgia: A parallel group randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 20(10), 835-46.

Hart, J., Kanner, H., Gilboa-Mayo, R., Haroeh-Peer, O., Rozenthul-Sorokin, N., & Eldar, R. (2004). Tai chi chuan practice in community-dwelling persons after stroke. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27(4), 303-4.

Hartman, C. A., Manos, T. M., Winter, C., Hartman, D. M., Li, B., & Smith, J. C. (2000). Effects of T'ai chi training on function and quality of life indicators in older adults with osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(12), 1553-9.

Hass, C. J., Gregor, R. J., Waddell, D. E., Oliver, A., Smith, D. W., Fleming, R. P., et al. (2004). The influence of tai chi training on the center of pressure trajectory during gait initiation in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(10), 1593-1598.

Hogan, M. (2005). Physical and cognitive activity and exercise for older adults: A review. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60(2), 95-126.

Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., & Oxman, M. N. (2007). Augmenting immune responses to varicella zoster virus in older adults: A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 511-7.

Irwin, M. R., Pike, J. L., Cole, J. C., & Oxman, M. N. (2003). Effects of a behavioral intervention, tai chi chih, on varicella-zoster virus specific immunity and health functioning in older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 824-30.

Irwin, M., Pike, J., & Oxman, M. (2004). Shingles immunity and health functioning in the elderly: Tai chi chih as a behavioral treatment. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(3), 223-232.

Jahnke, R. (2002). The healing promise of qi: Creating extraordinary wellness through qigong and tai chi. Chicago, Il: Contemporary Books.

Jin, P. (1992). Efficacy of tai chi, brisk walking, meditation, and reading in reducing mental and emotional stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 36(4), 361-370.

Jones, B. M. (2001). Changes in cytokine production in healthy subjects practicing guolin qigong: A pilot study. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1(8), September 29, 2008.

Judge, J. O., Lindsey, C., Underwood, M., & Winsemius, D. (1993). Balance improvements in older women: Effects of exercise training. Physical Therapy, 73, 254-265.

Kemp, C. A. (2004). Qigong as a therapeutic intervention with older adults. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 22(4), 351-373.

Kutner, N. G., Barnhart, H., Wolf, S. L., McNeely, E., & Xu, T. (1997). Self-report benefits of tai chi practice by older adults. Journals of Gerontology, 52B(5), P242-6. Lan, C., Lai, J. S., & Chen, S. Y. (2002). Tai chi chuan: An ancient wisdom on exercise and health promotion. Sports Medicine, 32(4), 217-224.

Lan, C., Chou, S., Chen, S., Lai, J., & Wong, M. (2004). The aerobic capacity and ventilatory efficiency during exercise in qigong and tai chi chuan practitioners. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 32(1), 141-50.

Lansinger, B., Larsson, E., Persson, L.,C., & Carosson, J.,Y. (2007). Qigong and exercise therapy in patients with long-term neck pain: A prospective randomized trial. Spine, 32(22), 2415-2422.

Larkey, L., Jahnke, R., Etnier, J., & Gonzalez, J. (in press). Meditative movement as a category of exercise: Implications for research. Journal of Physical Activity & Health,

Lee, L. Y. K., Lee, D. T. F., & Woo, J. (2007). Effect of tai chi on state self-esteem and health- related quality of life in older chinese residential care home residents. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(8), 1580-2.

Lee, M. S., Jeong, S. M., Kim, Y. K., Park, K. W., Lee, M. S., Ryu, H., et al. (2003). Qi-training enhances respiratory burst function and adhesive capacity of neutrophils in young adults: A preliminary study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(1), 141-148.

Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review. Rheumatology, 46(11), 1648-51.

Lee, M. S., Chen, K. W., Sancier, K. M., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for cancer treatment: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Acta Oncologica, 46(6), 717-22.

Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., & Ernst, E. (2007). Is tai chi an effective adjunct in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 15(6), 597-601.

Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Guo, R., & Ernst, E. (2007). Qigong for hypertension: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Hypertension, 25(8), 1525-32.

Lee, M. S., Pittler, M. H., Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Ernst, E. (2007). Tai chi for cardiovascular disease and its risk factors: A systematic review. Journal of Hypertension, 25(9), 1974-5.

Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Choi, E. S., & Chung, H. T. (2003). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, blood pressure determinants and ventilatory function in middle-aged patients with essential hypertension. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 31(3), 489-497.

Lee, M. S., Lee, M. S., Kim, H. J., & Choi, E. S. (2004). Effects of qigong on blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other lipid levels in essential hypertension patients. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 777-786.

Lee, M. S., Lim, H. J., & Lee, M. S. (2004). Impact of qigong exercise on self-efficacy and other cognitive perceptual variables in patients with essential hypertension. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 10(4), 675-680.

Lee, M., Soo Lee, M., Kim, H., & Moon, S. (2003). Qigong reduced blood pressure and catecholamine levels of patients with essential hypertension. International Journal of Neuroscience, 113(12), 1691.

Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2005). Falls self-efficacy as a mediator of fear of falling in an exercise intervention for older adults. Journals of Gerontology.Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60B(1), P34-40.

Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & Shirai, M. (2003). A simpler eight-form easy tai chi for elderly adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11(2), 206-18.

Li, F., Harmer, P., Chaumeton, N. R., Duncan, T., & Duncan, S. (2002). Tai chi as a means to enhance self-esteem: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 21(1), 70-89.

Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., & McAuley, E. (2004). Tai chi: Improving functional balance and predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(12), 2046-2052.

Li, F., Harmer, P., Fisher, K. J., McAuley, E., Chaumeton, N., Eckstrom, E., et al. (2005). Tai chi and fall reductions in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology.Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60A(2), 187-194.

Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Chaumeton, N., et al. (2001). An evaluation of the effects of tai chi exercise on physical function among older persons: A randomized contolled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 139-46.

Li, F., Harmer, P., McAuley, E., Fisher, K. J., Duncan, T. E., & Duncan, S. C. (2001). Tai chi, self-efficacy, and physical function in the elderly. Prevention Science, 2(4), 229-39.

Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., Irbe, D., Tearse, R. G., & Weimer, C. (2004). Tai chi and self- rated quality of sleep and daytime sleepiness in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(6), 892-900.

Li, F., Fisher, K. J., Harmer, P., & McAuley, E. (2002). Delineating the impact of tai chi training on physical function among the elderly. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2 Suppl), 92-7.

Li, J. X., Hong, Y., & Chan, K. M. (2001). Tai chi: Physiological characteristics and beneficial effects on health. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(3), 148-56.

Li, Z. Q., & Shen, Q. (1995). The impact of the performance of wu's tai chi chuan on the activity of natural killer cells in peripheral blood in the elderly. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, (14), 53-56.

Maciaszek, J., Osiski, W., Szeklicki, R., & Stemplewski, R. (2007). Effect of tai chi on body balance: Randomized controlled trial in men with osteopenia or osteoporosis. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(1), 1-9.

Maddalozzo, G. F., & Snow, C. M. (2000). High intensity resistance training: Effects on bone in older men and women. Calcified Tissue International, 66(6), 399-404.

Mannerkorpi, K., Arndorw, M., Mannerkorpi, K., & Arndorw, M. (2004). Efficacy and feasibility of a combination of body awareness therapy and qigong in patients with fibromyalgia: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(6), 279-81.

Mansky, P., Sannes, T., Wallerstedt, D., Ge, A., Ryan, M., Johnson, L. L., et al. (2006). Tai chi chuan: Mind-body practice or exercise intervention? studying the benefit for cancer survivors. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 5(3), 192-201.

Manzaneque, J. M., Vera, F. M., Maldonado, E. F., Carranque, G., Cubero, V. M., Morell, M., et al. (2004). Assessment of immunological parameters following a qigong training program. Medical Science Monitor, 10(6), CR264-70.

Matsuda, S., Martin, D., & Yu, T. (2005). Ancient exercise for modern rehab: Tai chi promotes wellness and fitness among a wide range of patients. Rehab Management: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Rehabilitation, 18(2), 24-27.

McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Parker, S. W., Scarborough, D. M., Wayne, P. M., & Wolf, S. L. (2005). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation improve vestibulopathic gait via different neuromuscular mechanisms: Preliminary report. BMC Neurology, 5(1), 3.

McGibbon, C. A., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Wayne, P. M., Scarborough, D. M., & Parker, S. W. (2004). Tai chi and vestibular rehabilitation effects on gaze and whole-body stability. Journal of Vestibular Research, 14(6), 467-78.

Morales, F. J., Martinez, A., Mendez, M., Agarrado, A., Ortega, F., Fernandez-Guerra, J., et al. (1999). A shuttle walk test for assessment of functional capacity in chronic heart failure. American Heart Journal, 138, 291-298.

Motivala, S. J., Sollers, J., Thayer, J., & Irwin, M. R. (2006). Tai chi chih acutely decreases sympathetic nervous system activity in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A- Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(11), 1177-80.

Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., Gill, D. L., Roscoe, J. A., Lang, D., & Murphy, K. (2004). Tai chi chuan, health-related quality of life and self-esteem: A randomized trial with breast cancer survivors. Supportive Care in Cancer, 12(12), 871-6.

Mustian, K. M., Katula, J. A., & Zhao, H. (2006). A pilot study to assess the influence of tai chi chuan on functional capacity among breast cancer survivors. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 4(3), 139-45.

Nowalk, M. P., Prendergast, J. M., Bayles, C. M., D'Amico, F. J., & Colvin, G. C. (2001). A randomized trial of exercise programs among older individuals living in two long-term care facilities: The FallsFREE program. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(7), 859- 65.

Orr, R., Tsang, T., Lam, P., Comino, E., & Singh, M. F. (2006). Mobility impairment in type 2 diabetes: Association with muscle power and effect of tai chi intervention. Diabetes Care, 29(9), 2120-2.

Pippa, L., Manzoli, L., Corti, I., Congedo, G., Romanazzi, L., & Parruti, G. (2007). Functional capacity after traditional chinese medicine (qi gong) training in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: A randomized controlled trial. Preventive Cardiology, 10(1), 22-5.

Rogers, C. E., Larkey, L. K., & Keller, C. (2009). A review of clinical trials of tai chi and qigong in older adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(2), 245-279.

Ryu, H., Jun, C. D., Lee, B. S., Choi, B. M., Kim, H. M., & Chung, H. T. (1995). Effects of qigong training on proportions of T lymphocyte subsets in human peripheral blood. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 23(1), 27-36.

Ryu, H., Mo, H. Y., Mo, G. D., Choi, B. M., Jun, C. D., Seo, C. M., et al. (1995). Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in qigong (chun do sun bup) trainees by multitest cell mediated immunity. American Journal of Chinese, 23(2), 139-144.

Sancier, K. M. (1996). Medical applications of qigong. Alternative Therapies, 2(1), 40-46. Sancier, K. M. (1999). Therapeutic benefits of qigong exercises in combination with drugs. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 5(4), 383-389.

Sancier, K. M., & Hu, B. (1991). Medical applications of qigong and emitted qi on humans, animals, cell cultures, and plants. American Journal of Acupuncture, 19(4), 367-377.

Sattin, R. W. (1992). Falls among older persons: A public health perspective. Annual Review of Public Health, 13(1), 489-508.

Sattin, R. W., Easley, K. A., Wolf, S. L., Chen, Y., & Kutner, M. H. (2005). Reduction in fear of falling through intense tai chi exercise training in older, transitionally frail adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(7), 1168-1178.

Shen, C., Williams, J. S., Chyu, M., Paige, R. L., Stephens, A. L., Chauncey, K. B., et al. (2007). Comparison of the effects of tai chi and resistance training on bone metabolism in the elderly: A feasibility study. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(3), 369-81.

Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2003). Effects of tai chi exercise on pain, balance, muscle strength, and perceived difficulties in physical functioning in older women with osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(9), 2039-44.

Song, R., Lee, E., Lam, P., & Bae, S. (2007). Effects of a sun-style tai chi exercise on arthritic symptoms, motivation and the performance of health behaviors in women with osteoarthritis. Daehan Ganho Haghoeji, 37(2), 249-56.

Spirduso, W. W., Francis, K. L., & MacRae, P. G. (2005). Physical dimensions of aging (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Stenlund, T., Lindstrom, B., Granlund, M., & Burell, G. (2005). Cardiac rehabilitation for the elderly: Qi gong and group discussions. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, 12(1), 5-11.

Sun, X. S., Xu, Y. G., & Xia, Y. J. (1989). Determination of e-rosette-forming lymphocyte in aged subjects with tai ji quan exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 10(3), 217- 219.

Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Froelicher, E. S. (2004). The effectiveness of tai chi exercise in improving aerobic capacity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(1), 48- 57.

Taylor-Piliae, R. E., & Haskell, W. L. (2007). Tai chi exercise and stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 14(4), 9-22.

Thomas, G. N., Hong, A. W. L., Tomlinson, B., Lau, E., Lam, C. W. K., Sanderson, J. E., et al. (2005). Effects of tai chi and resistance training on cardiovascular risk factors in elderly chinese subjects: A 12-month longitudinal, randomized, controlled intervention study. Clinical Endocrinology, 63(6), 663-9.

Tsai, J., Wang, W., Chan, P., Lin, L., Wang, C., Tomlinson, B., et al. (2003). The beneficial effects of tai chi chuan on blood pressure and lipid profile and anxiety in a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine., 9(5), 747-754.

Tsang, H. W. H., Fung, K. M. T., Chan, A. S. M., Lee, G., & Chan, F. (2006). Effect of a qigong exercise programme on elderly with depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(9), 890-7.

Tsang, H. W. H., Mok, C. K., Yeung, Y. T. A., & Chan, S. Y. C. (2003). The effect of qigong on general and psychosocial health of elderly with chronic physical illnesses: A randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(5), 441-9.

Tsang, T., Orr, R., Lam, P., Comino, E.,J., & Singh, M. F. (2007). Health benefits of tai chi for older patients with type 2 diabetes: The "move it for diabetes study"- A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(3), 429-439.

Verhagen, A. P., Immink, M., van der Meulen, A., & Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A. (2004). The efficacy of tai chi chuan in older adults: A systematic review. Family Practice, 21(1), 107- 13.

Voukelatos, A., Cumming, R. G., Lord, S. R., & Rissel, C. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of tai chi for the prevention of falls: The central sydney tai chi trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(8), 1185-91.

Wang, C., Roubenoff, R., Lau, J., Kalish, R., Schmid, C. H., Tighiouart, H., et al. (2005). Effect of tai chi in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 44(5), 685-7.

Wang, C., Collet, J. P., & Lau, J. (2004). The effect of tai chi on health outcomes in patients with chronic conditions: A systematic review.[see comment]. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(5), 493-501.

Wayne, P. M., Kiel, D. P., Krebs, D. E., Davis, R. B., Savetsky-German, J., Connelly, M., et al. (2007). The effects of tai chi on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 88(5), 673-80.

Wayne, P. M., Krebs, D. E., Wolf, S. L., Gill-Body, K. M., Scarborough, D., McGibbon, C. A., et al. (2004). Can tai chi improve vestibulopathic postural control? Archives of Physical and Medicine & Rehabilitation, 85, 142-152.

Drs R. Jahnke and L. Larkey - A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi – accepted with revisions, by 52 The Am. Journal of Health Promotion. Do not circulate without the direct permission of the lead author.

Wenneberg, S., Gunnarsson, L., & Ahlstrom, G. (2004). Using a novel exercise programme for patients with muscular dystrophy. part II: A quantitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(10), 595-602.

Winsmann, F. (2005). The effect of tai chi chuan meditation on dissociation in a group of veterans. (Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University). Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology, 147.

Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Ellison, G. L., & Coogler, C. E. (1997). The effect of tai chi quan and computerized balance training on postural stability in older subjects. atlanta FICSIT group. frailty and injuries: Cooperative studies on intervention techniques. Physical Therapy, 77(4), 371-81.

Wolf, S. L., Coogler, C., & Xu, T. (1997). Exploring the basis for tai chi chuan as a therapeutic exercise approach. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(8), 886-92.

Wolf, S. L., O'Grady, M., Easley, K. A., Guo, Y., Kressig, R. W., & Kutner, M. (2006). The influence of intense tai chi training on physical performance and hemodynamic outcomes in transitionally frail, older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A-Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 61(2), 184-189.

Wolf, S. L., Sattin, R. W., Kutner, M., O'Grady, M., Greenspan, A. I., & Gregor, R. J. (2003a). Intense tai chi exercise training and fall occurrences in older, transitionally frail adults: A randomized, controlled trial... includes commentary by lavery L and studenski S. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1693-701, 1804-5.

Wolf, S. L., Barnhart, H. X., Kutner, N. G., McNeely, E., Coogler, C., Xu, T., et al. (2003b). Selected as the best paper in the 1990s: Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: An investigation of tai chi and computerized balance training. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1794-803.

Woo, J., Hong, A., Lau, E., & Lynn, H. (2007). A randomised controlled trial of tai chi and resistance exercise on bone health, muscle strength and balance in community-living elderly people. Age & Ageing, 36(3), 262-8.

World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. Second World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, Spain.

Xu, S. W., & Wang, W. J. (1986). A study of the effects of tai ji quan on endocrinology. Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 150-151.

Yang, Y., Verkuilen, J., Rosengren, K. S., Mariani, R. A., Reed, M., Grubisich, S. A., et al. (2007). Effects of a taiji and qigong intervention on the antibody response to influenza vaccine in older adults. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35(4), 597-607.

Yeh, G. Y., Wood, M. J., Lorell, B. H., Stevenson, L. W., Eisenberg, D. M., Wayne, P. M., et al. (2004). Effects of tai chi mind-body movement therapy on functional status and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Medicine, 117(8), 541-8.

Young, D. R., Appel, L. J., Jee, S., & Miller, E. R.,3rd. (1999). The effects of aerobic exercise and tai chi on blood pressure in older people: Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(3), 277-84.

Zhang, G. D. (1990). The impacts of 48-form tai chi chuan and yi qi yang fei gong on the serum levels of IgG, gM, IgA, and IgE in human. Journal of Beijing Institute of Physical Education, 4, 12-14.

Zhang, J., IshikawaTakata, K., Yamazaki, H., Morita, T., & Ohta, T. (2006). The effects of tai chi chuan on physiological function and fear of falling in the less robust elderly: An intervention study for preventing falls. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 42(2), 107- 116.

Zugck, C., Kruger, C., & Durr, S. (2000). Is the 6 minute walk test a reliable substitute for peak oxygen uptake in patients with dialated cardiomyopathy? European Heart Journal, 21, 540- 549.

Some Web Resources

• Canada Qigong Research Society (http://canadaqigong.org)

• Chi Center, Petaluma, CA (http://www.chicenter.com)

• Energy Arts, Fairfax, CA (http://www.energyarts.com)

• Literati Tradition, YeYoung Culture Studies (http://www.literati-tradition.com/qi_gong_and_tai_chi.html)

• Pangu Shengong, San Francisco, CA (http://www.pangu.org/english)

• Radiant Lotus Qigong, Kahuna Valley, HI (http://www.radiantlotusqigong.com)

• Qigong Institute, Los Altos, CA (http://www.qigonginstitute.org)

• Qigong Research and Practice Center, Nederland, CO (http://www.qigonghealing.com)

• Qigong Research Society, Mt Laurel, NJ (http://www.qigongresearchsociety.com)

• Qigong T'ai chi ch'uan Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi_chuan)

• Qigong Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong)

• Wuji Productions (http://www.wujiproductions.com)

The Literati Tradition website is especially useful for well written background and history of qigong (scholarly, concise, and well referenced). The Qigong Institute website has access to peer-reviewed references and other resources. Pmrich (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Some News about Qigong (from Qigong Institute)

The Harvard Health Review: The Harvard Health Review calls Tai Chi "medication in motion" and describes how tai chi when combined with standard treatment is helpful for a range of conditions including arthritis, low bone density, breast cancer, heart disease, heart failure, hypertension, Parkinson's disease, sleep problems, and stroke. Harvard Medical School, Harvard Health Publications, May, 2009 (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2009/May/The-health-benefits-of-tai-chi)

Wall Street Journal: 'Alternative' Medicine Is Mainstream - The evidence is mounting that diet and lifestyle (including practices such as Qigong, Tai Chi, and Yoga) are the best cures for our worst afflictions. Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009 (http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJ010909.pdf)

Time Magazine: "Tai Chi is the perfect exercise". Time Magazine July 31, 2002 (http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TimeMag31Jul02.pdf)

New York Times: "The face of exercise is changing in America. Instead of relentlessly pursuing a sculptured physique, people are chasing longevity, stress reduction and improved health through mind-body practices like qigong. The realm of working out has shifted from people just wanting to build bulk and lean, toned muscles to them understanding that the inner health of the body is just as important as the outer health." New York Times April 5, 2007 (http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/NYTimes5Apr07.pdf)

Wall Street Journal: The Next Yoga: a Sweat-Free Workout Giving Up on Perfect Pecs, Boomers Embrace Qigong -- Is Qigong Tiger Wood's Secret Weapon? Wall Street Journal May 13, 2003 (http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/WSJournal13May03.pdf)

Los Angeles Times: A new study published in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society describes the "striking immunity-boosting effect" of Tai Chi, the most well-known moving form of Qigong. Tai Chi "builds aerobic conditioning. It relaxes the body's response to stress, which tends to intensify as people age. And it increases the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain". Los Angeles Times April 24, 2007 (http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/LATimes24Apr07.pdf)

US News and World Report: "Tai chi, the most famous branch of Qigong, or exercises that harness the qi (life energy, pronounced "chee"), has been linked to health benefits for virtually everyone from children to seniors. Researchers aren't sure exactly how, but studies show that tai chi improves the quality of life for breast cancer patients and Parkinson's sufferers. Its combination of martial arts movements and deep breathing can be adapted even for people in wheelchairs. And it has shown promise in treating sleep problems and high blood pressure." US News & World Report, November 26, 2010 (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/pain/articles/2010/11/26/for-health-benefits-try-tai-chi.html)

Pmrich (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Basis for Re-write

Let's focus on scientific basis, including randomized controlled trials concerning health benefits:

Scientific Review

Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.

Concise Summary: This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated consistent, significant results for nine categories of health benefits: bone density (n = 4), cardiopulmonary effects (n = 19), physical function (n = 16), falls and related risk factors (n = 23), quality of life (n = 17), self-efficacy (n = 8), patient-reported outcomes (n = 13), psychological symptoms (n = 27), and immune function (n = 6).

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090

Manuscript: http://www.instituteofintegralqigongandtaichi.org/pdfs/ReviewRJLL0509.pdf

Qigong and Energy Medicine Database: http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/database.php

Pmrich (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[redacted] [This paper] is not exactly world-class: it reviews several trials, yes, but also states that one group was performing Qigong and Tai Chi exercises, with the other doing "nothing special". Given that one group is exercising, and one group is not doing anything, I would expect to see an improvement in the same areas (bone density, balance, cardiovascular, quality of life, etc) if a person exercised normally. All the paper proves is that "doing Qigong is better than sitting on a chair". [redacted] I fail to see any proof [that qigong can cure serious disease] in the single review. [redacted] I have had a quick look through [the link to the Qigong and Energy Medicine Database], and found some truly amazing studies. One of them says that cancer is caused by the weather, and some studies (from actual hospitals) also on the site say that qigong is not beneficial to health - that in fact it causes mental disorders, including psychosis. One of them - at http://www.qigonginstitute.org/shopping/preview_abstract.php?id=184 - claims something to do with breaking the speed of light using qigong, and curing cancer by doing so. [redacted] I don't doubt that it's relaxing, and I don't doubt that people believe in the quasi-religious aspects of it, but I do doubt that it is any more beneficial to health than light excersise and muscle stretching routines. The Cavalry (Message me) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and insight. [redacted] I certainly don't want to be in a position to try to defend untenable research. [redacted] On the other hand, the Jahnke et al. 2010 publication does have merit (and limitations like all research), and it provides a first cut at sorting through the literature. Does qigong have more health benefit than other exercise (or for that matter physical therapy or other accepted health modalities), and if so is it because it also includes other features that may also benefit health (e.g., controlled breathing, relaxation, meditation, aesthetics, group participation, prayer, spiritual belief, focus on qi...)? Anyways, below are a few more resources. Pmrich (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

References moved to separate section to keep page readable

Let me be quite clear about the scientific view on this: qigong does not have any health benefit over exercise. [redacted] Certainly, the list of references and sources [redacted] is not only overwhelming, but overly biased in favour of traditional Chinese therapies. [redacted] [In terms of relying on] resources from the 'Qigong Institute' - said institute is obviously financially biased in deciding which studies it links to. Why not rely on unbiased sources - for example, those of medical agencies, health charities and people with medical degrees? Those sources will not be biased - at least, not as much. The Cavalry (Message me) 07:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

is a Mayo Clinic study biased? why is this not included in the wiki article? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160 http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies Shape55 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[redacted] [The statement that] "the scientific view on this: qigong does not have any health benefit over exercise", [redacted] perhaps correct, perhaps not, [is] far from "proven", and far from being "the consensus" of the broader scientific community. In fact, most studies do not address this well, and it is not trivial to conduct good controlled studies that can be so definitive. [redacted] [Scientists] and medical researchers are notoriously curious and skeptical [redacted]. By the way, "The Qigong Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to Qigong research and education to promote public health. It is supported solely by membership and donations. Officers and Board Of Directors members are volunteers, and there is no paid staff. Donations and membership help pay for the operation of the website." Note inclusion of this information is not meant to promote this organization, just to encourage accuracy. [There is both excellent and questionable research in the database.] Indeed it is a good question whether qigong has health benefit over exercise (both "qigong" and "exercise" are big categories). Yes, we need reliable sources and participation by additional experts. [redacted] Pmrich (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Plan

Priorities:

• Dispute: resolve to assure neutrality, reliable references from scientific and medical sources, factual accuracy, tone

• Theory: reduce traditional view to concise treatment, move detailed treatment of qi to Qi article; expand principles (coordination of breath, focus, meditative state, body alignment, stance, relaxed muscles, fluid motion, balance and counterbalance, aesthetic sense...); expand contemporary view with basic concepts (alternative and scientific interpretation - mind-body intervention, exercise physiology, biofeedback, stress management, neural pathways, meditation and trance states, breath control...)

• History: reduce to concise treatment, move detailed treatment to new History of Qigong article

• Health Benefits (or lack thereof): add section with traditional view, contemporary claims, scientific/medical view

• Literature: consolidate, cleanup, eliminate references that do not meet Wikipedia standards (scientific, medical, etc.)

• Solid Edit: focus on organization, clarity, tone, consistency of voice, brevity; eliminate redundancy and wordiness

• Photographs: add interesting and informative photographs to illustrate major points (Commons will be useful)

Pmrich (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the above a litte bit - it's a plan, so we all need to agree :-) . The Cavalry (Message me) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. The article needs strong editing and new writing to bring it to a new level. Let's keep in mind that the treatment needs strengthening, including basics about qigong (the subject of the article), history, philosophy, culture, art, along with science and medicine. Pmrich (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, looking forward to the re-editing. The article already appears to be under revision right now by vitalforce. It will be great to build towards a high quality article with everyone's contribution. ottawakungfu (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to see interest in working together on this article. I've started on a bit of cleanup. Thank you, Ottawakungfu, for all your contribution to date (significant rewrite)! Vitalforce (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some sections in the chinese qigong page that are worth putting in the English version also. (e.g Qigong classification 分类 3.1 硬氣功 3.2 軟氣功 , Qigong branches 氣功的派別 4.1 吐納 4.2 禪定 4.3 存想 4.4 內丹 4.5 導引術 , The sensations of Qi 氣感) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.46.141 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What would it take?

What would it take to resolve the problems on this article?

Its references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Tagged since September 2011. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since September 2011. Its tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. Tagged since September 2011.

A tall wishlist, indeed. But it seems like something worth working on. Is there anyone else actively editing this page? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is improving. It is a controversial subject so that will be many strong points of view. I disagree with the tags. Since the rewrite, most of the references are from reliable sources. There are less factual inaccuracies and editors have tried to address any questions raised. I believe the tone is appropiate for this article but tone and style is subjective. I have left the tags on because the editor that provided those tags feel strongly that the article needs to be improved in those areas. ottawakungfu (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are close to resolving the problems with this article and that this is a good time to discuss removing the tags. A simple comparison of the current article with the article in September shows major improvement. Here is my assessment:

• Dispute: neutrality is now good; most references are now reliable; factual accuracy is now good; tone is now consistent and good
• Theory: traditional view is now concise; details of qi are moved to the Qi article; principles are sketched in but need fleshing out; contemporary view and basic concepts are sketched in but need fleshing out
• History: history is now concise; detail is now in separate article
• Health Benefits: now organized in separate subsections (Claims and medical research; Mental health; Controversy); traditional view, contemporary claims, and scientific/medical view are concisely stated
• Literature: references now meet standards; key references added and unreferenced text removed
• Solid Edit: Organization, clarity, tone, consistency, and brevity are now good; most redundancy has been eliminated; Zou huo ru mo details were moved to a separate article; cross links with related articles are now good; navigation box is now constructed
• Photographs: photographs and other illustrations are still lacking

What is needed before the tags are removed? Are there specific outstanding problems?

Vitalforce (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Beyond removing the tags, here are some priorities:

• Literature: check systematically for reliability
• Philosophy: eliminate redundancy and add a bit more depth in Meditation and self-cultivation subsection (not out of proportion with rest of article)
• Theory: flesh out principles and contemporary view/basic concepts
• Health Benefits: summarize conclusions of more scientific and medical references (see extensive reference list above; search medical databases and recent books for new findings)
• Photographs: solicit additions to the Commons

Vitalforce (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My only real reservation now is the last section, "Shifting views of qigong", which is rather woolly and only referenced to a Qigong source. If the last paragraph of that section was removed I would support removing all the tags.--Charles (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "controversial" is helpful as a descriptor of anything. Everything is controversial. That's not saying anything. Let's not focus on that. There is a lot of literature out there that is not being deployed in this article. I would be happy to contribute to the historical, theoretical, anthropological, and political aspects of qigong for this article, if others could take care of other portions. There are a few excellent books on the subject that I'm familiar with, as well as some journal articles. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the final section completely for two reasons: the first paragraph had no sources whatsoever; the second paragraph was fine, but it was not contextualized properly. Contrary to Charles, I think it is perfectly appropriate to have the perspective of qigong practitioners reflected in an article about qigong. The problem is, how to do that. For now, to enable us to tear off those tags, I've just removed it. Why do I not like tags? Because I feel like they are the kinds of things Wikipedians obsess about and aren't all that helpful for the reader. It's much better to focus on how to improve the content so that tags aren't necessary as quickly as possible. Thoughts? Don't mean to be too bold. [u]I've added the removed section below.[/u] The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying the perspective of qigong practitioners should not be in the article, just that the section seemed to be claiming a wider belief in those views without sources to back this up.--Charles (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article! Yes, TheSoundAndTheFury, I am especially pleased if you are able to contribute to fleshing out historical, theoretical, anthropological, and political aspects of qigong. Have you had a good look at the separate Qigong history article (still needs more cleaning up, but has some excellent information)? My time and ability to work at the computer are limited, but I hope to continue to contribute (my professional expertise is strongest in the science and philosophy realms). I agree it was appropriate to delete the last section until it is recrafted with proper references and a cleaner last paragraph. What do you think about removing the neutrality tag (still in place)? Vitalforce (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote and added back the "Shifting views of qigong" section, with references. Let me know what you think. Also, what do you think about removing the neutrality tag? Are there any specific outstanding issues that need to be addressed? Vitalforce (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed material

Shifting views of qigong

Traditionally, qigong training has been esoteric and secretive, with knowledge passed from master to student. Over the centuries, the exchange of ideas between various elements within Chinese society has created a more unified overview of qigong practice even though each segment maintains its own detailed interpretations and methods. In China, the emphasis has shifted increasingly on health benefits, traditional medicine, and scientific perspective, with decreasing emphasis on traditional aspects of qigong practice, though with notable exceptions.

In contrast, while most practitioners worldwide also focus on health benefits, many have also accepted the philosophical elements of qigong practice and pay homage to its rich past. The traditional philosophical, medical, and martial arts origins are recognized and used as justification for the effectiveness of qigong.

Section rewritten and added back. Vitalforce (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Health benefits

... This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, qigong studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects. Research has not been conducted to evaluate the importance of different facets of qigong practice such as exercise, meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, depth of practice, and difference in forms.

"Scientific"

The article has quotation marks around the word "scientific" throughout the article. These need to be removed. Quotes are usually meant to express sarcasm or doubt. Sarcasm has no place, and doubt needs to be expanded in the text, not left unexplained. Greenman (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks. Previously the word "scientific" was used in quotes four times, all in reference to usage in specific historical context (presumably not sarcastic), and not in quotes for multiple cases when the word "scientific" is used in other context elsewhere. Let's see if anybody thinks we need the quotation marks back. Vitalforce (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907), the term qigong as it is currently used was coined in the Maoist era of the 1950s, specifically in the 1957 book "Experience in Healing with Qi Gong" by Liu Guizhen 劉貴珍 (1920–1982) to emphasize health and scientific approaches, while avoiding association with ancient spiritual practices and mysticism.

Rewritten and added back. Vitalforce (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

suggest to rephrase

" Although the characters qi (氣) and gong (功) have been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "

as

" Although the term qigong (氣功) has been traced back to Taoist literature in the early Tang Dynasty (618-907) "

《太清調氣經》：“服氣功餘暇，取靜室無人處，散發脫衣，...” - 隋唐間著作

气功标准教程, 北京体育大学出版社, 第1版 (2006年9月1日), ISBN: 7811005409

119.236.12.247 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Author: Yang Bai Long. Date: 2006. Title: 气功标准教程 Qi gong biao zhun jiao cheng = Qigong Standard Guide. Publisher: 北京体育大学出版社 Beijing ti yu da xue chu ban she = Beijing Sports University Press.

Could you please translate this passage? It would be good to include in the article. Vitalforce (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The natural Qi regulation scripture(太清調氣經) is one of the books in the Orthodox Taoist Canon (Daozang). The term qigong is used in the following sentence

... 煉氣法又因服氣功，餘暇取靜室無人處，...

translated as

... (We) 煉practice氣the qi法method又因for服the ingesting氣 qi功 gong (skill). 餘暇 At leisure, 取 find靜室 a quiet room無人處 without people. …

The term ingesting Qi (服氣) is used throughout the book and is a qigong method by regulating breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.12.82 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

History

In the 1990s Li Hongzhi filled a "spiritual void" by introducing Falun Gong, which included qigong exercises and teachings that renewed emphasis on spirituality, morality, and the supernatural. Popularity of Falun Gong grew rapidly, and in 1999 was banned as a "heretical organization" and "cult".

More text to consider - already in Qigong history and Falun gong. Vitalforce (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I added back a bit more about contemporary history and "qigong fever". Vitalforce (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV) dispute

Let's work together to resolve the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) dispute. As rewritten does the article now conform with NPOV guidelines and could we remove the NPOV tag? If you feel the article still does not maintain a NPOV please "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" and "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article". Vitalforce (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues:

• promotion and advertisement - removed, checked links
• statement of traditional perspective as fact - reworded with proper qualifiers
• emphasis of historical interpretation - moved details to history article with rewording and qualifiers; eliminate remaining bias and ensure clear, concise treatment of recent history without omission
• health benefits - eliminate remaining bias, limit to reputable sources with qualifiers
• pseudoscience - eliminate remaining bias, limit to reputable sources with qualifiers.

I propose that we address any remaining issues and remove the NPOV tag. Vitalforce (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I support Vitalforce's motion to remove the NPOV tag. I like to thank Vitalforce for the hard-work and contribution to the clarity of this article. ottawakungfu (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a good faith effort to ensure Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Given that major issues have been addressed and there are no specific issues under discussion or identified as outstanding, I am removing the NPOV tag. Vitalforce (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits recommended by Unsigned 220.246.188.143

Remove Tai chi section: Creating a section on taichi under definition is misleading. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Do you have reliable sources specifically countering those in the article? The section on Tai Chi does mention that, while related, the two are distinct and separate. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I favor the previous wording What is Qigong? Tai chi subsection is relevant, referenced, and properly placed. Vitalforce (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many forms of Qigong. Why should we specifically compare taichai and qigong under the definition section. Shouldn't we create a separate comparision table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tai chi is well known and popular therefore the section is added to make sure the reader knows the difference or similarity. So I am ok with current the structure. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the placement, at least for now. I considered moving this under martial arts applications, but favored earlier because many people want to understand the distinction between qigong and tai chi. The tai chi subsection certainly can be further improved without making it long, and it make sense to add more about the relation with other specific martial arts. Vitalforce (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Add table comparing qigong and other exercise: The following has been classified as original research, unreferenced and undone. I thought these are well understood. Can someone be kind enough to help to find some reference or help to create a better table to give Qigong a better perspective?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.188.143 (talk) 6 March 2012

	Qigong	Yoga	Stretching Exercise	Strength Exercise	Martial Art (Kung Fu)	Meditation
Muscle training (direct or indirect)				Emphasized	Emphasized
Tendon stretching		Emphasized	Emphasized
Deep relaxation	Emphasized	Emphasized				Emphasized
Mental focus on body parts	Emphasized
Breathing control	Emphasized
Fighting and defense					Emphasized
Breathing frequency	Decrease			Increase	Increase
Heart beat				Increase	Increase
Improve blood circulation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Religious association	Not necessary	Not necessary	Not necessary	Not necessary	Not necessary	Not necessary

A table comparing different practices could be useful, but I do not know of any published references. The table as presented is problematic in that serious practitioners in any of the disciplines would likely include all of your categories (e.g., yoga and qigong both involve a lot of muscle training) and the main differences are likely what defines the practice (e.g., martial arts for fighting). You make a good point that we should consider what readers want to know (i.e., what is qigong and how is it distinct and similar in comparison with other practices). Vitalforce (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Add qi "experiment": People can read through the article but not knowing what actually Qi and Qigong is. I tried to put a description of a simple experiment but it has been removed by a robot which considered it as vandalism. The original description is as follows:

• Stand up, relax yourself, loosen up all the joints and be open-minded.
• Slowly raise the forearms until they are at right angle to the upper arms.
• Imagine that you are holding a balloon in front of your belly.
• Imagine that the balloon slowly inflates and pushes your palms apart.
• The force will become stronger when you are more relaxed.
• Many people can feel this force on an initial attempt.
• This is one of the sensations of Qi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.44.131 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Different people interprets Qigong differently so this type of content should not be in the article. ottawakungfu (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken that it would be good to communicate more experiential accounts about qi and qigong, but this is not appropriate in its current form. In the future it might make sense to briefly summarize some major teaching techniques (worded rather differently, but with the basic idea), though I feel at present there are many higher priorities for this article (see priorities in discussion above). Vitalforce (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Add qualifier about martial arts: This statement "The practice of qigong is an important component in Chinese martial arts." should be rephrased to "The practice of qigong is an important component in SOME Chinese martial arts". There are many forms martial arts which do not have a Qigong component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.44.131 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion. So I incorporated the change. ottawakungfu (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We cite the 1997 reference Qigong Empowerment by Shou-Yu Liang and Wen-Ching Wu. On page 238 the authors clearly state the following: "Wushu is the proper term for Chinese martial arts. It is usually classified into two divisions, mainly the Internal Style division and the External Style division. Martial styles such as Saholinquan, Chaquan, Bajiqun are considered to be External Styles; and Taijiquan (Tai Chi Chuan), Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, Liuhbafa are considered to be Internal Styles. Regardless of the classification, each style has qigong in their training." "Traditional martial arts training has always included qigong as part of their internal energy training." Vitalforce (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Neijia page says Nèijiā (Chinese: 內家; literally "internal school") is a term in Chinese martial arts, grouping those styles that practice nèijìng (Chinese: 內勁; literally "internal strength"), usually translated as internal martial arts, occupied with spiritual, mental or qi-related aspects, as opposed to an "external" (Chinese: 外; pinyin: wài) approach focused on physiological aspects. The distinction dates to the 17th century, but its modern application is due to publications by Sun Lutang, dating to the period of 1915 to 1928. --> For the internal style, Qi is an important component. Any additional reference that Qi is also an important component for the external style? 1.36.44.112 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many references explain that qigong is important for external styles. See Styles of Chinese martial arts: External and Internal and List of Chinese martial arts: Internal and external styles. Please read Wikipedia Help:Editing, research and read reliable sources, and base any editing contributions on what is written in those sources. Also, if you plan to edit on Wikipedia, I suggest you first set up a user account and establish a mentor. Vitalforce (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading the page Styles of Chinese martial arts: External and Internal, I believe I understand where "my problem" arises. In Chinese, the term 內功 (internal training) is more commonly used than the term 气功 (Qigong) in the context of martial art and the term 气功 (Qigong) is more often heard of in the context of 硬气功 (the hard Qigong branch of martial art). The two terms probably mean the same to most people. Internal training is considered as an advanced training for the external style. From people that I know (and some of them are martial art teachers), they practise the external style without going for this advanced training. Of course, people will think that the training is not complete without the advanced part. The page Styles of Chinese martial arts: External and Internal may be a better link for the words "internal and external". Thanks guys for the clarification. Thanks to Vitalforce for his dedication on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.46.141 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewording: "A person is believed to become ill or die when qi becomes diminished or unbalanced. " --> suggest to rephrase as "It is believed that a person will become ill when Qi becomes unbalanced and a person will die if qi is exhausted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.189.2 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer original wording. Also rewording leaves out "diminished". Vitalforce (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The oldest Qigong diagram

The oldest discovered Qigong diagram is from the western Han dynasty Mawangdui tomb (206 BCE– 9 BC). The diagram is named "Tao Yin Diagram".

http://chimed.cmu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=789

1974年湖南長沙馬王堆三號漢墓出土的《導引圖》，是現存最早的一卷保健運動的工筆彩色畫。這是西元前3世紀末的作品，相當於中國西漢前期。

119.236.12.247 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but this fact is mentioned in the history of qigong section. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately(?) can't use primary sources neither. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please translate this. Vitalforce (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sensations

There's barely anything in this article to stop readers coming away with the idea that qigong is just another pilates. The whole big deal about qigong (according to all sorts of books, not just me) is that the kind of feelings it produces don't stop at "I feel exercised". They can also include "There is a tangible field of warm tingling energy in my hand that I can draw up and down my arm at will". Qigong's abstractions have experiential basis. I'm no qigong expert, but still come away from this article feeling that its authors just don't get it. 92.30.13.19 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.125.110.120 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical Research

Original Text - Claims and medical research (from 23:59, 28 October 2012)

Qigong has been purported to enhance health and well-being with many benefits, including improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. Many of these claims are supported only by anecdotal evidence, traditional lore, and teachings in master/student lineages. Research examining health benefits of qigong is increasing, but there is little financial incentive to support research and still only a limited number of studies meet accepted medical and scientific standards of randomized controlled trials (RCT). In a 2010 comprehensive review of qigong and tai chi, a literature search of peer-reviewed journals in medical databases for the period of 1993-2007 found a total of seventy-seven RCT studies that examined the benefits of qigong and Tai chi practice. The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:

• Bone density: prevented bone loss and increased bone mineral density;
• Cardiopulmonary effects: decreased blood pressure and heart rate, increased heart rate variability, and improved biomarkers;
• Physical function: improved performance indicators (e.g., chair rise, 50-ft walk, gait speed, muscle contraction strength, flexibility);
• Falls and related risk factors: decreased falls and increased balance;
• Quality of life: improved perceived physical health, psychological state, social relationships, etc.
• Self efficacy: improved confidence and ability to manage health problems, pain, stress, and novel situations;
• Patient reported outcomes: decreased reporting of pain, improvement of diverse symptoms including discomfort and sleeplessness;
• Psychological symptoms: decreased anxiety, depression, perceived stress, and fear; improved mood and biomarkers such as stress hormones (e.g., lower cortisol);
• Immune function and inflammation: improved immune blood markers (e.g., leukocytes, eosinophils, and antibodies) and decrease inflammation markers (e.g., cytokines, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6).

While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise. The authors called for further studies with standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). They concluded that qigong and tai chi have similar beneficial effects and have advantages of low cost, low risk, and high accessibility.

Vitalforce (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Health Benefits Review Article

A Comprehensive Review of Health Benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi

by Roger Jahnke, Linda Larkey, Carol Rogers, Jennifer Etnier, and Fang Lin

Abstract

Objective: Research examining psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi is growing rapidly. The many practices described as Qigong or Tai Chi have similar theoretical roots, proposed mechanisms of action and expected benefits. Research trials and reviews, however, treat them as separate targets of examination. This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both.

Data Sources: The key words tai chi, taiji, and qigong were entered into electronic search engines for the Cumulative Index for Allied Health and Nursing (CINAHL), Psychological Literature (PsychInfo), PubMed, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar.

Study Inclusion Criteria: RCTs reporting on the results of Qigong or Tai Chi interventions and published in peer reviewed journals published from 1993–2007

Data Extraction: Country, type and duration of activity, number/type of subjects, control conditions, and reported outcomes were recorded for each study.

Synthesis: Outcomes related to Qigong and Tai Chi practice were identified and evaluated.

Results: Seventy-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The 9 outcome category groupings that emerged were: bone density (n=4), cardiopulmonary effects (n=19), physical function (n=16), falls and related risk factors (n=23), Quality of Life (n=17), self-efficacy (n=8), patient reported outcomes (n=13), psychological symptoms (n=27), and immune function (n=6).

Conclusions: Research has demonstrated consistent, significant results for a number of health benefits in RCTs, evidencing progress toward recognizing the similarity and equivalence of Qigong and Tai Chi.

Vitalforce (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that this was similar to physical exercise is found in the 4th paragraph under the "Discussion" section. Note that you are now edit warring, which is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the review, not personal opinion of me or you or any other editor, the original language should be retained. Note your undoing my change would be interpreted as an inappropriate start of an editing war. Note the further clarification with qualification concerning exercise. Many of the studies were blunt tools in terms of distinguishing qigong and exercise. Vitalforce (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of exercise is in the review. Again, read the 4th paragraph of the Discussion section. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the following was included: "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." Your edit changes the emphasis and misrepresents the findings of the review, apparently to support your own position. Vitalforce (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How does it misrepresent the findings? Yobol (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the quality of the qigong article, and in other articles relating to health and medicine. As you point out, mention of similar results is "in the 4th paragraph of the Discussion" (not even mentioned in the abstract, and not the main emphasis of the review, since this was not a rigorous analysis of comparison with ordinary exercise. There are many other Discussion points that may better be emphasized. Is your concern addressed by the following language? "While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, many of the same studies showed similar effects with ordinary physical exercise." This appears adequate. I am glad to see you working directly with the reference. Vitalforce (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read the article and from my perspective the current description in the wikipedia accurately reflects the review article and takes care to use the review article itself to place its findings in the context of other interventions. It is important wikipedia does this to remain encylopedic and not lose the big picture while examining this form of exercise. It is not clear to me, Vitalforce, why you prefer the language you propose instead of what is there.Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your input. And Yobol, thanks for additional edits. Yes, we need to work directly from the cited references, in this case the review article. I have read the review article carefully and encourage us all to represent that source accurately. They emphasize strict criteria for including studies, specific benefits, the grouping of qigong and tai chi, and only secondarily topics such equivalence to "ordinary exercise", and then with richness of detail, qualifiers, and care not to step beyond the findings. The current version adds spin not present in the article, and appears to have an agenda. I am sensitive to this as a professional scientist and researcher who has published extensively. While I have my own opinions and criticisms of the review, overall it is well executed and the best synthesis available, and of course this is not a forum for any of our own opinions or spin. I propose that we move mention of ordinary exercise back in proper context after the main points of the review article. By the way "medical qigong" is the term used in many sources. Vitalforce (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I too deal in research and read carefully. You have no monopoly on that. I do not agree that the current text adds "spin". What spin do you see? And please stop making accusations about "agendas" - please assume good faith WP:AGF. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The review paper specifically addresses two questions: "Research question 1: What health benefits are evidenced from RCTs of Qigong and Tai Chi?" and "Research question 2: In examining the Qigong and Tai Chi practices incorporated in research, and the evidence for health benefits commensurate with each, what claims can be made for equivalence of these two forms of practice/exercise that have typically been considered to be separate and different?" Only some studies had an exercise treatment group: "Although some of the studies compared Qigong or Tai Chi to other forms of exercise (n = 13), many compared Qigong or Tai Chi to a nonexercise treatment control group such as education or usual care (n = 43) and some used both exercise and nonexercise comparison groups to evaluate effects of Qigong or Tai Chi interventions (n = 11)." In discussion health benefits are emphasized, and analysis includes consideration of exercise and other treatments: "The preponderance of studies showed significant, positive results on the tested health outcomes, especially when comparisons were made with minimally active or inactive controls (n = 52)." "For the most part, however, these nonsignificant findings occurred in studies in which the control design was actually a treatment type of control expected to produce similar benefits, such as an educational control group intervention producing similar outcomes to Tai Chi for self-esteem, aerobic exercise showing similar results to Qigong in reducing depression, an acupressure group successfully maintaining weight loss compared to no intervention effect for Qigong, or resistance training producing similar (nonsignificant) effects as Tai Chi for muscle strength, balance, and falls. It is important to note that although the Tai Chi and Qigong interventions did not produce larger benefits than these active treatment controls, in most cases substantial improvements in the outcome were observed for both treatment groups." Non-significant improvement was observed with "(1) study designs of shorter duration (4–8 weeks, rather than the usual 12 or more weeks), although there were some exceptional studies with significant results after only 8 weeks; (2) selection of very health-compromised participants or individuals with conditions that do not generally respond to other conventional treatments or medicines... or (3) the outcome measured was not noted as particularly problematic nor set as an eligibility criteria for poor starting levels at baseline (n = 5)." Similarity of results with exercise was noted: "On the other hand, in the areas of research that address outcomes typically associated with physical exercise, such as cardiopulmonary health or physical function, results are fairly consistent in showing that positive, significantly larger effects are observed for both Tai Chi and Qigong when compared to no-exercise control groups and similar health outcomes are found when compared to exercise controls."

I propose reverting to the original language before the list of nine categories:

The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:

I suggest the following revision after the list:

While almost all of these studies showed positive benefits of qigong and tai chi practice, studies with treatments of other physical exercise tended to have similar effects. Greater positive benefits were observed in studies that compared qigong and tai chi to no-exercise control groups, and similar positive health outcomes were found when compared to active therapy such as aerobic exercise or resistance training, or other treatments such as educational intervention and acupuncture. The authors called for further studies with standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). They concluded that qigong and tai chi have similar beneficial effects and have advantages of low cost, low risk, and high accessibility.

Vitalforce (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we reach consensus and proceed? Are there any concerns or discussion about the proposed edits? If not, I will proceed as proposed. Vitalforce (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you twice now, what spin you see and you have not answered. What is wrong with the current text, exactly? Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The original text simply states the main findings of the review: nine categories of health benefits. This was edited to emphasize equivalence with "ordinary" exercise, not even mentioned in the abstract. Spin results from formulating conclusions beyond those of the authors (synthesis and opinions of some editors). Exercise and other intervention (education, acupuncture…) were included as treatments in a subset of studies and this can be adequately included with explanation and qualification and proper emphasis (see original text above, recent edits, and proposed edits). Why is it important to you to add the emphasis on comparison to "ordinary exercise", and why is that not spin? Do you have a problem with the proposed text? Vitalforce (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above: the current text "accurately reflects the review article and takes care to use the review article itself to place its findings in the context of other interventions. It is important wikipedia does this to remain encyclopedic and not lose the big picture while examining this form of exercise." The review article does discuss how qigong/tai chi compares to regular exercise - the authors themselves are very careful to always say how subjects doing qigong/taichi did compared to controls and noted if those controls were active exercise. and as yobol pointed out the authors do summarize their findings with respect to active exercise in paragraph 4 of the discussion - they synthesize it; not editors here. so it is neither OR nor synthesis nor spin to talk about active exercise. and to the extent that this section is talking about medical claims for qigong, it is especially important that wikipedia clearly transmit information from the review on how qigong compares to similar interventions. The current text says nothing bad about qigong whatsoever, and I really do not understand why you are objecting to it so much.Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am curious why you want to highlight exercise when this is not the emphasis in the review's abstract or conclusion. Would you please meet on middle ground that retains the original statement of the main finding of the review, and place language about exercise in the paragraph after the list of benefits, where it can be properly contextualized? The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a positive role in each of nine categories:" is one of two main conclusions of the review and follows the "important Wikipedia" principle "to remain encyclopedic". Yes, it is fine afterwards to elaborate that based on a smaller subset of studies qigong/tai chi showed similar positive benefits with other exercise (and with education and acupuncture). The statement "The review reported that qigong practice played a similar positive role to ordinary physical exercise in each of nine categories:" is neither one of the main conclusions, nor it it strictly true in that exercise (and education and acupuncture treatments) did not display all the nine categories. Let's craft this so it is factually correct and represents the conclusions of the review. Also, let's craft an explanation that the review (and the studies it reviews) recognize that qigong combines movement, controlled breath, focused attention, and meditation (not the same as other exercise). Vitalforce (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the Mayo Clinic study is not included in this article. this is essential: http://www.springforestqigong.com/index.php/sfq-for-health-professionals/medical-studies http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X10008160

I came across this as well if someone wants to google for the research studies: http://yanxinqigong.net/research/index.htmShape55 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Medical research update

I have updated the medical research section with systematic reviews. I should note that the Jahnke review that is being discussed above is a lower type of evidence (a literature review) and there I trimmed it for WP:WEIGHT purposes (I would also not object to its removal; a study that does not assess the underlying quality of data is not really worth mentioning here, I think). Yobol (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Health Benefit

Agree that the statement "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials." in the summary section is a scientific one. But it is just one of the points for "The main arguments from the view of skeptics against the correlation between qigong practices and health-related results are:". It should be grouped under the same section. So1308 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation, So1308.

Here is the blow by blow. You removed the brief statement of the medical consensus from the lead, in this dif and an IP address (you?) deleted again after I reverted you, in this dif. The first edit note said "not appropriate to highlight just one point of the controversy in a summary" and the second said "rephrase reason for moving the paragraph to the controversy section - this is just one of the points from skeptics.".

I reverted twice, first in this dif and then in this dif with edit notes reading "statements of the scientific consensus are not part of a controversy. we state those in wikipedia's voice, and prominently" and "No, this is not a "statement by skeptics" It is a statement of the medical consensus. Please see Talk and please read WP:MEDRS."

The sentence is "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials." with the source being " Lee MS, Oh B, Ernst E (2011). "Qigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews". JRSM Short Rep. 2 (2): 7. doi:10.1258/shorts.2010.010091. PMC 3046559. PMID 21369525.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This article is discussing health matters, so WP:MEDRS applies. MEDRS states that "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

The source for this statement, is as excellent as it gets under MEDRS - it is not just a review, but a review of reviews. This sentence states the medical consensus on what we know about the health benefits of Qigong with a neutral point of view (please see WP:NPOV). And yes, it belongs in the lead as per WP:LEAD, which says "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The medical consensus on what we know about health benefits is definitely among the "most important aspects" of an article that spends so much space discussing effects on health.

Please explain, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, why the sentence does not belong in the lead. This is not a "statement by skeptics" - it is a consensus statement on the science. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A skeptic is just a person who questions the validity, authenticity, or truth of something. Being a scientist and a skeptic has no conflict. The conclusion from the review is just "inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" (as of 2011). The subject is still open and there are many new studies by the medical community. The point is still just one point from the skeptics. The other four points from skeptics are equally strong and valid. So1308 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to talk! I am not sure what "other four points" you are talking about, sorry. The scientific perspective is inherently skeptical - I agree with you. If someone makes a health claim, that X is good for Y, that has to be backed up with data; if there is currently insufficient data to make a judgement as to whether the claim is true, a scientist acknowledges that. And this is exactly what the subject sentence says - "evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive". As long as this article makes health claims, the scientific perspective (what you call "the skeptics") must be front and center. That is what WP:MEDRS says... right? Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence and Support Rewrite

I would like to start a more directed discussion on the medical evidence and support for Qigong in the talk pages before making changes. I've been talking with several people and some suggested the following change, which I think we should implement.

Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice are widespread and include improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”

Would this change be acceptable to everyone? If not, what specifically is the problem with it, and how can we come to consensus on a more unbiased and balanced view of the Qigong research which, though not yet definitive, is highly supportive and provides some evidence.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. CJ (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

On another note, we might want to consider the following:

I do believe that we might find something useful in Peter Wayne's recent book - Harvard Medical school Guide to Tai chi.

I agree CJ. I consider statements from Harvard Medical School researchers to have high credibility. Kleinpj (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Conventional medical science on the Chinese art of Tai Chi now shows what Tai Chi masters have known for centuries: regular practice leads to more vigor and flexibility, better balance and mobility, and a sense of well-being. Cutting-edge research from Harvard Medical School also supports the long-standing claims that Tai Chi also has a beneficial impact on the health of the heart, bones, nerves and muscles, immune system, and the mind. This research provides fascinating insight into the underlying physiological mechanisms that explain how Tai Chi actually works. However, nomenclature is a problem. We accept that qigong is a group of modalities: quiet meditation, moving meditation, self massage, external applications including a number of additional modalities such as cupping, tapping, 'sword finger' , even diet and herbal remedies. The vast majority of recent research is limited to moving meditation using tai chi postures. We can assume the premise that tai chi forms can cultivate qi and use the current research to our advantage to promote qigong with the caveat that this is a very limited inquiry.

Again - I'd like to hear your thoughts. CJ (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If by "unbiased" you mean that it must say that qigong is effective, we cannot do it. There are widespread claims made about many many things (magnet therapy, echinacea, drugs in clinical trials) and wikipedia does not parrot them. Unless something is proven to be safe and effective and there is a solid scientific consensus behind that, we cannot say that it is. Let me repeat that - unless something is proven safe and effective and there is a solid scientific consensus behind it, we cannot say that it is. If we did, Wikipedia goes to the dogs, both on the alt med (or integrative) side and the corporate side. In this case, the first half of the second sentence needs to go. I am very uncertain about the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I don't mean to indicate that it "must" say that qigong is effective. That has not yet been proven, so I agree with you. What I am saying is that, unlike magnet therapy and echinacea, qigong and other integrative health practices are beginning to demonstrate, in solid clinical trials, that it is safe, effective, and beneficial as an integrative health practice. (Not alternative, not even complimentary, but as part of a whole integrative medical perspective, taking into account the wellbeing of the whole person.) CJ (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My initial thoughts. Arguments from authority will not cut the mustard here, we need reliable sources. Your proposed edit is interesting, and could be used for any other forum of exercise. Consider ...

"Claims about heath benefits of walking the dog are widespread and include improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of walking the dog, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of walking the dog is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”

Nobody disputes that exercise is a good thing, but equally, there is nothing to suggest that Qigong has anything over and above walking the dog, or any other form of structured or ad hoc exercise. I would not support your changes to current text. When there is some scientific explanation for the more extreme parts of this fringe pseudoscience as detailed in your Harvard quote I would be prepared to reconsider. We shouldn't say any more than the equivalent of "Exercise is good for you" in Wikipedia's voice. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed references to the specific people with whom I spoke - it is irrelevent. However, I do disagree with your statement that there is nothing to suggest that Qigong has anything over and above walking the dog. What I'm saying is that recently a body of research is developing that says there is growing evidence that Qigong has additional benefits over exercise, and can be applied in more situations than just plain exercise (for example, with people who are bedridden, as there is are many Lying Down Qigong practices). Again, more research is needed. But the evidence is growing, and Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt Medical and hundreds of other highly regarded well-established medical communities are beginning to endorse Qigong and Tai Chi. CJ (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the old text is more neutral in tone. I agreed with the comments of Jytdog and Roxy the dog, the scientific consensus is just not there to make a more positive statement about qigong. The listed authority did not contribute any new information to change my opinion. I suggest we leave the tone of the article as is. ottawakungfu (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi. CJ (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The new text is clearly better and more neutral. Based on solid references, the lead statement concerning health should clearly state that claims of health benefits are widespread, that clinical studies consistently show benefits, but that systematic reviews cannot reach a definitive conclusions because of limitations of controlled trials. Please, let's be supportive of earnest efforts to improve the article. The language and tone of this discussion seems rather aggressive and biased, including labeling qigong as "fringe pseudoscience", and using unnecessarily challenging and cynical statements. First, indeed there are widespread claims about health benefits of qigong that are reviewed repeatedly in popular books about qigong as well as in the peer-reviewed medical literature, and most peer-reviewed papers start with a review of these claims, and the list "improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity" is representative and taken from a valid reference. Second, there is a substantial body of peer-reviewed literature in reputable journals that consistently finds positive benefits, and this is born out in a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials. Third, the three quotes are taken directly from the conclusion of the overview of systematic reviews and the current wording is a paraphrase that gives a different tone than the reference. Note there is not a similar literature about walking dogs; no there is not a literature that equates qigong with exercise (though that may be a good opinion); and no it is not neutral to exclude a balance of the main view of references (even if you believe this is pseudoscience). Fourth, the reasons why “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” should be explicit, in particular lack of funding for research, impracticality of double blinding, and difficulty of standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). Fifth, many references emphasize advantages of low cost, low risk, and high accessibility. Yes, it could be good to extract conclusions and quotes from Peter Wayne's Harvard Medical School Guide to Tai Chi. TheProfessor (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Professor: much of the literature compares qigong with excercise; it is often used as the intervention in one of the arms in clinical trials. You don't seem to be aware of what the literature actually says.... so it in unclear on what basis you are making any arguments here. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, greetings to you. Let's be specific about the substance of the article and what is being discussed, and not resort to trying to discredit me based on unsound and unfounded comments. Yes, I am aware of the literature, and no it is not fair of you to try to dismiss all I wrote with a sweeping statement like "it is unclear on what basis you are making any arguments here". Yes, many RTCs have an "exercise" group and often show similar beneficial effects. Rather, let's focus in on the proposed new text. The first sentence establishes that there are many claims about health benefits and provides a concise referenced list ("improving cardiovascular function, healing specific acute diseases, and increasing longevity"). Do you have a better list? In their short communication Qigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews Lee et al. 2011 begin with a statement that "Proponents of qigong recommend it for a wide range of conditions, symptoms and situations, including stress management, hypertension, chronic pain, depression, insomnia, cardiac rehabilitation, immune function and for enhancing the quality of life (QOL) of cancer patients." and reference Sancier KM. Medical applications of qigong. Altern Ther Health Med 1996;2:40–6. Claims or beliefs concerning health benefits need to be introduced up front using similar neutral language. Second, there needs to be a clear statement about what medical literature exists (the comprehensive review is appropriate). Third, there needs to be a clear statement of medical conclusions (quotes from the systematic reviews and overview of systematic reviews are appropriate). TheProfessor (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi professor. When you mention "unsound and unfounded comments", are you referring to your statement that "no there is not a literature that equates qigong with exercise"? If so, I am willing to ignore that statement and move on. If you are referring to my calling that out, I don't understand; my question was reasonable - if you make such an error, so strongly, have you even read the literature, and if not, on what basis are you making any arguments at all? Confusing. Anyway let's do move on. Addressing the new matter. First. As pointed out by me and others above, there are many many things that "people say" have wonderful effects. Heck at one point "people said" smoking was good for you. Wikipedia should not repeat what "people say" in a section on health effects. That is why there is nothing like sentence 1 in the article; these things do not "need" to be stated at all. Second. The current 2nd sentence does not make "a clear statement about what medical literature exists"; instead, of describing the literature, it makes health claims. And I do not agree that a Wikipedia should even provide "a clear statement about what medical literature exists" - that is not typical Wikipedia article content. Third, indeed, this is what Wikipedia should do -- provide "a clear statement of medical conclusions". Yes to that! Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thanks for your input. I will consider further your perspective concerning CJ's suggestions, and add a bit more discussion that clarifies my perspective later. In the meantime, could you please supply us with the specific reference(s) and quoted text that in a medically sound way equates qigong with exercise? Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So now you are showing that you have not even read our own article carefully nor looked at the sources that are already presented. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, Jytdog. Of course I have read our own article carefully, and yes I have done more than just look at the sources presented. Actually, if you look back over the past several years of my contributions I have been a major contributor to the Qigong article and have worked hard to ensure that it is clearly written, properly referenced, and neutral. This is not the question. I was only asking if you could supply us with specific reference(s) and quoted text that in a medically sound way equates qigong with exercise. Is that not a simple and civil request? TheProfessor (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor, I don't understand why you are asking me as though I am trying to introduce something new, that is not already clearly cited and discussed in the article and has been there a long time. If you want to make a point about this content and its sources please make it directly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you need sources, Prof, I think you should find them yourself, rather than asking Jytdog to find them for you !! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I encourage us to keep the discussion focused on CJ's proposed new text, and I'll offer more input after we hear from others. To clarify, in a strict sense I know of no references that explicitly equate exercise and qigong, though as the Qigong article states "Studies that compared qigong and tai chi with other physical exercises found similar effects, and greatest effects were found in studies that compared qigong and tai chi to effects in low activity or inactive participants". We certainly could revisit whether this borders on OR in that it was extracted from a review and not the conclusions of the source, per se. So I genuinely would appreciate it if you have a medically sound reference that explicitly equates exercise and qigong. As you know, statistical equivalence of two treatments in an RTC does not necessarily mean that two treatments are the same, just that they have indistinguishable effects (possibly real, or possibly artifact, for example of small sample size or poor experimental design). In my own perspective, part of qigong/exercise equivalence is definitional, in that qigong could be called a special kind of exercise, and, according to what is taught by many qigong teachers, exercise and other activities can be performed as a kind of qigong. Another part involves a more sophisticated understanding that translates what is practiced to the language of science and medicine. Specifically, qigong could be viewed as different from "ordinary exercise" because it combines slow physical movement (or stillness), coordinated with controlled breathing, a meditative state, and mental focus that builds proprioception, new neural connections, and enhanced circulation. On the other hand, there is a lot of sophisticated exercise out there. And yes, there is a lot of hot air, belief, misinformation, hopeful thinking, investment in outcome, and sloppy thinking. New literature is emerging that emphasizes perspectives of other scientific approaches, and while double-blind RCTs are not necessarily practical, much of accepted scientific understanding is based on other kinds of "proof" (e.g., gravity, evolution, greenhouse effect...). Perhaps with time we will find conclusive health benefits or lack of benefits from qigong. Of course from a Wikipedia perspective we need to be careful to stay with what is verifiable. Please assume good faith. And please be supportive of new (and old) editors. I myself prefer a gentle and friendly tone. Thanks for your contributions. Hi Roxy the dog. TheProfessor (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Four comments:

*So you have been pulling a bill clinton and you are using "equate" with unsignalled formal precision. oy. OK a) the current article does not "equate" qigong with exercise and b) I know of no source that "equates" qigong with exercise either. So why are you bringing up this whole "equating" thing at all? (real question)

No I am not "pulling a Bill Clinton". Please let's cut this derisive language. I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion, and I suspect you may be surprised how much we can actually agree upon. I value the scientific rigor, knowledge, and experience you bring to the group. While limited in time I can devote, I can make a significant contribution (I can tell you more about my background in academic science later, if you like). I'm not trying to defend fringe pseudoscience, but rather I'm interested in rigorous scientific understanding and representing current knowledge with integrity. In terms of integrity, I could not find any source that simply equates qigong to exercise, even though various Wikipedia editors pushed for this in past discussion, and I was satisfied for now with the language we crafted for the Qigong article, with the intention to improve it over time with a more sophisticated view from the literature. From my perspective dismissing qigong as simply exercise misses the observation that is made both in a traditional view, which emphasizes the coordination of controlled breath, slow relaxed movement, and a focus that involves vivid visualization and body awareness, and in the scientific/medical view, which recognizes that this combination may be especially effective in certain situation. I explain more above, including some implications for neurophysiology and healing. TheProfessor (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't care what your credentials are, nor should I. Nor should you care about mine. What matters is what we bring to the actual conversation with the words we write. If your background helps you make productive contributions, great. No one here has been asserting "equating" so I don't know why you are arguing about it. Not very productive.Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You brought up equating qigong and ordinary exercise, in your walking the dog example and in questioning whether I was familiar with literature. Two points: First, I agree that it is important to consider whether qigong and ordinary exercise like walking the dog may produce similar results (and this is why I asked if you have any medically sound sources to support this, since I know on none). Second, questioning my credibility in the way you did was not founded (because I said I know of no source), and contrary to Wikipedia's practice of being polite and welcoming. Yes, let's focus on the proposed text, not unnecessarily diverting discussion to questioning my credibility or credentials.TheProfessor (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so you are coming off a very narrow meaning of "equate". So I go back again to what I said earlier: the current wikipedia text explictly talks about studies that compared other forms of exercise to qigong and found the outcome similar. you are speaking in the present tense above: "I know of no source." The citation is right there for you to see. Why have you still not read it? Confusing. I am not questioning your personal credibility and would never do that. I have questioned why you are making arguments when you have not read the article we are discussing carefully nor studied its sources. It is a question about a) behavior and b) the basis for the arguments you are making. It is not personal. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for various studies qigong and exercise treatments have similar benefits. And yes I'm glad to know it is not personal. I understand you are referring to is the Jahnke et al. 2010 Comprehensive Review, and of course I read it and studied its sources (I'm the person who added it to the Qigong article). And no, as far as I can see it does not provide a medically sound conclusion that qigong is equivalent to exercise in either a narrow or a broad sense. Your comment "Why have you still not read it?" is unfounded. As I explained the issue of qigong and exercise is both definitional and scientific (which we could discuss more at another time if that is appropriate). For now, let's focus on the proposed changes. Yes, we need to be careful not to overstate or project our own conclusions (OR), and to represent medical conclusions properly. TheProfessor (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

yes let's leave this discussion. that was a very unproductive circle you just led me around in. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

*With respect to why there is not great RCT data - this is not relevant. We either have such data and can make definitive positive statements about health benefits, or we do not have it, and we cannot make definitive positive statements. In this case it is the latter, and it will continue being the latter until somebody who cares enough makes it happen.

Yes, this is relevant, and various sources, including systematic reviews state so. TheProfessor (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to why there is not great data. The why does not matter. The fact that there is not great data is very important.Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying why is relevant, which is part of the substance of the reviews. Explicitly, why includes lack of funding for research, impracticality of double blinding, and difficulty of standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment). TheProfessor (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

*Your statement "New literature is emerging that emphasizes perspectives of other scientific approaches, and while double-blind RCTs are not necessarily practical, much of accepted scientific understanding is based on other kinds of "proof" (e.g., gravity, evolution, greenhouse effect...)" is so so crazy. The scientific method involves doing repeatable experiments to verify hypotheses. The scientific method has been used, for example, to identify and understand gravity, evolution, and the greenhouse effect. The entire point of evidence-based medicine, which is the basis for health-related content in Wikipedia, is to bring the rigor of the scientific method more clearly to bear on medicine. The field of medicine is exactly trying to move away from "other ways of knowing" and toward the scientific method - the way that gravity was discovered. So again I don't understand where you are coming from.

No this is not some whacko statement, but rather informed by scientific literature and approaches within various disciplines. And yes, I advocate rigorous evidence-based approaches that use the scientific method. For example, the greenhouse effect as it applies to global climate change is being understood at different scales by virtue of synthetic approaches -- experiments where possible, predictive models, sensor networks, etc. No, it is not practical to do randomized controlled experiments at a planetary scale, or at the scale of time involved in evolution, in many complex systems, over the course of multiple human lifetimes, or for all the combinations scientists might want to explore. Yes, within limits we can derive rigorous scientific understanding. TheProfessor (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I see what you are saying. With some health-related matter - especially toxicology - we do rely on modeling because it is not ethical to test toxins in clinical trials. However we do not need to rely on modeling for therapeutic interventions; they can be tested in a clinical trial. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Clinical trials of qigong will always be limited by issues such as funding, inability to double blind, design issues of dosing, and other risk of bias. Other scientifically sound evidence-based approaches are important to overcome such limitations.TheProfessor (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

*I have already commented on the proposed text, saying why I find it unacceptable. You did too and I have been trying to understand your argument in favor of it. So far I have not understood your arguments.Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favor of the proposed text because 1) it summarizes the breadth of health claims (no these are not just arbitrary claims like you imply, but consistently mentioned in both popular and peer-reviewed literature); 2) it summarizes that there is a substantial body of literature that show consistent positive results (why would we want to pretend otherwise, when this is pointed out in a comprehensive review?); and 3) concise medical conclusions stated through well-written quotes (which we both agree are important to include). TheProfessor (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually using quotes in a Wikipedia article is the result of editors disagreeing about summary statements. It is actually suboptimal. I do agree we will need them in this article. Popular literature is only relevant insofar as we report on "what people say" but is irrelevant for how we actually describe effectiveness, which we will source using the best and most recent secondary sources as per MEDRS. As I wrote to cj, we cannot say there are "consistent positive results" because this is a "firm conclusion" and the most recent and best secondary sources say that "firm conclusions cannot be drawn" as even Cj's proposal statesJytdog (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good points.TheProfessor (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoaaa - seems to be a lot of nastiness getting thrown around here!! Can we tone it down and focus just on improving the article with more recent information available? Perhaps it would be better/easier to go down into the details and modify that before we start changing the introductory paragraph. Next week, I'm going to jump down into the evidence and support area that will give more specific references for the summarization we'd like to modify. Quite frankly, I have done a ton of research on this topic, and can cite chapter and verse - I just need the time to put it into a format that matches Wikipedia's requirements, which I'm just now learning about. Please give me some time, and hold off on squashing the newby, please.

As I noted, my goal is to have the article accurately reflect the current state of medical opinion about Qigong and Tai Chi, which is more positive than negative. Additionally, the comments about the reasons why there are few ramdomly controlled studies is certainly relevent. You made the case yourself, Jytdog. You said:

As pointed out by me and others above, there are many many things that "people say" have wonderful effects. Heck at one point "people said" smoking was good for you. Wikipedia should not repeat what "people say" in a section on health effects

The reason it took so long for the medical community to finally recognize how bad smoking is for humans is because it was impossible to do a randomly controlled scientific study; they only had correlational regression studies, which do not prove causation. There are still no quantifiable, well-designed scientific studies that prove that smoking is bad for you. But the evidence finally piled up even without that golden-certification of RCT, and the medical community now has gone 180 in recognition of the dangers of smoking.

I suspect the same is happening for Qigong and Tai Chi. I know that there are many skeptics. We need skeptics to reign in the unwarranted "claims" of thousands of bad, dangerous, and unhealthy practices. Nothing bothers me more than Qigong Advocates making completely unfounded claims about miraculous faith-based healings due to some magical mystery force they call "qi". But let's not be blinded to the actual evidence and support that is growing for some health practices that are becoming part of integrative medicine. There is growing evidence of the benefits of the combination of deep breathing, focused intention, and slow purposeful movements which is the basis for Qigong. I'd like to focus on what the evidence shows, and doesn't show, about this healthful practice.

I'm in the middle of another project right now, so I can't add the information this week - besides, I'd like to hear from some other people - perhaps some new people - on their opinions of making changes to the Qigong article. Anyone? CJ (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjrhoads and professor: sorry you feel that anything is uncivil here. My goal is not at all to be uncivil, but rather to be very clear. Discussion is essential to Wikipedia and I am not trying to stop it. I am trying to direct it productively. Cjrhoads the difference between smoking (or any toxic thing) and a therapeutic intervention (as you are wanting to describe qigong) is vast. We cannot ethically do clinical trials where we give people cigarettes; this is unethical since we do not expect any benefit from the intervention. So yes, we are forced to rely on getting data from epidemiological studies of humans and animal studies, and doing the best we can to work out toxicology. With qigong, we are considering it as an intervention and folks have a hypothesis that it is a safe and effective treatment for a number of things. Those are testable hypotheses. There is no bar to testing it. The fact that these hypotheses have not been adequately tested doesn't give us license to just go ahead and say "yes it is safe and effective". This would violate wikipedia guidelines and policies. It has nothing to do with how people feel about anything. It is a question of whether there is data to support a claim that qigong is "safe and effective" for any specific indication. The current text is very NPOV in describing what secondary sources say about the data we have today. We do not have sufficient data to know if any of these hypotheses are true. I am very unhappy with this effort to put a positive spin on something that "we do not know". We do not know! That is the answer. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

and just to be really painfully clear, i am by no means recommending that the article say that people shouldn't do qigong. i am just saying that the current text, stating that there is insufficient data to recommend qigong to treat or prevent any disease or condition - is accurate, and efforts to go beyond that are spin. and we don't do spin. the article should not be "anti-qigong" and I am certainly not anti-qigong. I am just opposed to making unsupportable positive claims of health benefits.Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog. I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that I'm afraid that you haven't kept up on the research. Look at WebMD, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Medical School, Vanderbilt Medical School - I could go on and on. It's almost as if you close your eyes and say "it's not there, I can't see it". The overwhelming majority of hospitals and medical communities have come, within the last five years, to the determination that Qigong & Tai Chi is safe, effective, and has positive benefits as an integrative medical practice. The evidence is growing, and clear, but needs more clinical trials to be definitive. That's what just about every synthesis and meta-analysis about the topic has said for the past five years. Your comment that we do not have sufficient data appears to me to be disengenuous because even when people show you the data, you are unwilling to look at it. Additionally, you say there is no bar to testing the hypothesis that Qigong and Tai Chi are safe and effective, but the fact is that there is a huge bar to testing that hypothesis. Unlike pharmaceutical and medical device companies who can afford to fund clinical trials because they get a return on their investment, there is no money to be made on Qigong. Add the fact that it is very difficult (though not impossible, as I explain in my peer-reviewed article published in a medical journal) to do a double blind clinical study on a behavioral therapy, then you have quite adequate reason to understand why we don't have solid proof of the efficacy of Qigong --- yet. I just want the Qigong article to be unbiased and more accurately reflect the current status of research, which is positive but not definitive due to the difficulties involved in clinical trials and the poor quality of research available so far. That's not wishful thinking. That's not putting a positive spin on something. The growing body of evidence is simply a statement of fact. Based on many references and sources acceptable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Let's look again at the text I am proposing (actually, I'm going to change it a bit to match more closely the sources): Old text:

Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

A bald statement that evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive without any context as to why, and a poor quality of the clinical trials without any explanation or mention of positive trends in non-clinical research. New text:

Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, lowering blood pressure and decreasing pain. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”

The same information, but within the context of where the researchers currently are. An indication that there may be positive benefits according to limited data, but more data is needed to draw firm conclusions. In my opinion, the second is the more unbiased statement, where as the first is a biased portrayal of the information because it is partial and incomplete. Since I thought impartial and unbiased was what we were trying for, it would make sense that the second statement would be more acceptable to the Wikipedia community as a whole. You appear to disagree, but I'm hoping for other people to be willing to consider the matter. I believe that it would be unfair for the article to be written solely based upon the opinion of someone who might not be as up to date in the research on this topic as I am. CJ (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cjrhoads. I don't mistake medical centers offering integrative medicine to meet market demand for alternative approaches as being evidence of those practices being effective to treat or prevent a disease; I don't think anybody should. With respect to the complaint that there is no funding from companies for clinical trials... this is, to be frank, just whining. Like complaining that it is raining. People work toward what their interests are. Companies invest in things that make them money. Nonprofits raise money to do things they think are worthwhile. If the community that supports qigong wants to prove that it is effective scientifically, it can raise the money to fund it. Or they can try to convince the NIH to fund it. But until there is solid evidence for an affirmative claim, we cannot make one in Wikipedia. We cannot say "almost all studies showed positive benefits" - this is a definitive, affirmative statement that is directly contradicted by the very next bit of what you wrote - we cannot draw "firm conclusions"! What can we say is exactly what the current text says "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials"Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, again. Jytdog. So now, despite the fact that well-respected medical centers such as Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt University, Tufts Medical school - despite the fact that they are all provide Integrative healthcare (NOT alternative medicine, which is not integrated into the whole medical care model, but integrative medicine, which is providing generally safe and effective mind-body therapies in treating the whole person, not just the disease) despite the fact that they support these therapies, you still cling to the notion that there is no widespread agreement in the medical community that there is value to these health practices? The current text seems to me to be stating only part of the truth, not the whole truth. Without the context, it seems just a bit misleading. Don't we want the beginning paragraphs to reflect as unbiased and accurate information as can make it? Perhaps we could compromise on something in between. Why don't you give it a try, and draft a statement that is not as minimalist as the current text, but not as fully developed as my proposed text? CJ (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

they are not offering them as effective treatments. there is a reason they are in "integrative medicine" (which is a fancy academic medical center term for "alternative medicine" - more marketing play there) -- there is a market demand for this stuff. i am not closing my eyes to anything, the place where i work offers it and my cousin is a provider of it in another state. i have no problem with any of that. i have a problem with trying to make more definitive statements about than is possible. you keep talking right past what i am saying. The minimalist statement is perfect for health effects. If you want a different section (not in "health effects") about the extent of its use and where it is used I have no problem with that. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that they are not offering them as effective treatments. I doubt that the medical establishments that provide the treatments, nor the patients who receive them, would agree with you about their ineffectiveness. And your opinion is not supported by the growing body of evidence that says that SOMETHING is working (exactly what, we don't know yet. But the therapies make a difference). Why do you think there is a market demand? Because people want to waste their time and money? I don't think so. Perhaps it is because the therapies work. I'm not talking past what you are saying, Jytdog - I'm listening intently. I'd like to think that you are open to new ideas. I hope so. So how about offering some alternative wording that provide a more balanced and unbiased statement, that provides a little context? CJ (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making this black and white. I did not say that they are offering them as "ineffective". They are "complementary" (the other name for "integrative", right?) - they are not the actual treatment. I am not going to offer an opinion on why there is market demand. People take boatloads of supplements and there is also no definitive evidence that supplements do anything. Again, it might be interesting to have a section on qigong being offered as complementary/integrative medicine. Please hear me - I am not saying that they don't work - I am saying that the best evidence that we have is that we don't know if they work and this is what the current text says. That is very very different from saying that they don't work or are ineffective. It is not a question of "being open" it is a matter of listening to the data. The world is often grey, and this is very much one of those cases. Breathe. Live with the ambiguity. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:DharmaWarriorI believe it is definitely possible to say "almost all studies showed positive benefits" if they truly did. Since no one seems to be disputing this empirical fact, then I must assume we accept it. We also seem to agree on the truth of "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" After reading all of the comments, it seems some people do not want to include information which may lead someone to a too-favorable conclusion about Qigong even though Wikipedia clearly says not to do this. However, if the language is correct, I do not believe we should be arguing over what conclusions people might make if they interpret the correct language incorrectly. Therefore, I find nothing wrong with the new wording. (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

the purpose of using authoritative reviews is that they summarize and evaluate the primary literature. and what those reviews say is that the we cannot draw any definitive conclusions from the primary sources, due to flaws in those studies. So no we cannot say "almost all studies showed positive benefits" - instead we have to say that "we cannot tell anything from the studies." Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And this seems to be the crux of this discussion: Is noting the results of a study the same as stating "cause & effect"? You seem to believe it is. I do not believe stating the results is the same as drawing conclusions, especially if it is noted not to do so. (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

JytogFrom your statements above, it appears you are prejudiced against "alt. med." and that you are not recognizing the NIH, Mayo Clinic, or Harvard Medical School as being reputable sources. Your rigidity to stick with past research, distrust of "alternative/integrative" methods, and persistence to repeat old material is questionable. If the more current sources that the Professor, CJ, and others offer you are not proof enough that we need to move forward on this, I would respectfully ask you to reflect on how you are helping in this project,or is the intention to continually throw up roadblocks of archaic sources to keep us stuck in the past as well?NatHealth1 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not prejudiced against alternative medicine. In wikipedia, if there are MEDRS compliant secondary sources that show that any intervention is safe and effective, it is great to say that in the article In the supplement/complementary medicine space, I am aware of very very few interventions where we have such sources (folic acid in pregancy is one). I would be interested to see any statement from the NIH saying that "qigong is effective to treat X" - the NIH is "a major medical or scientific body" and as such a statement from it is useful under MEDRS. Can you bring such a source? If Mayo or Harvard is simply offering qigong as complementary medicine, that is not a "source" that we use in Wikipedia. I hope you do not consider Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines to be "archaic"; I certainly don't! Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Thank you for your response and it is not that Wikipedia policies are at issue, it is that a number of people have already supplied sources/studies for you to peruse and yet the changes CJ suggest are continually rebuffed. The Professor also gave credible sources in support of the benefits of Qigong, and CJ changed the wording and diluted its strength. You were invited to help with the wording, to collaborate, and you appear to ignore any new studies presented. Others are chiming in, with support of the changes. Please review all the data given above as it appears it is not being examined, but dismissed. Appreciate your willingness to work together as a team so that we can move ahead.NatHealth1 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Under MEDRS we rely on the most recent critical review. That is reference 6: Lee MS, Oh B, Ernst E (2011). "Qigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews". JRSM Short Rep 2 (2): 7. doi:10.1258/shorts.2010.010091. PMC 3046559. PMID 21369525. That is the one that says "an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research" CJ is reaching back to an older review, that did not even review the quality of the studies, to get the "positive" statement. That is not how we do things. This is not about me, it is about sourcing policies. And others along with me are opposing this effort to make the article more positive. Please see WP:MEDASSESS.Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the heart of the matter. If this is the case, I again ask why are we not including Jahnke's meta-analysis or the Harvard Medical School's findings?NatHealth1 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss

Twice now my addition has been reverted, and I would like to discuss it before filing a dispute. I feel that erasing my additional quote is allowing an incorrect and biased quote taken out of context to remain, while erasing my quote from the same article. When Yobol undid one of my edits because I "cherry picked" a quote from a journal article that contradicted the conclusion. However, I read the entire article, not just the abstract summary, and in my opinion the other quote was the one that was "cherry picked". Rather than erase the misleading quote, I added another quote from the conclusion of the article that more fairly represented the overall views of the investigators. With both quotes, I felt there was a much more balanced representation of the conclusion of the article. Please undo you revert and allow the more accurate portrayal of the article to stand. CJ (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears you are misreading the "Conclusions" section, which states, in full, "Due to limited number of RCTs in the field and methodological problems and high risk of bias in the included studies, it is still too early to reach a conclusion about the efficacy and the effectiveness of qigong exercise as a form of health practice adopted by the cancer patients during their curative, palliative, and rehabilitative phases of the cancer journey. Since qigong exercise is preferred and widely practiced among patients with various cancers in China and Asia, further well designed large-scale placebo-controlled, randomized studies with validated outcome measures are particularly needed." The sentence you added is not from the conclusions section, but from the discussion. Your additional sentence seems to suggest that the studies on immune function were not covered by the limitations stated (methodological flaws, high risk of bias), which they most definitely are. Taking one sentence out of the "Discussion" section and trying to use it to debunk a sentence from the "Conclusions" is a definite no-no. Yobol (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yobol's reasoning is solid.Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But if you read the entire article, it is much more "positive" about the likelihood that there actually is a positive health benefit to daily Qigong practice, there just hasn't (yet) been enough well designed large-scale placebo-controlled randomized studies to make that conclusion. Since funding for such studies has some inherent difficulty (as I've reported in my own article published in a peer reviewed medical journal, which I'd like to discuss with you in the Integrative Medicine talk page) I'd like to find a way to, not "debunk", but rather put the statement quoted in perspective. I thought adding the statement I did was a non-controversial way of doing that, but you obviously disagree. I'm open to other suggestions.

Within the last year several really high quality, well-designed placebo-controlled randomized studies have been published in major medical journals identifying significant positive benefits for specific practices that many people call Qigong or Tai Chi. I plan on adding references to those when I have time, and quoting from those articles. I'll put the info here first, however, if you think there should be discussion on it.

The other change I'd like to make (but thought I would discuss it here first), is to change the sentence:

"with almost all evidence based on poor quality data, making any firm conclusions impossible to reach"

While this statement was true five years ago, it is no longer true. There are now several firm conclusions that can be stated about Tai Chi and its impact on the immune system, systolic blood pressure, Fibromyalgia, and shingles. Until I get time to compile the list of well-designed studies, however, I'd still like to change this sentence to read:

"until recently, most studies were poorly designed and therefore it was impossible to reach any firm conclusions. However, as evidence-based tai chi forms are being well-documented and used in research more often, studies are beginning to appear with strong indications of a positive effect."

Comments? If you would object to this statement, what would be necessary for you to feel comfortable with it? I'm interested in your point of view. CJ (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, is that you are trying to adjust the summary of the sources to fit your perception of what this article should say. This, of course, is opposite of what we as editors ought to be doing; our jobs is to summarize the highest quality sources (in this case, WP:MEDRS compliant sources) as best we can, regardless of what our personal feelings are. In this context, I would object to any changes that are not neutral summaries of the conclusions of WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing (noting now that any primary papers such as individual RCT that have not been evaluated in secondary sources would be premature to include here), and therefore object to the proposals mentioned above. Yobol (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

CJ, you are trying to put the cart before the horse, as Yobol has eloquently explained. You cannot change the article in this way without sources to back up your assertions. I personally doubt you have such sources, so to agree to a change of the article in this way in anticipation that you will bring such sources, but can't be bothered to find them at the moment, is not the way to go about it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cjrhoads,you write: "But if you read the entire article, it is much more "positive" about the likelihood that there actually is a positive health benefit to daily Qigong practice there just hasn't (yet) been enough well designed large-scale placebo-controlled randomized studies to make that conclusion." We don't do "crystal ball" here; there is either evidence to make health claims, or there is not. As you acknowledge, currently we don't have evidence to say much about Qigong good or bad. If there is never money for studies, we will never know which means the wikipedia article will need to remain equally silent. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agreed with Yobol , Roxy the dog, and Jytdog and try to maintain a more neutral tone for the health benefits of qigong. There is no scientific consensus on the benefits of qigong and this extends to almost any topic relating to alternative medicine. The current article provided a delicate balance providing information from both advocates and skeptics. ottawakungfu (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should maintain a neutral tone - but the current tone is not neutral, but leans toward the negative. Keep in mind that Qigong is more specifically aligned with Integrative Medicine, which is not Alternative Medicine. Since there has been quite a bit of activity surrounding Integrative Medicine recently, including scientific evidence of the effectiveness of mind-body practices, I believe it is to everyone's benefit to review the impression the articles gives. I'll start a new section to discuss some changes (below) CJ (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points CJ. The current tone is neutral enough, and certainly doesn't lean towards the negative. What we have is Wikipedia taking the mainstream view on an exercise program which proponents want to turn into a medical modality. Taking this mainstream POV is what Wikipedia obliges us to do. It becomes fringe or Alt med when you make claims for the modality that cannot be substantiated by good evidence. You have not as yet presented any good evidence in the form of sources that show real beneficial results for quigong beyond the obvious benefits of any kind of exercise.

You must also remember that the difference between Alt Med and Integretive Med is just Altmed trying to get mainstream acceptance and inclusion into mainstream use for their unproven therapies. I look forward to any reliable sources that you have showing any alternative practises turning into real medicine. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(UTC)There is more evidence/research on Qigong and T'ai Chi and this needs to be reflected in the description. The current article is not neutral. CJ is not making false or dramatic claims and this article needs to be updated. "Real medicine" definition has changed throughout time and it is now time to update the benefits of Qigong. Are the editors who are reacting so strongly to not making changes, non-practitioners of Qigong or T'ai Chi? Please advise as it is sounding like there is an unspoken agenda here. NatHealth1 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2014

I agree, NatHealth1. Thanks for your support. Roxy the dog - are you saying that in the history of medicine, there has never been a case where a practice that was originally thought to be ineffective and unscientific turned out to be an effective and accepted medical practice? Didn't the medical community laugh at the concept that doctors should wash their hands between patients?

Again, it really sounds to me like you are pushing an agenda, and not looking at the evidence. I simply ask that you go to the medical websites--

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/health-benefits-tai-chi-qigong

http://www.amazon.com/The-Harvard-Medical-School-Guide/dp/1590309421

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15006825?dopt=Abstract

http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/inside-integrative-medicine/issues/dec-2012.pdf

I could give you dozens more. Everyone says the same thing - positive results, growing evidence, not enough clinical studies, nothing definitive. Shouldn't Wikipedia's article say the same thing?

CJ (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the take home message here is "Nothing definitive", so to answer your question, no. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting. For years scientists/doctors did not know exactly how aspirin worked, yet it did, and they prescribed it anyhow. There are a number of medications out there with the same "Nothing definitive" explanation, but they work. Acupuncture works and is known primarily for alleviating pain and has been used for thousands of years. Research is just beginning to uncover a number of ways why acupuncture works. For those who say there just is not enough "science" behind it and they think it is the "placebo" effect, I ask when did animals learn about the "placebo" effect. If the editors here are not teachers or practitioners of Qigong, I would ask them to jump in and take a class. Something is amiss here and the dialogue is skewed and misleading. It's time to broaden the definition of Qigong and the health benefits.NatHealth1 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1 we do not base articles on editors' experiences from taking a class or any personal authority - please see WP:OR. All content must be based on reliable sources. For health related information, the sourcing is described in WP:MEDRS. We are discussing what the most recent and best MEDRS-compliant secondary sources say about qigong.Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:JytdogI hear what you are saying about reliable sources and I also see a pattern of refuting any change whatsoever. CJ provided links for you to peruse as well as outlining and explaining at length her suggested changes. Was any of this material read or was an immediate rebuttal instituted without any regard for what was offered? Again, I don't believe this is a balanced discussion and any attempt to broaden the definition is ignored.NatHealth1 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to broaden the definition as far as I can see - the effort here is to make more definitive health claims, which I am saying that we cannot do, because yes, I have read the sources and they consistently say that we cannot make definitive statements about effectiveness. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Let's cooperate and meet half way. If the research is not enough to convince "you," then let's reference these studies and infer that there are strong indicators of health benefits. Surely, there is a way to word this that would meet both yours and CJs standards.NatHealth1 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ and I and others here actually agree on what the literature says as a baseline; CJ's own proposal says that no firm conclusions can be drawn. CJ is trying to beyond that and say "there are positive results" but this is a firm conclusion. We cannot go there. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CJ. The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi. It is recommended by many respected and evidence-based medical resources - Harvard, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic. I support CJ's changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.31.167 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ's text revision attempts to improve the current text in this article based on recent studies. Most of the comments fail to consider that qigong itself is a personal practice that may or may not have a healing effect. The practice of qigong also does no harm to the person and may actually help a given condition. The practice of qigong is also dependent on a person's mental state and their willingness to be diligent in their practice. Most of the comments are also identifying qigong as a defined process. Since there are thousands of different qigong types and practices, one qigong type may be effective for a condition for a person while another type may have no effect. Using the word "qigong" as a general term in a medical context almost any conclusion can be drawn since the practice itself is not defined and may vary on an individual basis. The conclusion is that qigong has been shown to help in some cases but more work needs to be done to establish results of the practice.(SequimTao (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

Qigong general description

It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental focus on guiding qi through the body 調心. It is generally accepted that Qigong exercises have three components: a posture (whether moving or stationary) 調身, breathing techniques 調息, and mental intent on guiding qi through the body 調心 and possibly external to it.

The word focus is static, while the word intent is active. Most all literature about using Qigong techniques requires intent rather than focus to guide qi. Also, qi can be moved outside the body when it is directed to do so. There are many masters who refer to the existence of a Qi ball that can surround the body to provide both awareness and protection. There is also the whole topic of Qi healing that utilizes the qi from one person to affect the body of a patient. (SequimTao (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC))

I completely agree that intention is the proper word here, not focus. However, I think we need to be careful here. As long as we view qi as a magical mystery force that can be thrown around outside of the body, we are fighting a losing battle. Qi is not a magical mystery force any more than gravity is a magical mystery force. I can "prove" the impact of gravity 100% of the time. It doesn't depend upon whether or not I "believe" that something will fall to the groud. If I lift something and let it fall, gravity is demonstrated.

It may be possible that Qi can also be demonstrated, a preponderance of the time, in scientific clinical trials. Just as we can't see gravity but we can see its effect, we can't see Qi but we can see its effect. The effect may be (awaiting further proof, but identifying the evidence that is growing) 1. Lower blood pressure, 2. Increased lung capacity 3. Improved immune response, 4. Increased muscle tone and better balance, and 5) Improved production of neurotransmitters and hormones maintaining body systems such as digestion, cardiovascular, and the nervous sytem. But we need more research for proof.

The evidence is beginning to show that Qigong activity, when practiced regularly, changes the type of brain waves typically exhibited in response to stress (beta). Types of brainwaves has a domino effect on the body. Beta waves cause an overabundance of CRH (corticotropin-releasing hormone), which causes cortisol, adrenaline to flood the bloodstream. Blood pressure and heart rate goes up. Respiration becomes shallow and the rate increases. The capillaries contract. Over long term, these hormones begin to cause damage; inhibiting the digestive system, restricting nutritional absorption, causing muscle fatigue and increasing pain. When the brain exhibits alpha and gamma waves, neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, nor adrenaline, acetylcholine, GABA, and endorphins are released into the bloodstream. These are often called the "feel good" hormones because they cause a feeling of contentment and well-being. They do more than make people feel good, however. The increased neurotransmitters prompts the vagus nerve to activate, which lowers the heart rate and blood pressure. (The vagus nerve is one of the largest, and wanders around the body from the brain stem to the colon.) When the heart rate and blood pressure are lowered, that prompts the lungs to expand more fully and breath more deeply, which activates the digestive system. A smooth-working digestive system, when combined with nutritional food, improves nutritional absorption.

It may be that these underlying bodily functions are the "source" of the "magical powers" of what is called Qi. Can these effects be documented "external" to the body - i.e., the actions of one person causing the cascade of beneficial bodily changes in another person? Perhaps. But lets focus on getting documentation on the reproducable effects on one person before we start trying to heal the world, shall we? CJ (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm gratified that you support the change to intent rather than focus. While most of the remainder of the discussion is about what might happen in the body to produce external effects, I don't think this is relevant in the introductory paragraphs. The possible existence of qi external to the body needs to be developed in other paragraphs. This just lays the groundwork that qi is not necessarily confined to the practitioners body, as the original text implied. Also, there is no mention of any effects of qi in another person's body in this context, just that for some people, they can extend qi outside their body. One possible effect also is that physical phenomena caused by qi have been observed, but likely not in a laboratory setting. In this context, I'm not limiting the effect of qi for healing purposes, although it might be used as such.(SequimTao (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC))

I think you guys have been watching too much "Star Wars." Certain, I am. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can understand that position, Roxy the dog. Certainly, if you had told me twenty years ago that I could drastically reduce the pain from my back injuries due to a car accident without opiate pain medication if I did this certain exercise, focused on a certain intention, and breathed deeply for 20 minutes a day, I would have laughed in your face or called you crazy as a loon. I am a scientist, through and through. So when practicing Tai Chi and Qigong daily actually decreased my pain significantly, I was not willing to accept that it was magic. There had to be a reason. That's why I've been doing research on it for the past 10 years, and feel that it is important that we separate the chafe from the wheat. There is something to it - we just have to do more research to find out exactly what. Luckily, in recent years I'm not the only one to notice the physical changes that impact pain relief from Qigong and Tai Chi. I suspect there is more than one way to cause the physical changes to occur, but first we have to reproduce the situation to make sure it can be considered an effective treatment, and not just yet-another-unconvincing anecdote. It's only been recently that several highly regarded medical communities have really started to look into it, which is why I'm so set on making sure that the legitimacy of this research is maintained and not dismissed along with angels and magnets and faith healing. I'd also like to see a clinical protocol established that can help ascertain whether there is any basis for use of these practices in the treatment of diseases and injuries. But FIRST we need to get much more accurate about the state of the research on this topic. I hope that you will help me do that. CJ (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

/* Health Benefit */ It seems to me that one premise of this continuing discussion is based on an 'all or nothing' belief. Fact: there is a growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic benefit of qigong exercise. I support the proposed change as a more accurate representation of the 2014 state of research evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinpj (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but we cannot discuss qi like it is a real thing in a Wikipedia article.Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly, Jytdog. Qi is ill-defined, unqualified, and refers to something upon which no one agrees on the measurement. But we don't need to talk about Qi to verify the growing body of evidence that supports Qigong and Tai Chi activities (or any other slow-moving, deep-breathing, focused intention activity). These practices are evidence-based. We just need to look at the studies, and the outcomes of those studies: lower blood pressure, increased muscle tone, improved circulation, improved lung capacity, improved digestion. Let's stick with the medical terms, shall we? CJ (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

glad we are on the same page about Qi  :) Do you see all the nonsense that comes in, when we move away from the science actually supports? I realize that you must feel like you are getting it from both sides here. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Back To Basics: Which is less biased?

The conversation in other areas is getting a bit dense, so I'd like to bring it all together again in this new area.

The question: which of these provide a more unbiased, more accurate, impartial reflection of the current state of research for Qigong and other Integrative (not alternative, not complimentary, but integrative) health practices?

Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, lowering blood pressure and decreasing pain. While a comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, an overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.

(I've taken out the references at this point - but each sentence has been appropriately referenced with an acceptable reference based upon Wikipedia guidelines.)

Some editors have proposed that we should not make changes because the current statement is as far as Wikipedians should go; "almost all studies showed positive benefits" is not definitive, whereas "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" is definitive. Both are true - that fact does not appear to be in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it is more or less biased to make any comments at all that describe positive benefits until and unless we can make definitive statements about the topic.

There appears to some editors who think the second is more accurate and fair. The second way of indicating the effectiveness (poor quality research, as opposed to inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials which seems to suggest that the RESULTS of the trials was poor rather than that the positive effects cannot necessarily be generalized because it is based on poorly designed studies) seems to be more impartial and unbiased.

How do we resolve this disagreement? Comments? CJ (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have misrepresented my objection. I have been saying that "almost all studies showed positive benefits" is a definitive statement that we cannot make because it offers a firm conclusion ("showed positive benefits"). It is not true. "Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials" is a definitive statement we can make in that makes it clear that no conclusion can be drawn. It is true.Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

e/c The answer is easy. We go with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS, (MEDRS is particularly important if you want to try to make medical claims), and leave the article as it is, well sourced, and reasonably written. I suggest you try to understand what Jytdog has been so patiently explaining to yourself and the Prof. I admire his ability to remain polite in the face of extreme wilful refusal to listen WP:IDHT. Please read and try to understand.

I would like to also address your contention that the article is biased in some way. It is clear that you and the Prof lack an understanding of what bias as wikipedia views it actually means. We do not give equal weight to both sides of an issue, we give weight to the mainstream view. That is, for emphasis in this case, that the theory and practise of Quigong beyond "exercise is good for you" is, and I'm sorry to have to say it, balderdash, utterly and completely. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog is wise. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CJRhodes is wise. The article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyL226 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog you make too broad a claim when you say "the theory and practise of Quigong beyond "exercise is good for you" is, and I'm sorry to have to say it, balderdash, utterly and completely." Based on the best sources we have, we can say that we have insufficient data to say that qigong is effective for any of the indications we have been discussing; the trials have been poor, so the hypotheses that qigong is good for X, Y, or Z have been neither proven nor falsified; they simply remain hypotheses. Very different from what you said! (if the trials had been well-designed and conducted and had falsified the hypotheses you would be accurate, however) User:Bobrayner, Roxy was unwise here, and you to agree with him.Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A very wise old editor with white hair and a long beard, and a strange white linen suit once said to me, "Roxy, you need three things to edit successfully here at Wikipedia - sources, sources and sources. She was right, but I couldn't stop staring at her beard. However, I stand by my balderdash comment, as if it weren't so, we'd have the whole foundation of our understanding of the universe come crashing down because magic. As regards our approach to our current problem with this page, like you, I await good sources, and will of course support any changes required by them. If I may, I predict that nothing earth shattering will result. Also, Bob is entitled to his opinion. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny dog! To the extent qigong is exercise-y we all could do with exercise and there is no reason to balderdashize that; to the extent it is religion-y or philosophy-y it is kind of gratuitously mean to call it balderdash. To the extent people claim it is indeed most certainly good to treat X, that does goes beyond the data and is balderdashable but better to just say "that claim goes beyond the data". It is the broad application of the balderbrush that is unwise. But you have a sharper bark than i in general. and of course bob and everybody else can have their opinion including their opinion of others' opinions, this dog included. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage everybody to be familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. Roxy the dog, I encourage you to be specific when you claim I lack understanding of what bias means in Wikipedia, and encourage you not to just group CJ and me together. I am concerned that we refine the discussion to specifics of sources, well-crafted text, and being true to Wikipedia standards. TheProfessor (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: When it comes to controversial medical topics like these, it's best to stick to the recommendations of authoritative national heath organizations such as NIH, NHS, etc. I'm not familiar with the level of scientific research on Qigong, but I reckon that there seems to be relatively little work done so far in addition to the poor quality of trials, which is in line with what the current (old) text says. On the other hand, I believe in keeping things short and precise, and that means changing the phrase in the lead section from "poor quality of the clinical trials" to "poor quality research" as you've proposed.-A1candidate (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

amen. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my suggested compromise : "Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. In most cases, evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice. However, in another overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”. It is more verbose but it added information from both sides. ottawakungfu (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot say "A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that almost all of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice." If you are my husband and I ask you, "how much money do we have in the bank" and you say "I don't know, $10,000 maybe" I will not go buy a $9500 car. That would be a stupid decision with such uncertain information. As you acknowledge, the trials are too flawed to draw conclusions, so we cannot say "showed a positive benefit". I have said this about 10 times and you keep ignoring it. Again, we have only an ambiguous answer. we don't know if it works for anything or not. Please. stop. making. definitive. positive. claims. Please! Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the conclusion from Jahnke et al. (2010) "Research has demonstrated consistent, significant results for a number of health benefits in RCTs, evidencing progress toward recognizing the similarity and equivalence of Qigong and Tai Chi." This paper has been peer reviewed. How can we include this information in Wikipedia? If you don't like the conclusions of Jahnke et al. take it up with the author and the journal. I have not ignore your arguments but I am seeking a compromise. ottawakungfu (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ottawakungfu. My understanding of Neutral Point of View is just that - nuetral. Not negative. Not positive. Just the facts, Ma'am. Am I wrong? It appears to me the the current wording is negative, not neutral. The wording that Ottawakungfu has suggested is more neutral (though I would say "due to the low quality of the design of the research". Few of them would qualify as "clinical trials".) The current wording makes it sound as if there have been lots of clinical trials, but they have not shown any quality conclusions. The fact is there have been only a few clinical trials. Some have shown strong high quality conclusions, but there have not been ENOUGH of them to say that their conclusions are definitive.

I have also read the MEDRS at length, and as far as I can tell, the statements that we are trying to make are completely within those guidelines. We have sources and more sources which fit into the MEDRS definition of reliable source. Published in fully qualified peer reviewed medical journals. These studies report positive benefits, more reliable than anectodal evidence and case studies, but limited in their generalizability because of the difficulties in establishing double blind protocols with behavioral therapies. That does not mean that they are not valid, nor that they cannot draw any conclusions. What it means is that the conclusions they draw is limited to the specific environment, with the specific population, with a limited scope.

Allow me to give a specific example. New England Journal of Medicine. (N Engl J Med 2010;363:743-54.) A Randomized Trial of Tai Chi for Fibromyalgia by Chenchen Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Christopher H. Schmid, Ph.D., Ramel Rones, B.S., Robert Kalish, M.D., Janeth Yinh, M.D., Don L. Goldenberg, M.D., Yoojin Lee, M.S., and Timothy McAlindon, M.D., M.P.H.. Of the 66 randomly assigned patients, the 33 in the tai chi group had clinically important improvements in the FIQ total score and quality of life. Mean (±SD)baseline and 12-week FIQ scores for the tai chi group were 62.9±15.5 and 35.1±18.8,respectively, versus 68.0±11 and 58.6±17.6, respectively, for the control group (change from baseline in the tai chi group vs. change from baseline in the control group,−18.4 points; P<0.001). The corresponding SF-36 physical-component scores were 28.5±8.4 and 37.0±10.5 for the tai chi/qigong group versus 28.0±7.8 and 29.4±7.4 for the control group (between-group difference, 7.1 points; P = 0.001), and the mental component scores were 42.6±12.2 and 50.3±10.2 for the tai chi group versus 37.8±10.5 and 39.4±11.9 for the control group (between-group difference, 6.1 points; P = 0.03). Improvements were maintained at 24 weeks (between-group difference in the FIQ score, −18.3 points; P<0.001). No adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Tai chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment for fibromyalgia and merits long-term study in larger study populations

Another example. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. Investigators: Maria B. Ospina, B.Sc., M.Sc.; Kenneth Bond, B.Ed., M.A.; Mohammad Karkhaneh, M.D.;Lisa Tjosvold, B.A., M.L.I.S.;Ben Vandermeer, M.Sc.;Yuanyuan Liang, Ph.D.; Liza Bialy, B.Sc.; Nicola Hooton, B.Sc., M.P.H.; Nina Buscemi, Ph.D.; Donna M. Dryden, Ph.D. Terry P. Klassen, M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P.C. Research conducted by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0023). The report is filled with descriptions of the poor methodologies used by research and non-significant results for the 813 studies included in the meta-analysis, but they specifically pointed out one particular positive outcome: A few statistically significant results favoring meditation practices were found: both TM® (transcendental meditation) versus PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), and Qi Gong versus WL (waiting list) for DBP (diastolic blood pressure) and SBP (systolic blood pressure), Zen Buddhist meditation versus blood pressure checks for DBP, and Yoga versus HE (health education) to reduce stress. The positive results from these meta-analyses need to be interpreted with caution, as biases, such as expectancy bias, cannot be excluded.

Note that they said "interpreted with caution", not "there was no positive results".

When a study has a positive outcome, a conclusion can be drawn. But one or two studies is not enough to definitively say that Tai Chi/Qigong IS useful in a wide variety of circumstances, just that it MAY BE useful. Does this mean that we should report (1) "there is no evidence that Tai Chi/Qigong is helpful"? Does this mean that we should report (2) "Tai Chi/Qigong is an effective treatment"? I don't think either one of those statements fits in the NPOV or MEDRS as I understand them. I believe that the proper thing to do would be to report (3) "A positive outcome was reported, and Tai Chi/Qigong may be a useful treatment, but the topic merits long term study in larger study populations." Wouldn't anything else is a misrepresentation? What am I missing about NPOV or MEDRS which would warrant the first statement rather than the third? I'm not trying to be difficult. I truly want to understand what I am missing. CJ (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

are you now arguing to include primary studies?? Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing at all. I'm trying to understand. Can you explain a little further? I realize it may seem that I'm being obtuse, but I'm not. I don't understand why a statement that impresses me as negative and biased would be considered neutral (by you), and a more carefully worded and explanatory statement that sounds neutral to me would be considered biased (by you). I know that you think that you've explained, but what you stated makes no sense to me. You said:

I have been saying that "almost all studies showed positive benefits" is a definitive statement that we cannot make because it offers a firm conclusion ("showed positive benefits"). It is "not true".

But I don't think that the statement "showed positive benefits" is a firm conclusion if it is surrounded with "However, in another overview of systematic reviews concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”. I think, instead, it provides a more balanced, unbiased, accurate view of the reality. What makes you say that it would not be appropriate to say that? I am just trying to understand, and I appreciate your patience. CJ (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are saying the equivalent of: "It is a beautiful sunny day. I have not been outside nor can I see outside nor has anyone told me what the weather is like today." Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

But someone has told me what the weather is - the researchers who did the studies and the meta-analysis. Aren't I allowed to share what they stated?

CJ (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What the researchers are saying is: exactly "I cannot see outside": that is what the following means: “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage”". You cannot see outside but you want to say it is a sunny day - that the results are positive. But the results are not interpretable! Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate your time and effort, Jytdog. I want to thank you for hanging in there. I think I understand your point of view. You feel that wikipedia guidelines suggest that we have to be very very sure before we make any statements that would indicate firm conclusions. But it still appears to me that we don't have to to be quite so black and white. Isn't there room between all or nothing? To use your analogy, a few people are able to peak around the edges of the curtains, and are willing to posit that it might be a sunny day outside, but that we need to remove more of the curtain before we can be sure Am I wrong in thinking that it is better to share that early indications seem to demonstrate that there might be sun, based on the analysis of the researchers, but that it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage? Including both statements, as illustrated by the compromise that ottowakungfu shared - wouldn't that be okay? I've reworded the proposed change again to see if it is more acceptable to you. Would you please take a look?

Are you willing to provide alternative wording that includes some additional information, Jytdog? At the present time, it appears that the choices are:

Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials. OR Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control and pain control. A comprehensive review of random controlled trials shows that many of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice, but in most cases, strong evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the inadequate design of the existing research. A systematic review concludes that “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.

I look forward to hearing from you and anyone else who wishes to share their opinion. If we can't come to some kind of agreement on this, then perhaps it is time to ask some other editors. Isn't there a request for comments process we can use to help us work through this impasse? CJ (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You really are uncomfortably with ambiguity. If you cannot say "yes" or "no" because you don't know, you have to say "I don't know". It is not a bad thing to not know; it is the way things stand with many many things. The most recent and best review does not say it works, and it doesn't say it doesn't work. It says that we don't know. That is what we need to say. Why can you not accept this? I understand you believe that it must work because so many people do it and so many esteemed institutions offer it, but that is not how we source content in Wikipedia. You cannot say "show positive benefits." btw, I just looked again at reviews for qigong on pubmed, and there are a LOT related to its use in complementary/integrative medicine, for "quality of life" kinds of things. It seems pretty clear to me that you could generate a section on these kinds of uses (which remarkably does not exist - it should since this is how qigong is used at medical centers) and that you would be likely to be able to say something clearly positive. We'd need to dig deeper, but this seems more likely. The section you are trying to add positive content to is actually about treating diseases and conditions, and yes the bar is high to make a definitive positive statement for things like that. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes you say I am uncomfortable with ambiguity? I am not sure what you mean by that. And I disagree. You don't have to say "no", or even "I don't know". You can say "There are indicators, but I'm not sure". There's a difference, and it's a perfectly acceptable difference. I also don't understand why you are saying that I believe it must work. What I believe has absolutely nothing to do with it. What matters is the sources, and what the sources say. It seems to me that you want to hide what the sources say. I want to share what the sources say. I also don't understand your qualification of the difference between treating a chronic health problem and quality of life kinds of things. Just exactly how do they differ? If a patient decreases the amount of pain they are in because they do Qigong every day, isn't that both treating a condition and raising quality of life? If a person lowers their blood pressure because they do Qigong every day, is that treating a condition or raising quality of life? I'm not sure you can separate the two. In any case, it does sound like you are getting closer and closer to finding some way to word things so that the information presented is clearer. And there do seem to be more people sharing their opinion now than just you and me. Would you agree to disagree and allow me to make the change without reverting it? CJ (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with the second paragraph. Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion. ottawakungfu (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph is an improvement but it still says definitively "showed positive benefits." So no.Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an improvement, but could we refine the language of the second sentence to take care of concerns? How about "A comprehensive review of random controlled trials reported that many studies observed positive benefits of qigong practice..."? The wording of the rest of that sentence could be improved. Also, would it make sense to adapt the first sentence from the review of systematic reviews? "Proponents of qigong recommend it for a wide range of conditions, symptoms and situations, including stress management, hypertension, chronic pain, depression, insomnia, cardiac rehabilitation, immune function and for enhancing the quality of life (QOL) of cancer patients." (Lee et al. 2011 Qigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews). TheProfessor (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"observed" is still too definitive. If the studies are weak you cannot "observe" or "find" anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that "observed" is too definitive. Jytdog, please read Jahnke's research and Harvard Med. School's findings. Here is a dictionary definition of the word "observe":

ob·serve [uhb-zurv] Show IPA verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing. 1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street. 2. to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question. 3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse. 4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be. 5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet. NatHealth1 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither helpful nor interesting.Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I don't get your shorthand. Are you saying you don't find the Jahnke study helpful nor interesting- (if so be specific on what is not helpful and "interesting" is subjective and has no place here) or do you not get the definition of "observe," because you stated you have a problem with its use in this context? You have stated a concern with its use, yet you won't acknowledge a dictionary's definition. Have you read Jahnke's study- yes or no?NatHealth1 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to close this and move toward consensus. If I were the only editor I would not include the Jahnke reference as it is not a critical review. But I cannot convince folks to let it go, so let's see if we can use it. I cannot speak for others here, but I would accept (with markup - strikeouts are deletions and italics are additions: "Possible health benefits The effectiveness of qigong have has been studied in various medical conditions indications including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, blood pressure control, and pain control. A 2011 review of randomized controlled trials that did not evaluate the quality of the RCTs shows found that many of the selected studies showed positive benefits of qigong practice has some benefits(cite Jahnke), but in most cases, strong evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive from a scientific perspective due to the inadequate design of the existing research. A systematic review concludes that an overview of systematic reviews published later in 2011 found that published reviews were themselves of poor quality, that any claim for “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.(cite Lee) Without markup: "The effectiveness of qigong has been studied in various indications including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, and pain control. A 2011 review of randomized controlled trials that did not evaluate the quality of the RCTs found that qigong practice has some benefits(cite Jahnke), but an overview of systematic reviews published later in 2011 found that published reviews were themselves of poor quality, that any claim for “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.(cite Lee)

key things

• cardiovascular function and blood pressure control overlap, so let's use the broader one
• if we cite jahnke, we have to point out that the authors did not evaluate the quality of the studies
• the only criteria that matter are scientific for health claims, so it is redundant and misleading to say "from a scientific perspective
• we point out that Lee is later, that they did evaluate the quality of both primary studies and reviews, and found both lacking.

this is as far as I can go, and as I said I do not speak for the other editors who have opposed this addition. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I believe that is certainly a step forward. Of course, I've never seen the word "indications" used in that context, but if everyone else agrees that it works grammatically, I'm okay with that too. If I might simply add some parentheses and a modifier, I'd be okay with it:

The effectiveness of qigong has been studied in various indications including cardiovascular function, fall prevention, immune response, and pain control. A 2011 review of randomized controlled trials (that did not evaluate the quality of the RCTs) found that qigong practice has some benefits(cite Jahnke), but an overview of systematic reviews published later in 2011 found that some published reviews were themselves of poor quality, that any claim for “effectiveness of qigong is based on poor quality research”, that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.(cite Lee)

While certainly this is far from what I would like to see, I think it's an okay compromise for the introductory paragraph, and gets us far enough away from the solely negative statement that I'm willing to close this out - though, of course, I can only speak for myself and not the other editors. More information can be provided in a detailed section below which I can work on when I get more time.

So - shall we close this out? Or are there further objections? CJ (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahnke should not be used in the lead, and certainly not as discussed above. It does not do any due diligence about the quality of studies it reviews, which goes against the basics of how a systematic review should be run (see, for example, the PRISMA criteria); higher quality studies (read: more reliable sources) say that no conclusion can be reached due to the poor quality of the trials done. We have multiple higher quality reviews than Jahnke, there is no reason to use it in the lead, and certainly not as some counterweight to higher quality sources. I see numerous editors above objecting to changes to the subvert the now neutral sentence in the lead, and no consensus to change it. Yobol (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjrhoads if you have not seen "indications" used that way, that is a clear sign that you are not familiar with the medical literature, and if I were in your shoes I would be pushing much less harder than you are. Yobol has now articulated why we should not cite Jahnke more clearly than I could. My offer is withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct they are, Jytdog and Yobol, my support they have. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Jytdog,et al and find that CJ and the Professor have provided enough detailed explanations of their suggested revisions to warrant a more positive opening paragraph. Those whom disagree, I respectfully ask why you chose Qigong as your platform to edit on Wikipedia. What is your goal, intent for this listing, and why Qigong? It may help us understand, so that we can better collaborate and update this. Please advise.NatHealth1 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

JytdogI invite you to tone down your assumptions on whom you are jousting with as these comments are not adding to our discussion, but distracting. I don't need to defend CJ, as "they" can do that themselves, and I am very familiar with medical literature and the use of "indications" in this sentence is clumsy. Again, very interested on why you and your coterie are interested in Qigong on Wikipedia.NatHealth1 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1 What is clumsy? That is how the word is used in the literature that discusses testing health interventions. I am not "jousting" and have no interest in that. Unclear on why you are asking about motivation; we don't ask that here, we WP:AGF. (and this is now the second time you have raised issues along these lines) I have certainly not asked that of you. Please don't turn a disagreement about content into dark conspiracy theories. Everybody talking here should be basing arguments about content on reliable sources as they are defined in policy and guidelines, and on competent reading of those sources and our article in light of policies and guidelines. I apologize if I have been too sharp when people talking here have strayed from arguments made from those bases. We all have been talking quite a bit; there is not consensus that the most reliable sources support the content making a more broad positive statement that qigong is effective for treating the indications under discussion. Again, I think there may be a basis in recent MEDRS-compliant reviews to make a positive statement on improvement in quality of life of patients undergoing treatments for various disease and conditions, or recovering, when qigong is used as a complement -not when it is considered as the intervention to treat the disease or condition. Use as a complementary therapy is generally the way that qigong and other CAM modalities are deployed in the kinds of academic medical centers that you have mentioned. And there is no section on that - we don't discuss it at all. Why not concentrate where you may be able to get traction? Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog I hear you and agree with "as a complement." I don't believe anyone here has been implying otherwise.NatHealth1 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical Research Lead: Seeking Concensus

Let's try for consensus on something clean that strictly uses the systematic reviews and overview of systematic reviews as sources. Draft text:

Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.

Note that every condition listed corresponds to a referenced systematic review, and three recently published reviews need to be added: Lauche et al. 2013 concerning fibromyalgia, Wang et al. 2013 concerning anxiety, depression, and well-being, and Oh et al. 2013 concerning depression. All reviews address RCTs that report positive effects, and all report that primary data are of poor quality, typically because of small sample sizes and lack of proper control group. Also note, all systematic reviews (except the two on hypertension) are considered to be of poor quality based on the 2011 overview of systematic reviews, and of course systematic reviews since 2011 were not evaluated. The conclusion quotes come from this overview, and are representative of the conclusions of all the reviews. TheProfessor (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TheProfessor. I would be fine that that one. What do the rest of you think? Yobol? Jytdog? Roxy the Dog? I would like to add that while the Professor was writing that, I was working on a different one, so allow me to add it in case it would be more acceptable to everyone. [Moved to separate section below, to untangle editing conflict] CJ (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are citations for these 3 new sources sources:

• Lauche R et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of qigong for the fibromyalgia syndrome Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:635182. PMID 24288564 Concluding statement of abstract: "This systematic review found that Qigong may be a useful approach for FMS patients. According to the quality of evidence, only a weak recommendation for Qigong can be made at this point. Further high quality RCTs are required for the conclusive judgment of its long-term effects."
• Wang CW, et al The effect of qigong on depressive and anxiety symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:716094. PMID 23762156 Concluding statement of abstract: "Qigong may be potentially beneficial for management of depressive symptoms, but the results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of RCTs and associated methodological weaknesses. Further rigorously designed RCTs are warranted."
• Oh B et al. Effects of qigong on depression: a systemic review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:134737. PMID 23533461 Concluding statement of abstract: "While the evidence suggests the potential effects of Qigong in the treatment of depression, the review of the literature shows inconclusive results. Further research using rigorous study designs is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of Qigong in depression."

I am not sure we should use these sources as this journal is not MEDLINE indexed. They all seem to be well done and are recent. In any case none of these 3 articles justify a statement like "show positive health benefits". They all say things like "may be useful". Not "show positive health benefits". Those are such different statements! Subjunctive vs indicative mood. This is the ambiguity I keep talking about, that we have to convey in the article. If editors here demand the indicative mood, it can only be negative along the lines of "has not demonstrated effectiveness" - we do not have support for a statement in the indicative mood that states effectiveness. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Yes, your point about using language like "show positive health benefits" is important. The individual RTCs and the outcomes in the reviews use language that commonly refer to "effect" or "positive effect", which is acceptable language for data analysis and reporting results. Is there other language you could suggest when referring to a positive, negative, or neutral effect observed in a treatment group? Indeed, careful qualification like "may be" is important in conclusions. I'll use more care with the word choice and modify what is proposed accordingly. TheProfessor (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets us be clear. The sources are very poor, and we could not use them for what CJ and The Prof would want us to, that is as reliable sources for Medical claims. We could use them for what Alt med believers think type comment. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Roxy the dog. I'm not advocating using the three new references, and as far as I know CJ has not said anything about them. Why specifically are they "very poor"? Are there other systematic reviews that you recommend excluding from medical research discussion? Introducing the three references only adds more conditions to the list of conditions studied, but does not affect the rest of the text. TheProfessor (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog and Roxy the dog, please understand that I am trying to craft a medical research lead, based on the systematic reviews and the overview review, that specifically lists the conditions studied, states the general outcomes of the qigong treatment groups as compared to the other treatments, and states the conclusions. Is the language acceptable, and if not what specific changes do you suggest according to WP:MEDRS? TheProfessor (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical Research Lead:

I would like to add that while the Professor was writing that, I was working on a different one, so allow me to add it in case it would be more acceptable to everyone:

Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

New text: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)

It is more wordy, but specific enough to balance both sides of the issue and is not negatively biased as the original wording. If we don't want to include all that, I'm happy to go back to a general statement that many studies show some positive benefits without citation and put the details in the more detailed section, but Jytdog, Yobol, and Roxy the Dog may require the more specific statements that can be sourced from strongly supported NIH and PubMed articles. Alternatively, we can simply take out the negatively biased statement with a vague - "More information on the research-based evidence can be found in the Qigong Health Research section."

Well? What do we think? Can we agree on this? If not, please provide ALTERNATIVE wording, don't just criticize the change. I believe we need to compromise on this issue, and I am sure that we can find a way to do that. CJ (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ, it is great to want more positive wording but you have not been arguing from the sources. What source (other than Jahnke) do you have for making a positive statement in the indicative mood, and for what indication? I have not seen any. (and Jahnke is not acceptable) Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeh GY et al The effect of tai chi exercise on blood pressure: a systematic review. Prev Cardiol. 2008 Spring;11(2):82-9. 18401235 Quote from conclusion in abstract: "No adverse effects were reported. Tai chi exercise may reduce BP and serve as a practical, nonpharmacologic adjunct to conventional hypertension management" Important question - are you now saying that this article should consider qigong and Tai Chi as the same thing? Most of our sources distinguish them and it is going to complicate this discussion (and open up what I imagine will be a much more difficult and much broader discussion among those who believe they are very distinct and should not be lumped) if we start lumping them. I don't think we should use this source.
• Ospina MB, et al Meditation practices for health: state of the research. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Jun;(155):1-263. PMID 17764203 "Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." Where qigong is mentioned, it says "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure". And the end of the analytical results section ends with "Finally, the low methodological quality of all the studies included in the meta-analysis is an additional cause for interpreting all the results described here with caution." This is a great, albeit old, source.
• Park M, Song R. [Effects of Tai Chi on fall risk factors: a meta-analysis]. [Article in Korean] J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. PMID 23893224. Yes, foreign language sources can be used in Wikipedia but it is not a good idea to bring a source in a foreign language for disputed content. From the abstract it does not appear that the authors critically reviewed the studies they analyzed and so like Jahnke we should not use it for that reason too).

None of the acceptable sources here justify a positive statement in the indicative mood.Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

{moved by CJ from next section because the issue was actually here, in the previous section} The comment was struck out earlier. It was so confusing I really didn't know who said what, which is why I started the next section. CJ (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed this page and I don't see where I asked you for sources about anxiety. I'm not confused... Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Only - Another Attempt at Consensus - Intro statement on Research

I have moved the organized opinion gathering straw poll to another section below in an attempt to focus solely on the question at hand. I would remind everyone not to WP:GAME, or interpret the guidelines for medical sources too narrowly on order to fit with your own opinions of the topic. Wikipedia:MEDRS are the guidelines, and if they say sources such as PubMed, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and others are verifiable and acceptable, it is not appropriate to add additional layers of requirement. It is not proper to suppress valid and valuable information because you are personally opposed to it. My understanding is that one should ADD information to provide balance in an article, not delete. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and no one has the right to treat Wikipedia articles as their personal property, squelshing additions based on capricious and specious arguements that go far beyond the intention of the guidelines for medical sources.

I would also ask that everyone refrain from personal attacks, bullying behavior, attempts to intimidate, or unfounded accusations against particular people because you don't agree with them. If you wish to make your opinion known in the straw poll, please look to the new section I have created for ONLY opinions on the text choices. Continue your discussions, if necessary, in this section. Thank you. CJ (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ Please could you provide evidence in the form of diffs of "personal attacks, bullying behavior[sic], attempts to intimidate, or unfounded accusations against particular people because you don't agree with them." If you cannot, then please strike the above comment. Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that you or anyone else did these things. I'm simply asking everyone to refrain from doing them. CJ (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ, two three things: (note added another thing this morning Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

1 You continue to move other user's comments without their consent. You have been asked several times to not do it. Please do not do it again.Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am simply trying to organize the options to make it easier to understand where we are. You reverted my organization which made it a mess. However, I should not have moved the options, but struck them out again as I did before. I thought moving them would be cleaner, but I was wrong. Apologies. CJ (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

2 Above you make accusations of bad faith, in violation of WP:AGF. This is not a good road to go down in a content dispute. It is common for inexperienced or new editors to start making assumptions of bad faith in a content dispute, but it is a big mistake. Nobody here is working in bad faith. Please stop making such accusations. Please do not go down that road. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse you or anyone else of acting in bad faith. I simply said we should all act in good faith. CJ (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not accurate. You put it in the passive voice, but you clearly think somebody did the following: "...it is not appropriate to add additional layers of requirement. It is not proper to suppress valid and valuable information because you are personally opposed to iIt is not proper to suppress valid and valuable information because you are personally opposed to it....no one has the right to treat Wikipedia articles as their personal property, squelshing additions based on capricious and specious arguements that go far beyond the intention of the guidelines for medical sources. " and you wrote similar things to me on my Talk page in these difs. This is not a good road to go down. You have written what you have written. Best thing to do is strike it. At least own it. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

3 No one has brought a source from the Mayo Clinic, and until last night no one had brought a source from the NIH. If you read MEDRS, you will see that not every source in Pubmed is considered reliable under MEDRS, nor optimal. Again, you are stating something very confidently (even now shouting it), that is not true in multiple ways. Please stand down and just talk about things, discussing actual sources and following what Wikipedia guidelines and policies actually say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did not accuse anyone of personal attacks, bullying behavior, or attempts to intimidate. I simply said that everyone should refrain from such behavior. I made no mention whatsoever of any person. I just made a general statement asking everyone to abide by good Wikipedia guideline. I am acting in good faith, and I would hope that everyone else is acting in good faith as well. I'd like to focus solely on the wording of the replacement text for the medical research lead in, and not get into any personal discussions, motivations, or arguments about sources. Just a simple yes/or no of your opinion is requested. Feel free to add your opinion, or not. Completely up to you. Thank you so much. CJ (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You did not respond to 3, at all. Disappointing. This is part of why discussion is so hard for me. You say X. I respond to X. You ignore my response. Later you talk about X again, in exactly the same way. No progress. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide your opinion: Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

User:CJ No. I don't think this accurately portrays the consensus in the literature, but rather may appear to be misleading as to the current research status.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This accurately portrays the consensus in the literature. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? No TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu?

User:NatHealth1? No

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226 No I disagree with the old text as it does not reflect the current state of research.

Developmentalist:No, NIH Suggests there is strong evidence for certain benefits Developmentalist (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Developmentalist thanks for ringing in. Can you please provide a source for that? Also "suggests.. strong evidence" is kind of contradictory so I am very interested to see the source. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)

User:CJ Yes.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? No way. This overstates what the best sources say (even the sources provided say only things in the subjunctive). Conflates tai chi and qigong and we do not want to open that can of worms. Makes concerns about quality of evidence seem just fussy when they are essential. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? No TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu?

User:NatHealth1? Yes

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226 Yes. I agree with the new text. I prefer #1

Developmentalist: No, I think it should state that there is strong evidence for certain conditions see NIH's page on Qigong. Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.

User:CJ Yes.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This is OK... would need to qualify "increasing" relative to something. and the weasel-words "what is considered to be" must go. Health-related content in Wikipedia is science-based and you cannot keep downplaying the science. and need to tie 1st clause and subsequent clause more closely together. Like, "While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, those claims are based on poor quality data."Jytdog (talk)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? Yes (see alternative wording below). TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu?

User:NatHealth1? Yes

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

User:TheProfessor?

KathyL226 Yes. I prefer #1 but would accept #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyL226 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Developmentalist: No, many quality trials have shown positive results. Janhke et. al's review included 66 RCT's. Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".

User:TheProfessor Yes. Note that wording and substance come directly from the published overview of systematic reviews. TheProfessor (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CJ? Yes. This would be acceptable.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? I could almost live with this. But again the "growing" needs to be made relative to something or better just left out (what is the purpose of it?) making a proposal below

User:Roxy the dog?

User:Ottawakungfu?

User:NatHealth1?

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226?

Developmentalist:Yes

Anyone else?

Please add alternative wording suggestions here:

---

New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".

---

User:TheProfessor?

User:CJ?

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This is OK with me (not sure what sources we would use for everything in that list - would need to be checked if we actually use this) This removes promotional language from the beginning and the very broad claim about more research being "merited". Not sure what indications that recommendation was for and in any case, there are many many interventions that merit further research and Wikipedia generally doesn't speak to that.

User:Roxy the dog?

User:Ottawakungfu?

User:NatHealth1?

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

User:KathyL226?

Developmentalist:Yes, If we could include "NIH has suggested that there is strong evidence that Qigong (and Taiji) can have positive effects for bone health, cardiopulmonary fitness, balance, and quality of life" Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Developmentalist, not without a source - would you please provide it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above, only below. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that. CJ (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Further Discussion Below

I vote for new text#1 and appreciate the time and effort everyone in this discussion has offered.NatHealth1 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NatHealth1. This is not really a "vote" per se. It's a straw poll. Please simply say yes or no for each of the choices, because you might find more than one acceptable. We are seeking consensus, not majority rule. And rather than continuously argue about sources, which is getting very tedious, I'd like to simply get people to provide an alternative that WOULD be acceptable to them if none of the choices available to replace the existing text would be acceptable. Jytdog did provide an acceptable alternative at one point, but he withdrew it. Can you try again, Jytdog? Anyone else? Again - I'm sure that we can come together on wording that we can all agree on if we give this a few days. The purpose is to replace the biased negative impression with an unbiased text that provides a more balanced view of the current status of research on this topic. Thanks. CJ (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And right here is what is the most frustrating in this whole conversation. 'The current text is not biased - it is accurate. You have not proved that it is biased using reliable sources. I understand that you would like a statement saying something a) in the indicative and b) that is positive. However, the only statement in the indicative that can be made based on acceptable sources we have discussed so far, is something like: '"qigong has not demonstrated effectiveness; RCTs to test effectiveness have been of insufficient quality to make a judgement." (in other words, there is a goal line called "proof of effectiveness" and qigong has not crossed that goal line) You might be able to get something positive in the subjunctive accepted, like "suggest qigong may be effective" in some specific indications, and you might be able to get a positive claim in the indicative accepted for a QOL claim. I am telling you how you can get something more positive that fits in with how we write health-content and thus may get consensus, but you are not going that way. You are very very close to WP:IDHT. I am grateful that you are just talking and have refrained from trying to actually edit the article. Thanks for that, at least. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to frustrate you, Jytdog. But neither am I willing to accept that I am breaking WP:IDHT guidelines by commenting that I believe a certain statement appears biased to me. I am very open to your suggestions. Could you please do the wording? If I were to take your concept and try to word it appropriately, it would not be as good as your giving me wording that would be acceptable. CJ (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not hearing us, that the best MEDRS-compliant sources we have looked at so far, do not support a positive statement in the indicative for any indication under discussion. I am very fine with the old language and am under no obligation to propose language going beyond it. I have responded in detail to every proposal you have made and you keep coming back with the same kinds of thing. (although in your most recent version you add the sin of cherry-picking the CV indication from the reviews and omitting the reservations about even that indication) If you will not learn how Wikipedia sources and generates health-related content I am just going to stop responding in detail and simply refer to my earlier comments. I don't give a darn what you "believe" about the current language. What I give a darn about, for about the ten millionth time, is content that is supported by MEDRS-compliant sources. If you bring great sources and solid content based on them you will have no problem whatsoever getting it accepted. Please, learn from your failures to date. There is no shame in trying and failing but not hearing and not learning is a problem; you are indeed very close to WP:IDHT territory. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't do votes to achieve consensus. Like the vatican, we wait for consensus to emerge. This is becoming untoward and tendentious. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, this is not a vote. This is a straw poll that is designed to stick with the main issue and not get pulled off on tangents. It is also a way to allow use to review several different ideas and think about them with a simple thumbs up or thumbs down for each. I suggest that you can encourage consensus by suggesting wording that would be acceptable to you to replace the existing wording. I hope that it would also eliminate the issues we are having with too many people editing the same section. Less discussion, more wording alternatives, please Thanks. CJ (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1 PLEASE TAKE MORE CARE. You have deleted a post I made to this thread. This is not acceptable behaviour. May I suggest that you practise editing in your user sandbox before returning to this thread. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog Excuse my learning curve and I don't know what I did or how that happened. I am finding my edits are disappearing as well.NatHealth1 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As this thread is moot in any case, I suggest it be closed and hatted, discussion should perhaps be aimed at Jytdog's idea, that CJ work on a way to get her medical theories into the body of the article, without the unevidenced claims that she (understandably) wants to make. You must remember that according to WP:MOS the lede should as far as possible be a precis of the body text of the article. To repeat myself, I can't see how you can go further than "Exercise is good for you." Sorry, I am. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, right you may be, Roxy the dog. TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would you say this thread is moot? I'm not sure I understand that. I thought we were making good progress. Perhaps you would like to share your opinion of the different options? Or better yet, provide an alternative wording? CJ (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the lede text was improved some ten to twelve hours before you started this thread. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it has been improved enough. Changing 3 words is not enough to mitigate my issue. When we have consensus, then the wording can change to whichever we've agreed upon. Anything else wouldn't be fair. We all can do the edits, so we should all do them together. CJ (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When I said right you may be, Roxy the dog, I was referring to your statement about exercise, and I thought you meant moot because whatever text is written for the lead now may eventually be replaced. I don't understand how anything definitive is decided by the edits made by Yobol (changing "clinical trials" to "research performed in this area to date", which is fine as far as it goes). I am having trouble knowing where to pick up the thread, so I'll try at the bottom. TheProfessor (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(moved from top of section so that section organization is maintained. This was originally at the top.) CJ (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC) There so many conflicts in the last section that I am confused. Jytdog, for example, asked me for sources for qigong impact on anxiety when that was someone else's suggestion, not mine. Can we agree to refrain from criticisms and justifications and simply, one right after another, post alternative wording so that people can comment on which one(s) they would support? I think we've all heard all the arguments many times, and I'd like to bring this impasse to a close or ask for dispute resolution.

I just reviewed this page and I don't see where I asked you for sources about anxiety. I'm not confused... Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You said "mood" I said "anxiety". It was the only thing I could think of that you were talking about, which was something Professor said, not me.

• No to all of the above. The sentence is fine as is. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a concise summary of the content of the article, which it currently is. I do not like laundry lists in the lead like the proposed, when such detail belong in the body. I oppose any mention of "positive" effects of qigong as undue weight to crap research. Yobol (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Yobol would you accept any of the proposals, for the lead to the Health section (not the lead of the article)? Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Developmentalist You can find an NIH research spotlight here http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/071910.htm Also, NIH has produced videos on Taiji and Qigong which it maintains are safe and effective for promoting health and wellness. The director of NCCAM introduces the videos found at this link http://nccam.nih.gov/video/taichiDVD If there were not some consensus that Taiji and Qigong were beneficial, NIH would not be promoting them and teaching people how to do it. Of the many researchers and clinicians that I know working in this area, consensus is that there is strong evidence for certain benefits, mentioned in the report above, and emerging evidence in other areas where more research is needed.Developmentalist (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for bringing that source. Sadly that is just a press release about the Jahnke review, which is not a critical review and which we have judged as not suitable for health claims in Wikipedia. I think that we could probably generate some positive content on use of qigong for "quality of life" type benefits in its use in CAM, and have suggested that (it is also a hole in the article) but unfortunately all the discussion so far has focused on qigong as a primary intervention for various indications. The critical secondary literature does not support that, and folks are not hearing that. And this article is focused on qigong; there is a separate article for Tai chi - that article has a great, concise health section that does deal more with the QOL issues. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The web references above are relating information to the general public by NIH. The first is a press release, but NIH does not do a press release on every Qigong research article. These sources should qualify as a position statements from a nationally recognized expert body, which meet the inclusion criterion for a credible sources. I have no problem with the position "strong evidence" not being cited as fact, but as expert opinion based on a comprehensive review of 66 RCTs. Some critical secondary literature may disagree with that, and that is fine to cite as well. Lastly, I am not sure who the "we" are that have decided Janhke's work in not fit for citation, but it does meet with wikipedia's MEDRS criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS Developmentalist (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! The NCCAM press release is not a statement by a "major medical or scientific body" - they themselves call it a "Research Spotlight" . An example of an actual statement is here which they head differently, and they provide the header "get the facts". With respect to the Jahnke source, it is discussed above, and I opened a section on it below. If you care to join the focused discussion and cite the parts of MEDRS that you think support its inclusion use to support health-related content, and what specific content it should be used to support, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (copyedited as shown in strikeout and italics Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

I would like to pick up the thread concerning wordsmithing a consensus lead. A few details: First, I proposed changing the phrase Medical research on qigong is increasing" to scientific interest in qigong is growing", to try to satisfy Jytdog's concerns, and based on the Lee et al. 2011 Overview of Systematic Reviews, which states "All of the systematic reviews have been published recently which indicates that the scientific interest in qigong is growing", meant to be faithful to the source, not promotional. I suggest another try with wording like "A growing body of medical research focuses on qigong, including clinical trials concerning...". The list corresponds to conditions covered by systematic reviews, such that one or more reviews can readily be cited for each condition. I would not favor having no specifics of what was studied like the current "various medical conditions". I prefer the more informative version (New Text#3 above, with these tweaks), I'm willing to compromise to New Text#4 above for now, and revisit depending on any rewrites to the medical section. TheProfessor (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

COI, SPA

I am not a big tagger, but I want to point out that as I have discussed with User:Cjrhoads on her talk page, I believe she has a clear COI here. I also pointed out to User:NatHealth1 that the account fits the definition of WP:SPA. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

e/c CJ PLEASE STOP MESSING WITH THE FORMATTING OF THIS PAGE. Please simply add your comments underneath previous ones, with the correct number of colons to indent properly. I also beg you to stop moving peoples comments. This will get you in serious trouble if you branch out into being more adventurous editor, and stop being WP:SPA. Happy, I would be. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

as regards the COI issue, I had read the talk and other background info some time ago, and am happy to WP:AGF at the moment, but as noted upthread somewhere WP:IDHT is becoming a problem. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no COI here. I have no financial interest whatsoever in promoting Qigong or anything else. I've been personally helped by it, but that does not mean that I have a conflict of interest. Jytdog might have misconstrued the statement about me being one of the founders of the Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization. That is a volunteer organization. I do not take a salary, and am simply an experienced Tai Chi practitioner. That should not be considered a conflict of interest.

Secondly, I am simply trying to keep the formatting of that section organized. If that is not appropriate, okay - but I've noticed many other editors cleaning up formatting on other pages, so I don't think that is incorrect behavior. I have not changed anyone's information, only fixed some of the formatting issues.

Thirdly, I may be focused on this particular issue at this point in time, but I've had a Wikipedia account for a long time, and many years ago edited many other topics; it's just that it was a long time ago, so nothing would come up recently. I was wondering when someone said that I'd only edited three articles. I'm sure I've edited more than that, but it might have been more than 5 years ago when I did it.

Fourthly - is this some backhanded way of trying to get me to shut up and let you run roughshod over anyone else? I wouldn't have expected that of any of you, as I felt that you were dealing in good faith. But now I have my doubts. One might even think that you have lowered yourself to casting aspersions on my character in order to discredit me. I'm sure you didn't mean to come across that way. I would thank you to delete this entire section. I am very open an above board about everything (as you can see), and therefore I cannot be accused of hidden agendas, nefarious motivations, or unethical activities. I challenge you to do the same. One might wonder why you are so engaged on maintaining the (to me) negatively biased statements posted on the Qigong page. CJ (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand you feel the need to defend yourself, but this is not the place to go into this at length - it is why I linked to your Talk page above. I have already responded to you there and will respond to your further comments there. This page is for discussing the article. Thanks for apologizing about moving other users' comments - you didn't know it was wrong and now you do. (there is no "if" - it is wrong to change another user's comments without their permission. Period.) Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog It's true for the moment that I might be called a SPA. And,being a newbie, I noted that not one of you took a moment to welcome, introduce yourselves,or to offer any guidance. Until I get my feet wet and understand the complex world of Wikipedia, I am not going to try editing another page. This topic already takes up too much time. But, don't fret, I fully intend to spread my wingsonce I see that the Qigong page is handled with integrity and fully balanced. So far, it hasbeen skewed and reeks of biasis. I have not, if you noticed, attempted to edit any statement, but offered my opinion and suggestions. Again, that has not been noted. Since you brought up these questions here, I have to respond to them here and not on talk.

Jytdog I'm interested in knowing, since you have years of experience here,if Wikipedia pays or hires individuals to edit pages.NatHealth1 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Paid editing of any kind is against all Wikipedia principles. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is not quite true, Roxy. There are several programs through which the Wikimedia Foundation pays for people to edit wikipedia. Here is one Wikipedia:Reward board; here is another Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. What Roxy was referring to is "paid advocacy" where firms like WikiPR offer wikipedia-editing services to paying customers - they are conflicted out the wazoo and there is lots of strong emotion about them! Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I didn't know about those. I was indeed referring to "paid advocacy." --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NatHealth1. I am sorry that you felt neglected. I don't make it a habit to go look at contribs until some issue arises that makes me think, "what is going on here?" (which can be remarkable in a good way or a negative way) You came in pretty non-humbly with your initial comments; I (wrongly) assumed that your experience matched your confidence. And even here, you continue to make bold judgements and I really don't believe that you understand how we source and generate health-related content on Wikipedia. The more bold and antagonistic you are, the less likely anybody - especially those whom you are accusing of being biased - are going to reach out to you. I actually like working with new people, if they are teachable. Too many people jump into wikipedia guns blazing, before they even understand how the place works. Unwise on a bunch of levels, and generally misery-creating. But everybody starts somewhere! Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog I hear you and get it. Hope you in turn can see that

the atmosphere that is created from your response to a different opinion than yours, sets the tone. If I appeared to be brazen, it was necessitated by the environment already long established by the coterie. May we now establish a neutral tone and I invite you to lead me to the appropriate wiki section to continue a civilized discourse on proper wiki etiquette. I will follow your example with hopes of rectitude in leadership and an open mind. When we differ, I hope each of us will respectfully consider the other's suggestion before dismissing it entirely.NatHealth1 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place. I will respond on your userpage. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I appeal to everybody's humanity to do right by each other. Yes, let's ensure there is no COI or SPA (my impression is that not the real problem here); let's give the newbies a real chance to do some editing with some proper mentoring and encouragement; let's keep the discussion on track; and let's set a truly civil and respectful tone. For everybody's sake let's clean up the discussion - move mentoring and side discussion to userpages or other appropriate threads, etc. I appreciate CJ's enthusiasm and sincerity, and I encourage slowing down, listening, learning, and getting good experience editing before diving so far into controversy. I'm exhausted by the pace and continued tense/challenging atmosphere, and would like to do my part to create a collaborative (and frankly more fun and creative) atmosphere. I have learned a lot, and commit to do my best to keep my part of the discussion concise, cogent, and supportive. TheProfessor (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind wishes professor. However, we cannot "ensure" there is no COI or SPA. The only way to do that would be to ban editors who have a COI or whose account fits the definition of SPA and Wikipedia most definitely doesn't do that. Instead, Wikipedia provide guidelines for editors with a COI, and it provides advice to users whose accounts fit the definition of SPA. If an editor has a COI, the editor has a COI. Ditto if an account is SPA, it is SPA. Neither are a bad thing per se, but it is important to acknowledge and for everybody to act accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. TheProfessor (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Attempt at Consensus - Intro statement on Research

(Jytdog Can I please strike this out again?) Or could you please clean it up so that it is clearer that this is not longer the active straw poll? Thank you CJ (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Old text: Possible health benefits of qigong have been studied in various medical conditions. Evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive due to the poor quality of the clinical trials.

User:CJ No. I don't think this accurately portrays the consensus in the literature, but rather may appear to be misleading as to the current research status.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This accurately portrays the consensus in the literature. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? No TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu? ok ottawakungfu (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1? No

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226 No I disagree with the old text as it does not reflect the current state of research.

Developmentalist:No, NIH Suggests there is strong evidence for certain benefits Developmentalist (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

---

User:Jytdog and User:Roxy the dog Please remove your comment. I'd like to keep this area clean. Please discuss elsewhere. Thank you CJ (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Developmentalist thanks for ringing in. Can you please provide a source for that? Also "suggests.. strong evidence" is kind of contradictory so I am very interested to see the source. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Developmentalist What NIH evidence are you referring to? we need a source. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey [[User:Roxy the dog], Developmentalist supplied the ref at the bottom of this section: Talk:Qigong#Discussion_Only_-_Another_Attempt_at_Consensus_-_Intro_statement_on_Research and i responded to it there. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

---

New text #1: Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)

User:CJ Yes.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? No way. This overstates what the best sources say (even the sources provided say only things in the subjunctive). Conflates tai chi and qigong and we do not want to open that can of worms. Makes concerns about quality of evidence seem just fussy when they are essential. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? No TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu? No. ottawakungfu (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1? Yes

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226 Yes. I agree with the new text. I prefer #1

Developmentalist: No, I think it should state that there is strong evidence for certain conditions see NIH's page on Qigong. Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

New text #2 Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.

User:CJ Yes.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This is OK... would need to qualify "increasing" relative to something. and the weasel-words "what is considered to be" must go. Health-related content in Wikipedia is science-based and you cannot keep downplaying the science. and need to tie 1st clause and subsequent clause more closely together. Like, "While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, those claims are based on poor quality data."Jytdog (talk)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:TheProfessor? Yes (see alternative wording below). TheProfessor (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu? OK ottawakungfu (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1? Yes

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

User:TheProfessor?

KathyL226 Yes. I prefer #1 but would accept #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyL226 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Developmentalist: No, many quality trials have shown positive results. Janhke et. al's review included 66 RCT's. Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

New Text #3 Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".

User:TheProfessor Yes. Note that wording and substance come directly from the published overview of systematic reviews. TheProfessor (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CJ? Yes. This would be acceptable.

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? I could almost live with this. But again the "growing" needs to be made relative to something or better just left out (what is the purpose of it?) making a proposal below

User:Roxy the dog?

User:Ottawakungfu? ok ottawakungfu (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1? Yes

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

KathyL226?

Developmentalist:Yes

Anyone else?

Please add alternative wording suggestions here:

---

New Text #4 Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".

---

User:TheProfessor? Yes for lead, with proper references. TheProfessor (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CJ?

User:Yobol?

User:Jytdog? This is OK with me (not sure what sources we would use for everything in that list - would need to be checked if we actually use this) This removes promotional language from the beginning and the very broad claim about more research being "merited". Not sure what indications that recommendation was for and in any case, there are many many interventions that merit further research and Wikipedia generally doesn't speak to that. not voting at this time.Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Not OK for the lead of the article. Unclear why the specific indications listed are included and not others, and this will not fly with Yobol with any laundry list. Suggest taking out the list. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog?

User:Ottawakungfu? OK replace "clinical studies with research" as per previous suggestion.ottawakungfu (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NatHealth1? Yes with Developmentalist's suggested inclusion

User:So1308?

User:SequimTao?

User:Kleinpj?

User:DharmaWarrior?

User:KathyL226?

Developmentalist:Yes, If we could include "NIH has suggested that there is strong evidence that Qigong (and Taiji) can have positive effects for bone health, cardiopulmonary fitness, balance, and quality of life" :Developmentalist (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else?

Discussion of above proposals

---

Jytdog, and Roxy the dog, could you please remove this statement and carry on all discussions in the previous or a new section? I'd like to keep this clean. Thank you. CJ (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Developmentalist, not without a source - would you please provide it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog is quite correct, without a source, such content cannot be included. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a quick short reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above. Discussion in other sections only, please. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that. CJ (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC) (Moved to new section by CJ (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

Jytdog, and Roxy the dog, could you please remove this statement and carry on all discussions in the previous or a new section? I'd like to keep this clean. The text at the top would be replaced with one of the proposed revisions. Thank you. CJ (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

:Would you please clarify where in the article you intend this proposed content to go? Yobol has indicated above that he will not support a laundry list in the lead. I actually thought we were working on a lead for the Health section. I cannot "vote" on this unless I know where it will go.Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjrhoads would you please respond to this question about where you want to put this text you are proposing - maybe please add the information to the top of the section so that everybody knows and consider their "vote" accordingly. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (striking, it is obvious based on the old sentence that this is intended for the lead of the article. should not have asked. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

We don't do votes to achieve consensus. Like the vatican, we wait for consensus to emerge. This is becoming untoward and tendentious. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

NatHealth1 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

what is this signature is doing here? Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ottawakungfu can you please explain why you want to replace "clinical research" with "research"? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My Bad - I don't think all research was carried out in a clinical setting but the general definition for clinical research includes all research involving human subjects so the term clinical research could be used. ottawakungfu (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for answering! (and for taking the time to find this question in the midst of all this!!) Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

user:Developmentalist in your note you want to include reference to Tai Chi. My sense is that we do not want to add content about Tai Chi to this article, as right now there is a separate Tai chi article and it seems unwise to start blending them; I don't want to get into a qigong vs tai chi battle; this is already complicated enough. Is that OK? Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine leaving Taiji out of an introductory paragraph on Qigong. I only mentioned it because I was paraphrasing the NIH research spotlight, mentioned above.Developmentalist (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

great, glad we resolved that! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring

User:Cjrhoads, With respect to moving or changing other users' comments, there is a very limited repertoire of what is allowed - please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. Please note that it says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have objected, as has Roxy, saying "please." In this evening's refactoring, done over my objections and Roxy's, you also left comments of mine that I have struck, unstruck. If you edit any of my comments again, in any way, I will bring you to ANI and you will not have a leg to stand on. I do not like drama boards but this is a bright line - stop messing with my comments. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not changed anyone's comments. I have only moved them because I'm trying to ensure that it is very clear what we are discussing, so I keep moving the difference choices into a different section than the discussion. Please stop vandalizing the organization of the different proposals. I will set up the straw poll in a separate area one more time without actually moving things. I just thought that would be cleaner so that the results were easier to understand. CJ (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

please be specific - what did i "vandalize"? Please show how that activity fits the definition of "vandalism" in Wikipedia. That is a very strong charge here. If you cannot back it up, please strike it. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot even follow the flow of the page any more, and I have no confidence that User:Cjrhoads has left anybody's contributions here intact. This continued refactoring despite repeated objections is tantamount to the worst vandalism. If it were in article space we would simply go back to the last good version of the page, and all the nonsense would be erased. Alas, we cannot. In my limited time on Wikipedia, this is the worst behaviour I have ever seen, worse even than Tumbleman.Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

CJ has no idea how to interact, will not listen, IDHT, makes totally unfounded allegations about other editors, and it is no longer possible to assume good faith. In addition, she has displayed total ignorance of her COI, and ignores the very well crafted opinions of two experienced editors (I do not include myself in this), and it would appear has no desire to follow the rules under which we operate. The consensus she wants cannot be achieved under those rules.Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am acting in good faith at all times, and have not accused anyone of anything. I understand that you wish that I would simply accept your opinion because you are an experienced editor, but I believe that everyone has a right to share their opinion. I am still working toward a consensus - and would like to think that you are also still working toward a consensus and acting in good faith. Please be so kind as to share your opinion in the section I've set up for that, or provide alternative wording. Also, if you would be so kind as to stop undoing my attempts to organize the options under discussion I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. CJ (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You are apparently responding in part to me here, as I am the one who reverted your refactor. You have unilaterally decided to organize the discussion in this idiosyncratic way, without getting consensus to do so and over explicit objections to it. I don't like the sprawl this approach generates and the way that it prevents and even removes(!) substantial discussion. This is a personal preference thing, but it touches on policy insofar as you manipulate other editors' comments. More importantly, you keep framing discussion in terms of personal authority; as though any editor's free-standing opinion matters, per se, when it comes to content. As I have told you before, that is not how things work here. We make arguments about content based on policies and guidelines. If there is a case where editors each have a good argument based on policies and guidelines, or there are disagreements about style or some wording nuance that is not covered by guidelines and policies, there are ways to resolve that. But when you consistently do not base your own claims on policies and guidelines and ignore mine and others that are based on policies and guidelines, the discussion goes no where - there is no way to resolve that. This is why I have said that you are approaching WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, I will maintain a watching brief, but this disruptive behaviour has made it impossible to be constructive. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Roxy I completely reverted the multi-step refactoring that happened tonight so the page is as it was earlier today. I cannot speak to the prior refactorings. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unable to figure out what had happened when I returned. I also feel that I have been unhelpful to your efforts, and it would be better if I refrained from contributing to this slow motion trainwreck for a few days. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic option

Here's another option. Since Mayo Clinic was mentioned favorably, if what TheProfessor is suggesting is not acceptable, then here's another option

According to the Mayo Clinic, meditation activities such as Qigong might be useful for medical conditions, especially those that may be worsened by stress. They note that while a growing body of scientific research supports the health benefits, some researchers believe it's not yet possible to draw conclusions about the possible benefits of meditation. With that in mind, they suggest that Qigong and other forms of meditation may help such conditions as Allergies, Anxiety disorders, Asthma, Binge eating, Cancer, Depression, Fatigue, Heart disease, High blood pressure, Pain, Sleep problems, and Substance abuse.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/meditation/art-20045858

What would everyone think about that one? CJ (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is not acceptable under MEDRS and the content does not accurately reflect it. This is not an acceptable source under MEDRS. a) Mayo Clinic is not a "major scientific or medical body" (by that, is meant things like the AAAS, the NIH) b) The source is not rigorous - it provides no citations. c) the source is about meditation not qi gong per se. The content you generated does not accurately reflect the source which says "Meditation isn't a replacement for traditional medical treatment. But it may be a useful addition to your other treatment": this is very clearly about meditation as a complementary approach, not as stand alone. Please bring high quality sources under MEDRS and content that sticks closely to the sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Since MEDRS says Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, Mayo Clinic, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources in themselves, and can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly, I thought it would be good for just an introductory area. Certainly, we could reference the other literature in a more detailed section. You had mentioned in an earlier discussion that no one had referenced Mayo Clinic, and I got the impression that you thought that would be a good source. Obviously I was wrong. Again, I would ask that you make a proposal for the text under discussion; I'm sure you can come up with something that would be good, but still acceptable in my opinion. Please try. Thanks CJ (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear you that it is listed in the low quality sources section. Thanks for pointing that out in MEDRS! (that is great) However as MEDRS says "A Wikipedia article should cite the best and most reliable sources..."; we don't move to low quality sources when we have high quality recent systematic reviews like Lee. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)