Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 24 April 2011

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Taoism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1: March 2002 - October 2007

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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 ) 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/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

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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." 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 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. " "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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Hilarious joke article

I just have to say this article is hilarious. I've never seen such a credulous article on Misplaced Pages(!) 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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Martial arts articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics