Talk:Acupuncture point

Lead section and pseudoscience category

Removed this from lead: "To date, scientific investigation has not found evidence supporting the location or usefulness of these points." Not an accurate statement, as perusal of research in acupuncture and acupressure will show. Removed category:pseudoscience. Editors wishing to keep it bear the burden of evidence, and need to show that a majority of scientists (and not merely a majority of local CSICOP chapters) hold this view. Otherwise, we should stick to "who says X, and why" in the article, presenting all views fairly but not endorsing them with a cat per WP:CG. As WP:NPOV says, "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." Removing the cat tag asserts NO view as correct. Jim Butler^(talk) 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added some stuff on scientific evidence. In light of that, the above edit is justified, and I'm repeating it on the new version. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just added a section on criticism as pseudoscience. Never let it be said I don't write for the enemy. NPOV is great, but not the POVish category:pseudoscience in this case. Jim Butler^(talk) 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved that sentance to the criticism section. Rhetth 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence from neuroimaging studies?

The article Investigating Acupuncture Using Brain Imaging Techniques: The Current State of Play speaks also about acupoints associated with vision and visual cerebral areas stimulation. But - the authors have found that only two articles support this suggestion and one found nothing. This is too few to be an evidence. The burden of evidence should be on the proponents of functionality of the acupoints. Until finding enough good studies the relation between the acupoints and the visual cerebral stimulation should be taken as not proven. 84.16.60.39 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Acupuncture point and martial arts

The section on martial arts mentions the "Death touch" as if it existed. To my knowledge (and I am fully aware that I might very well be wrong) it's existence have never been proven. Furthermore, it's only reference comes seems to come from the articles of a single person. A revision or atleast a rephrasing seems to be in order. 14 november 2006

Well, the technical term is the "Touch of Death", not the "Death Touch." Such a thing exists, but it's so fantastically difficult to pull off that very few people have actually done it. Additionally, evidence for it is scarce because you can't ethically train a "Touch of Death" (as in, you can't kill people.) It has been known to have been used however. You can google "Touch of Death" and get a Straight Dope article that, while skeptical, discusses how the Touch of Death can actually occur. While it doesn't cite very many primary sources, it does give a cursory explanation. The criticisms should hardly be taken as truth, but it at least backs it up a bit. You can find more about it through a bit of Googling, I'd imagine. .V. 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Even so, those articles tell of ways to cause high amounts of damage with a suprisingly low application of force. Not the manipulation of Qi, Chi or Ki to kill. The phrasing of the article and the way it's formulated makes it seem as though the death touch exists, while providing no proof of such. It also starts with "Some believe" a phrase that if I recall correctly is considered a Weasel word? And last but not least, lack of evidence is not evidence. 15 november 2006

Soz for the late reply! Anyway, the method by which that damage occurs is through Qi, Chi and Ki. Ki energy isn't just "look at someone and die." It's the focus which allows such moves to be possible. Just because that article contains a weasel word, meh, still doesn't make it not true. .V. 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Qi, Chi and Ki is a unproven energy. Doesn't matter if it claims lets you shoot beams of fire from your eyes or just hold your breath a milisecond longer. There is no scientific proof of it's existence. Thus, until it's existence is fact it has to be clearly stated that it's not proven. Weasel words do the opposite. They say it's unproven but make it sound like it is. In short, it's not my job to disprove the death touch, it's your to prove it. Your trying to prove something using more unproved things as proof, which is just ilogical. 20 november 2006

Qi, Chi and Ki don't need to be proven. That's like AFD'ing an article about God because nobody has verfiably proved its existence. If your logic was applied to every article on Wikipedia, there would be nothing religious in nature. My point is, there doesn't need to be a proof that Qi, Chi and Ki exists; because it is a very widespread belief, it merits inclusion into Wikipedia. Because the touch of death exists (through the focus that martial arts practicioners that is -attributed- to Ki, etc), it merits inclusion as well. Whether it is verifiably -because- of Ki or because of a belief in Ki, well, that's a matter that may never be proven. .V. 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles about God don't claim he exists... And I'm not saying you should eliminate the section, but make it more clear that Qi and the death touch have not been proven by scientific means or give a reference that gives PROOF of it's existence. I agree with you about Ki not needing to be proved, but in the context of being a BELIEF. Once you stray into it's use for killing or healing, it needs to prove itself. By your reasoning, we would include every form of faith healing, unproven claim of magic powers, esp and mysterious ninjutsu powers if enough people believe in it. I constantly see you claim the death touch exists, yet I still have seen NO proof that it does. 22 november 2006

Granted, the articles about God don't claim he exists. If you want to say that the existence of Qi is unproven, well, I think that's something for the article (which I believe is Ki.) The problem with the touch of death is that after it's used, bam. That's it. There's no survivors. Additionally, testing is considered unethical, because the subject would die. (Gives a new meaning to subject mortality, eh? You try to run a study called "Examining the Touch of Death" and see how many people sign up. They'd be signing their own death warrant.) So information on it is scant, but available. Unfortunately, there is not much on the internet but rather in book form. ANYWAY, you can find enough proof of the Touch of Death on the internet to justify its inclusion in the article. It works on acupunture points. You can state that is uncertain if Qi causes this, but keep in mind that the current version of the article talks about using the points to kill (which is indeed possible.) I mean, not only are there piles of information on the internet, the ToD is common knowledge. The touch of death probably, by my estimation, is used at least once a week somewhere in the Orient, so perhaps we should have an Oriental editor chime in? ANYWAY, here's the point: Qi/Ki is unproven and so that can be stated. Touch of Death = proven to work by accupunture points. So yes, you're right in part, but I think that the death touch (well, technically touch of death as it called by the grand masters) should definitely have a place in this article. (BTW, you can sign your posts by giving four tildes at the end.) .V. 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article states this would be from "impacting the flow" of Ki. So, even if you are correct it needs to be revised for your other claim. And I said it once and I say it again: A inability to prove something does not make it evidence. For example: I can kill people by looking at them. I just blink and they EXPLODE!!!!! Like bang! But I can't prove I can do it, cause that be murder. Don't you think there should be a wikipedia article for the "exploding eye technique"? And I hear (read) you mention proof, both in books and on the net, but where is it? Why isn't it cited as reference, why can't you give me a link? It's not my work to disprove it, but yours to prove it. You don't go to court to prove you didn't do it, you go there to the so the prosecutor can prove you did. The same applies here. And if the ToD is common knowledge as you claim, how come I never seen someone on trial for murder using it? Afterall, if it's used once per week to kill someone I think there be a rush to find a way to prove it. Otherwise there be a unsolvable murder every week. Furthermore, your estimate is irrelevant. It directly violates the "No original research" rule. In short, I just see you claim there is evidence without actually presenting any. (And I'm not a member, so alas signing my comments wouldn't really work. Can do this though:) Mort 26 november 2006

You do know that you can say "is alleged to impact the flow of Ki", right? Just because it's not proven doesn't merit inclusion -- Wikipedia also includes beliefs. Anyway, you also know that there are unsolved murders all the time, yes? So, to make you happy, I did a quick Google search. Here are some refs:

http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=22 http://www.bigbearacademy.com/dim-mak.html http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/investigating-the-dim-mak-death-touch/#more-20 http://www.dimmakworld.com/booksnmanuals.asp http://www.newstarget.com/007545.html http://www.taiji-bagua.co.uk/dim-mak.htm http://athleticscholarships.net/martial-arts-dim-mak.htm http://jillett.com/JillettPublications/booksellers/SDMV.shtml http://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Meridians-Encyclopedia-Dim-Mak/dp/0873649230 http://www.booktrail.com/Video_SelfDefense/Secrets%20of%20Dim-Mak.asp .V. 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said the part about the touch of death should be removed. I said it should be revised or rephrased (or perhaps simply link to wikipedias Dim mak article?) to better show that it is largely that, a belief. A unproven concept. But by using your estimates, that's 51 unsolved murders per year in the orient, with the exact same cause of death. A figure that big doesn't go unnoticed. Unsolved murders and 51 unsolved murders with the exact same cause of death are a world apart. And how exactly did you come to these numbers? Afterall, you must have somehow gathered data on unsolved murders in the orient, searched them for identical causes of death and then come to the conclusion that this was the death touch. What exactly is listed as the cause of death when someone is struck by the death touch? And since you obviously have sources, why not use them as a reference (although I noticed some contradict eachother)? Mort 27 november 2006

Yes, sources may contradict each other from time to time. Differing viewpoints, you know. Anyway, did you know that there are many, many unsolved murders in the United States? In 2004, there were over 6,300. So I'd have no doubt that there are many more in the Orient. (http://ask.yahoo.com/20060531.html) We have much bigger figures than 51 in the United States, so why would that be surprising in light of over 6k unsolved murders? So yes, as long as the proper parts are stated as being unproven (use of Ki, etc) that's okay. .V. 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we can find out how to these people died. Blunt trauma, gunshoot wounds etc. We can define how they killed. Surely, to reach the number of one per week you must have done some form of research. So, I ask again: what is the listed cause of death when someone is killed by the death touch? My problem is not beliving 51 people can die in Asia, my problem is that 51 people can die in Asia every year for what, 200-300 years (How long have Dim Mak existed?) without anybody even being able to determine how they died. For if we could determine how they died, then the Death touch would be proven, or atleast possible to be proven. Mort 4 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.128.180 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

That would be a series of really difficult research that I'd rather not do. For one, I'd have to speak either Chinese or Japanese (probably both) in order to look this up. Secondly, it would be quite difficult to find the information in the first place. So I think that question will have to go unanswered for now, unless you're up to it. .V. 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

identifying accupuncture points

How were the points first found? I understand that currently the points are located by referencing anatomical landmarks, but how were their positions first realized? Was tehre some ancient who could allegedly see them, or perhaps feel their locations? I've always wondered about this and feel it would be a significant contribution to the article if someone could add that information. -Shaggorama 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How they came up with acupuncture points is not known. They have been in use for at least 4,000 years. The records from 2,000 BCE are very spotty. Two predominant theories exist.
One is that a great seer perceived them and handed down through oral tradition.
The other is that through trial and error it was figured out. Example: A man suffering from digestive issues gets shot in the knee with an arrow. Now his leg hurts but his digestion has never been better. You can see this would be a difficult article to research, but some medical anthropologists could be quoted on the theories.--Remark knights (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A comprehensive listing of points?

It would seem to me that this article would be a good place for a listing of known and accepted accupressure, accupuncture, or other effective points on the body. I'm going to start it with the 3-mile leg point, cited from an excerpt from the book 'Acupressure's Potent Points' by Michael Reed Gach, Ph. D. Rhetth 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done; each point should have its own page and each should have its link in this page, in a table, for instance (I wonder if pictures, e.g. from WHO, could be legally used). My addition (evidence from neuroimaging studies; added following a suggestion by Jim Butler) offers a wider view on the phenomenon. The following section would be greatly enhanced if it included all the other points in a concise way. Cheers, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I created pages for the two points found in "specific distal points".

I believe it's good to keep an inclusive but concise list which doesn't necessarily contain experimental justifications (studies)(the one you began in "1.2 listing of points";

for all these points, a table would be appropriate: "Name(s) of the point (with link to its page, if any), translation of the name, location, effects, supporting research (if any))

and another, shorter list, listing points which have been researched according to generally accepted standards (RCTs, neuroimaging studies, anecdotal evidence, etc.). Would you (or others) say it's a good idea, for now? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's too much here, they could be listed along pages for each meridian. That's how they are done on the Chinese pages (although not very clearly for most of them). Or perhaps add a List of acupuncture points. I've also added a category Category:Acupuncture points for any new ones that are added. Rigadoun (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made that list of points. They're all red-linked now (except for those three you've made) so, please, add pages of points if you please. A shorter list of more commonly used points can be put here. Rigadoun (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that since we have a list of acupuncture points now that we go ahead and delete the reference to Three Leg Mile in favor of just pointing to the List of acupuncture points. Similar to the way large music discographies are handled. --Remark knights (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Acupuncture

A proposed merge of this article to acupuncture is being discussed at Talk:Acupuncture. Please comment there. PPdd (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive reverts of my NMEDRS deletions

I gave itemized edit summaries for each thing I deleted. But all was reinserted as a mass, in gross violation of MEDRS, RS, and BURDEN. Using MEDRS and BURDEN, I am undoing the reverts. Maybe I made a mistake on a couple, so if anyone objects to a particular edit I made, please do so here. PPdd (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is all an attempt for transparency. You can't delete the whole article content, then bring the article up for AfD and expect outsiders to follow your rationale. BTW, the whole purpose of AfD is discussion, and all that I'm asking for is a bit more than "unreliable sources" and "content fork" as arguments. Nageh (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, Nageh reviewed material here[1]. In the collapsed parts here[2], and discussion of the specific line items and sources, which were all already discussed at the archives of Talk:Acupuncture, then agreed to the redirect. Please review this material before reverting to insert nonRS or material that otherwise violates Wiki policies and guidelines. PPdd (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. Are we supposed to talk about these particular removals of about 90% of the article, or is there something else going on that is the explanation that I need to know about? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be confused... because I made a mistake. I meant look here[3]. But my error does not mean you are yet safe from a snowball attack from Loma Prieta peak! :) PPdd (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of massive revert

Note:the following was accidentally placed at the talk page of AfD, instead of here Ok, let's go through the article. Starting with the lede... there is quite a lot cited. Specifically, I do not understand why you consider "Evid Based Complement Alternat Med - Oxford University Press" as an unreliable non-medical source. After all, this is alternative medicine, no?

Down to the sections, I'm not sure how section "Categories of body acupuncture points" matches the list of points in List of acupuncture points. This list is unreferenced, so you may disregard this (even though I'm wary in such cases that we are throwing away information). The same goes for "Non-meridian points". Section "Efficacy of specific distal points" is cited (in part) – is this covered in the acupuncture article? "Criticism of TCM theory" is covered. I have no idea about the next section, and if you say this has nothing to do with acupuncture points we'll skip that. Coming to "Standardization" – shouldn't this be included in the List of acupuncture points then?

Sorry for this step-by-step discussion, but after all discussion is what an AfD is about, no? Thanks, Nageh (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Before we start, you should please cite one single thing that should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture.

• (2) Your line by line analysis is EXACTLY why this article violates WP:FORK, as it has all been discussed at acupuncture ad nausem. For example, your first example is this reference - "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine." This kind of thing was discussed ad nauseum at acupuncture. This duplicates talk at acupuncture, so is an argument for redirect.
• (3a) "Peer reviewd" by alternative medicine practitioners is not MEDRS, for reasons that get re-explained at acupuncture talk every few weeks.

(3b) MEDRS prohibits primary source studies, for obvious reasons about the very meaning of the .05 p-value publishing standard universally used in medical publications, which produces random positive effect studies about 1 time in 20.

• (4) Everyone has already agreed that "categories of acupuncture points" should be in acupuncture, but no one has provided an acceptable RS.
• (5) The "distal point study" was extensively discussed at acupuncture talk. I did not delete it, but reworded it in compliance with the article content. The word "distal point" does not occur in the source. PPdd (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• (6)"Standard" is an adjective in a book title about nomenclauture, not points, and is not a "standard" which is a noun, so the section is ridiculous. In fact, in discussion at acupuncture talk right now, is a discussion of "standards" that were actually adopted for locating acupuncture points by the acupuncture community, but this has nothing to do with the sources.

• • I really did read each line, read the source, and only deleted for good reason, just so I did not have to go through what we are doing now, which I have already done over and over at acupuncture.

Please don't forget to answer (1), or better yet, maybe consider changing your opposition to merging. If anything new with RS comes up, it will get in to the acupuncture article with no problem. :) PPdd (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your reply was very helpful! I will change my vote. FYI, your only "mistake" was the missing transparency – at least you should have explained from the outset why you deleted a whole lot of stuff before starting this AfD. Then I will also not be so trigger-happy. :) Thanks again, Nageh (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. You are right about my error in nomitating for delete after a number of deletions. The problem was that I only thought of nominating to delete after I had made all those deletions. And I specifically learned how to use strike out because I changed my vote so often in discussions. :) PPdd (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WhatamIDoing, how can you call all this "well sourced", when each step beyond the above has the same reasoning? PPdd (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline. I suggest that you stop deleting material, from this or any other article. At the very most, you might consider tagging specific material with {{MEDRS}}. Note that you should use this tag only when you think it unlikely that the material can be supported by a reliable source, not merely to indicate that no one has yet bothered to supply an WP:Inline citation after each and every sentence. I think you would do well to do a diligent search for such sources before tagging anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please be specific and not just say "you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline". I have 11 years of experience doing philosophy of science and data analysis at Stanford, and I have thus obtained some familiarity with misinterpreting primary sources and "peer review" by those not in field. There is no reason to tag things that are identical with what was already deleted at the acupuncture article I came here and found this same material as was deleted by others at the acupuncture article, and the only reason I can see for it being up here, is that it was not on the watch list of those editors, which is a driving reason for the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline, as those editors deleted this material from accupuncture for the same reasons I just did here. PPdd (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, the medical claims from the primary source study in ""Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine." does not need a tag to be deleted. It is its own source, and is not MEDRS, so what is there to search for, and why did you call it well sourced in your edit summary? This stuff must be deleted per MEDRS, not kept up, per WP:BURDEN. PPdd (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• (Regarding the MEDICAL findings, one by one, in the article, that I deleted, one by one. None of the following is a secondary source, and the alternative medicine journals are not peer reviewed by scientists or doctors, so are not allowed for medical conclusions.
• (1) Here is from the header in bold red face of the first 1997 “MEDRS” ref – “This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst SIMPLY WRONG.”
• (2) Here is the second ref, a PRIMARY source study in an “anyone can publish as long as they pay us” journal that says - “To provide open access, PLoS journals use a business model in which our expenses—including those of peer review, journal production, and online hosting and archiving—are recovered in part by charging a publication fee to the authors or research sponsors for each article they publish. For PLoS ONE the publication fee is US$1350.”
• (3) The third ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (4) The fourth ref is a PRIMARY source study in an acupuncture journal, peer reviewed by acupuncturists, which picked an authoritative name “Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, and has a Wiki article of its own with no RS supporting any of it, so should also be up for AfD.
• (5) The fifth ref is not about medical claims
• (6) The sixth source I did not delete.
• (7) The seventh ref is a PRIMARY source study in this journal – “Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan / sponsored by All-China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine”
• (8) The eighth ref is a PRIMARY source study –
• (9) The ninth ref is a PRIMARY source study in this jounral – “Journal of alternative and complementary medicine”
• (10) The tenth ref is a PRIMARY source study.
• (11) The eleventh ref is a proposal of a hypothesis
• (12) The twelfth ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (13) The thirteent ref is a PRIMARY source study
• (14) The fourteenth ref is a review in an acupuncture journal, peer reviewed by acupuncturists, which picked an authoritative name “Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, and has a Wiki article of its own with no RS supporting any of it, so should also be up for AfD.
• (15) The fifteenth source is a New Age alt med pop diet book, “The Complete Guide to Sensible Eating”
• (16) The sixteenth source is an alt med published book, “Acupressure's Potent Points: A Guide to Self-Care for Common Ailments”
• (17) The seventeenth ref sources content that I did not delete
• (18) The eighteenth ref is is a dead link
• (19) The nineteenth ref is a acupuncture website
• (20) The twentieth ref is in Chinese
• (21) The twentifirst ref is a book of nomencalature
• (21) The tweentisecond ref is in Chinese

Let's take just your first source in your list as an example. You say that you deleted the information because it is more than five years old. MEDRS does not require that all sources be less than five years old. It furthermore does not require that any information that is currently provided with a source that is more than five years old be deleted. You have a duty as an editor to WP:PRESERVE material, not just to delete what isn't perfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - When a source bold face red header generally retracts it medical conclsions as outdated and maybe wrong, those conclusions are not RS, and certaqinly not MEDRS. The may be used for a historic beliefs citation, but which probably would be deleted as promoting a POV view, or as UNDUE. PPdd (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WAID, that's true but that source and statement is essentially trivial - there's a multitude of sources on the main acupuncture page that could be used to supplement or simply replace that statement and I agree that PPdd should have probably substituted or replaced that source while retaining the statement that acupuncture points haven't been adequately demonstrated scientifically. However, there are many other items in that list that are more clearly problematic (the majority I believe). Though PPdd's reasoning is faulty, and the action wrong for that source, I believe it was sound for the others. In many cases I would say the evidence wasn't "not perfect", it was outright flawed and inappropriate, the kind of cherry-picking that MEDRS argues against. I've worked on the acupuncture page for a couple years now and read some books and articles on the subject, and feel that most of the content on the page is questionable. I don't think the page should be deleted, I think it should be improved, and will register that comment on the AFD page shortly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Like the ones he deleted in direct violation of WP:NONENG?

How about the one he deleted in violation of WP:DEADLINK?

Do you think he has understood the policy at WP:PRIMARY, which directly sys, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia"? I don't. Half the sources he lists here, he says he deleted solely because they were primary sources—a type of source that "may be used in Wikipedia".

What about the books he deleted solely on the grounds of their POV? Does that sound like an action supported by our policies?

I agree that there are many problems here, and that this subject requires far more work than I'm willing to put it, but this pattern shows a serious failure to understand the policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• WAID, there are secondary sources at acupuncture that disagree with the primary source random positive effects sources, expected under a .05 p-value publication standard. So MEDRS applies, as the secondary outweighs the random primary. I do not have the WP:BURDEN to reverse the content and give the secondary source, which is at acupuncture. That is why I suggested a redirect, so editors would read those talk pages and not have identical discussions in two places, one of the bases for WP:CONTENTFORK.
• You should not have assumed such an assume bad faith attack tone about me, or used such implied bad faith words like "tendentious" and "edit warring", all in the context of others overtly calling me a "destructive" or a "butcher" (Colonel Warden outright calling me a "butcher", which he refuses to apoolgize for or retract, creating the tone for the rest of the AfD discussion, an initialy influencing the vote of Nageh, who honorably ended changing his vote to redirect and apologizing to me). This caused the AfD discussion to focus on me, and not in any way on WP:CONTENTFORK, and the utter absense of any content that should not already be in acupuncture. You should assume good faith on my part. I deleted both pro-POV, anti-POV, and NOPOV material, without regard to POV, but only because of the outrageouness of the sourcing, and the clear edit history that shows when a sources was found not to be good at acupuncture, it simply was brought here, in direct violation of CONTENTFORK.
• And thank you for the links on noneng, deadlink, and primary (which should be "MEDRS primary"). I have not seen these and will read them. PPdd (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• WAID, it turns out that I had already read WP:ENGLISH, since it is just a section of WP:VERIFY - “When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation”. The only WP:COMMONSENSE reading of this, consistent with verifiability, is that the ‘’text” be translated, otherwise verifiability is completely meaningless. Are you now saying we are to take an editors word for the content based on a translation of the title alone?
• Note also that it is very uncivil to repeatedly completely ignore my comments, then talk about me elsewhere as if I had not made them.
• WAID, you claim at the top of your user page that you are “annoyingly intelligent”. I recently got back from MIT lecturing on neuroethics and mathematical metaethics, and civility like this is a kind of intelligence, as per my academically sourced lectures on this exact thing, where e.g., there is empirical evidence of the lack of this kind of intelligence being developed in young men, as compared to young women of the same age.) PPdd (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have read an understood NONENG, then why did you delete sources solely because they are not written in English? Direct quotations are irrelevant here: It's the first sentence, the one that says non-English sources may be used, that you need to be dealing with.

As you can see, I am not ignoring your comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PROVEIT and MEDRS

I've just removed a large amount of text from the page that was wholly without sources (or was sourced to Gary Null and some other guy). PROVEIT should be uncontroversial, and the Null/other guy point was merely to say the three mile leg point existed. I've also removed a large number of primary sources per MEDRS. There was only one secondary source in the lot, Langevin et al., 2001. Though a secondary source, it only mentioned acupuncture points four times, only for historical context; the main focus of the article was on de qi, "needle grasp" I believe, the way tissues bind to needles as they are pulled out. This might be a reasonable source for acupuncture, but it's not really about acupuncture points specifically.

I'm agnostic on whether the page should be deleted or merged, but I don't think these sources should remain to shoehorn in the idea that acupuncture points exist and are effective when most of the actual Cochrane reviews aren't supportive (the exception being nausea and pain, pain needs to be added). More sources and specifics of points could certainly be added I think, this article could explore the "supportive" journal articles in greater depth, while the main article must, of necessity, remain short. I think that is where acupuncture points could exist as a standalone article, giving greater details on the points specifically and the research done on them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Presently, is there anything in this article that isn't or shouldn't be covered in Acupuncture? I think there is enough written about acupuncture points to warrant an article but, if it presently contains nothing that isn't or shouldn't be in Acupuncture, it should, for now, be a redirect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree after all but think that acupuncture is missing a bit of the controversy that is apparent from this article. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Acupuncture point for issues that I think should at least be discussed in the main article. Nageh (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article is up for AFD, I think you should have tagged the material, rather than deleting it. PROVEIT does not require that material be removed without first notifying people that you think a (better) source is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Note - I came to this article expecting things that were not in acupuncture, but might be appropriate there. After checking each and every source, and what it was used for, I step by step deleted things, which seemed to have pretty much overlap with similar deletion bases already at acupuncture for the same things, all done before I came to acupuncture. When I was done, there was almost nothing left, and it was all already at acupuncture. Instead of simply redirecting it (which I now think was the best thing to do), because of the highly charged "you are picking on us" attitude of acupuncturists at WP, I thought it best to put it up for public discussion. I still do not see a WP:CONTENTFORK basis for its independent existence, since there is nothing but acupuncture studies cited, all of which either belong at acupuncture, or should be NRS deleted. PPdd (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The AFD is messy and will probably result in a default keep, at which point we should work at improving it. The information I removed would, in my opinion, never be appropriate and I would hope most !voters at an AFD would not be swayed by a large block of dubious, unreferenced text (i.e. the section on the martial arts). I'll add some information from a book by Joseph Needham; the page shouldn't be merged (again IMO) or deleted and the Needham source alone should suffice to prevent deletion even by a rabid deletionist. I believe it was a bad idea to nominate the page for deletion, but the removal of flawed sources was necessary and appropriate. note- I should have just redirected it, and let it be recreated if content started being excluded from acupuncture as UNDUE that should be at acupuncture point, which has yet to be seen. PPdd (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I believe there is enough information, even if not right now then eventually, to be kept in this page. It's a good place to put in the extra details that the parent article shouldn't have regarding proposed explanations for points, and counter-arguments. Can we agree to WP:IAR and keep the page to work on? It's a mess right now, one that does disservice to readers and the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to change my vote to "keep", but only with an agreement that it having a very limited scope, spelled out in a FAQ, that "any efficacy study content be in acupuncture", not here, so as to avoid the second kind of WP:CONTENTFORK problem, a POV pushing article with things rejected as NMEDRS or NRS at acupuncture. It is highly unlikely that any claim for an acupncture point having a medical effect would not also make a claim that acupuncture, or some variant of it, has the same effect. PPdd (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You should read WP:No binding decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This responds well to point out the uselessness of my proposal to try to limit abusing this article as a ContentFork for POV, as it points out that attempts at such a limitation will be difficult or ultimately useless. A counter to NoBindingDecisions, to help with the potential for CF abuse, might be a hat at the top that says "this article is about points, for stimulation of the points, see acupuncture". The CF abuse might still occur, but this may at least help future editors control MOS consistency by reminding them what they might argue at talk and in edit summaries, so at least the article will have a suggestive control to try to get MOS consistency on wording that goes back and forth from "point" to "acupuncture' then back to "point", etc. PPdd (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by acupuncturists

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by acupuncturists is being discussed here[4]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What is best for AfD discussions?

WLU made well explained, step by step edits[5]. His edits will stick. It is best for an AfD discussion to accurately see what an article will look like, not what it appears to be.

@Dicklyon. Your revert was in clear good faith, but while the snow may not stick between Mt. Ummanum and Loma Preiet, WLU's edits will. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left Dicklyon a note, it's not a point worth arguing since the page will survive the AFD.

Electrical impedance

Once the AFD is finished, I plan to reverse these edits, but replace the 2010 Ahn primary source with this 2008 review article (after I've got the article and read it in detail). Removing the primary source was appropriate (though replacing it in the body was not - we should still use secondary when we have them) and it's only through happenstance that I knew about the 2008 article. In fact, had I had a bit more time and read a little more carefully, I would have done the swap-out myself instead of including the lower-quality article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think keeping up a version of an article that will not ever exist in the future is helpful for an AfD discussion; instead it is more misleading than helpful. Opinions of three pseudocientists practicing homeopathy is not "scientific research", and misleads those psarticipating in AfD, who will likely not read the details in the article references. I support WLU's other edits to make the article more representative of its final appearance, and I have accurately reworded this material per the refs, but not deleted any content, instead adding content on this, and more accurately stated it.

WLU, I think you should go ahead and make the article as accurate and in compliance with Wiki policies and guidlines as possible now, and that you have support from other editors. I even think Dicklyon will ultimately agree with such edits, and that they help an AfD discussion, rather than hinder it. There is a way in which the content can be kept up for an AfD, and at the same time not violate policies and guidelines, which is by accurately wording the content of the refs, even if it may be deleted after the AfD as WP:UNDUE. (The AfD appears to be trending "keep" anyway, but this is irrelevant to improving the article by making it more accurate, while still keeping the content up.) PPdd (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, we are Wikipedia, not Rationalwiki. Rationalwiki adopts an explicitly scientific POV, we do not. Applying your criteria to all articles would reduce the volume of wikipedia by probably 95% because it would mean no pop culture, no high culture, no video games, no celebrities, no autobiographies, no history except archeology, no fictional summaries, no geography, no politics, and it goes on. Dicklyon may agree with my articles eventually but he disagrees with them now and makes a solid point - during AFDs, particularly contested ones, it is bad form to delete large amounts of content unless you are replacing it with equivalent volumes. Since wikipedia is not done I can wait a couple days until the AFD closes and then make my changes. Policies and guidelines document community practice, they do not determine it and though the Guide to deletion and AFD ettiquette aren't explicit on the subject, it is seen as bad form to blank sections. Sometimes permitted, but the more contested the idea, the more cautious we must be as editors. Edit warring during an AFD makes the discussion confusing and is generally irksome. That's one reason we are urged to try to improve pages before nominating them. Honestly I would never have nominated this page for deletion, but I would have trimmed out the fat. I think you're confusing what you think is important with what wikipedia considers notable. I will be very interested to see what you think of your actions regarding this page a year from now.

As for the opinion of pseudoscientists, we document them all the time. See orthomolecular medicine, astrology, creationism, the contemptible and horrible Duesberg hypothesis, and yes, homeopathy. We attempt to accurately and fairly depict beliefs of even pseudoscientists, and in fact, with a good reference you can then use those beliefs to demonstrate how stupid they are. For instance, you can fairly describe the dilution practices of homeopaths, then use Jay Shelton's excellent book to reference how goddamned illogical and nonsensical they are, and the special pleading homeopaths use to excuse them.

By the way, your characterization of Pariente et al. as "Beliefs of three homeopathy and acupuncture practitioners" is a terrible, terrible, bad taste and strongly POV section heading that will alienate more editors than it will bring to its defence. It's unfair, inappropriate, and even though these people may (or may not) be quacks and pseudoscientists, they still get their say. We don't get to remove material because we disagree with it, even if it is utter, utter nonsense to anyone with a critical mind and a basic understanding of biology. Again, NPOV means we are fair to both sides, not that we only say what scientists we agree with say. Science is a long haul process and a true, empirical understanding of the process will take decades to clearly lay out. Wikipedia tracks that process but does not anticipate it.

Articles that aren't explicitly found to be "delete" default to "keep" by the way, usually by the closing admin claiming "no consensus". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I already figured it was "keep" yesterday, and defer to your greater knowlege that there may be content not at acupuncture. I just added stuff to the argument in case when you might be gone in the future, and nothing has gone into this article that is not in acupuncture, I had all my thoughts in one place to look up if I had to.

I used the "3 homeopaths" wording because I thought it was grossly misleading to put this in as "science", as the article initially had it, and then because before I found out that they were homeopaths in addition to acupuncturists. I read that article in "evidence based alt med" (or whatever its called) first to be that it was an evidence-based medicine jounral (it is not), then to be that "scientists or evidence-based doctors" had done a systematic review, which typically includes a meta-analysis. When I found out they were homeopaths, thus clear pseudoscientists, so not in any way "evidence-based" in their thought processes, I thought of a reader who was checking the source and seeing the misleading title of the journal, then seeing the abuse of "systematically" reviewing, and scintific sounding words. I thought I had two options, to write something POVish, or to have the reader be misled as I initially was. I thought the former was the lesser of two evils.

If it is suggested that non-science/med reviewed primary source biomed assertions should be worded, not as an assertion of biomed fact with a source, but as a statement of belief about studies by a practitioner, I still don't understand how this would leave out anything at Wiki, as it would only make the language more accurate. This only applies to primary source studies with biomedical assertions, leaves nothing out but only affects wording, and is unrelated to most of Wiki, unless I am missing something. PPdd (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Science is method, not person. The whole point of science is that it doesn't matter who makes the argument, it's that the argument stands up to scrutiny, replication, independent verification and extension. Someone's professional qualifications, personal beliefs or background might make you personally question their argument, but on wikipedia reliability is about reputation for fact checking and peer review. Strictly speaking, our best sources - review articles and meta analysees - aren't science, they're a prose or mathematical summaries of science. And "science" isn't a requirement for inclusion. Your own parsing of the sources and authors is questionable on wikipedia, though completely fair game in a blog, book or non-wiki source. If you can find a criticism of their summary, that's legit to include. But including your own opinion, blatantly or subtly, is not right. We're not seeking truth, we're seeking verifiability. Your suggestion of attributing sources to particular individuals rather than blanket statements would, if applied throughout wikipedia, really, really ruin a lot of pages and (again, if applied equitably to all pages) almost certainly ensure new medical advances got a very rough landing on any page. Think of the H. pylori bacteria and ulcers for example. And as a final thought, think of the long-term. Over months and years, new and better evidence will keep rolling in, and eventually the truth wins out. When that happens, we'll be there to gloat. In the meantime, we have to be patient and fair. I agree with you as a critical thinking, skeptic and person, I disagree as an editor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've made the edits, and did my best to include the subsequent changes. The page still needs to be expanded, but I will not be making any further edits until I've finished some of the books I'm reading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as to "science is method, not person." But science takes into account the reliability and motives of sources of reviews and studies, and the knowledge of "peer reviewers", as should Wiki when considering whether a source is reliable. When a person is a practicing homeopath, publishing a scientific result should be especially scrutinized. If someone knew a result was from a practicing homeopath, and failed to tell me about it when I was about to rely on the source as medical information, I would get upset at them. Users of Wiki should also be warned of the background of a source if it is highly questionable, such as if they publically advertise and display highly unscientific practices and beliefs like re homeopathy. PPdd (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I completely agree. Homeopaths piss me off. But on wikipedia, I can't see a policy or guideline that would support the type of edit and attribution you are suggesting. Co-opting the appearance of science is a problem systemic to much CAM, but that's the kind of thing you'd need a pretty clear consensus on from other editors to ignore the rules. Of course, if a criticism actually exists elsewhere in a reliable source, then we could include that, which is of great service to our readers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Grrrr. (I just bit my fist.) :) PPdd (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your agony, blatant stupidity is hard to watch. I appreciate even more that you didn't replace your edit, that is firm evidence in my mind that you're growing as an editor so good on you. The thing is, time will roll on, more research will be done, and eventually we'll arrive at the truth. Possibly we'll find that there is such a thing as acupuncture points and meridians, and we were wrong - we just needed to test using bacon fat/zombie brain/specially trained ducks/psychic hermaphrodites and the result is a completely replicable phenomena that expands our understanding of the universe. I'm not holding my breath, but we've got to respect the processes of both wikipedia and science. Right now there is considerable discussion and disagreement over acupuncture points - so we must reflect it. Sucks, but what can you do? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary might be the first time anyone's ever accused me of being rational. :) PPdd (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Take THAT! SICK BURN!!! BOO-YEAH!!! And on that note, I think I'll just let this section die. Feel free to have the last word WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Like editing, humor is a competitive sport, and he who has the last laugh did not necessarily tell the last joke, so having the last laugh does not mean you win. word. PPdd (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Plausible theories for "points", or for "random needling"?

Re- "plausible theories" - It seems that the "plausible theories" are NOT about acupuncture point, but about random needling to induce endorphin or other neurotransmitter release, which is the opposite of a plauusible theory of "point specificity". PPdd (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is evidence to suggest acupuncture points exist?

From the article - "Overall there is only preliminary evidence to suggest acupuncture points exist.". The link only goes to the abstract for the source, which does not mention anything to support the assertion. If anyone has access to the whole article, could they please provide an exact quotation that supports this sentence, and any quotations that might not support it, if they are in the arricle. PPdd (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ernst (2006)? Email me and I'll attach the pdf to my reply. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I find your email address? PPdd (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On the left side of my User or Talk pages under "Toolbox", click "E-mail this user." You appear to have attached an email address to your account (in your preferences > user profile) because I can see "E-mail this user" on your talk page, so that email address will be where to look for the pdf. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just getting back to this. Before I read the article looking for something that might not be in it, is this assertion actually in the article? PPdd (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias

This article is a good example of a bias against certain medical viewpoints that pervades the Wiki community. It is clearly biased against accupuncture.

One would expect to see here a listing of the most important accupuncture points. Instead what one gets is an attempted debunking of the whole concept.

The amount of verbiage on this talk page should be indication to anyone interested that something is wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.237.163 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Felix Mann is an excellent example of some of the bias in this article. Geographical meridians have a use and are essential for many modern activities such as navigation, satellite imaging, and much more. While acupuncture meridians and points are not marked, just like geographic meridians and coordinates, that does not mean that they have no use. Drilling for oil is only successful if you drill in the right place, just as acupuncture is only effective at certain points on the body. Mann's argument is fallacious, and the fact that this quote is listed as fact rather than opinion, merely because of who said it, is offensive. I thought the wikipedia community promoted skepticism and supporting of claims with scientific evidence. Mann's opinion is no more valid or accurate than that of any other person. And who is to say that this quote accurately sums up Mann's thoughts on acupuncture? It seems unlikely that he would be the leader of the Medical Acupuncture Society if he was so skeptical of acupuncture's validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.233.50 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)