Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 24 July 2021

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. 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. Japan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:26, December 31, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Equine Shiatsu was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Shiatsu. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Efficacy

My addition of a review of published studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200172/) on the efficacy of shiatsu for various conditions (such as pain, stress, etc.) was removed in favor of a summary of an article specific to cancer. Even the statement in the wiki page that it may be helpful for relaxation is based on a study of only cancer patients; the article is not intended to inform about shiatsu's effectiveness for conditions other than cancer. A review of studies drawn from a broader group of participants for more conditions is not only more rigorous, but more appropriate for a general overview of efficacy. Rufe12 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to remove your POV edits too, but was beaten to the punch. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article, University of Minnesota page, and the CancerUK page cited in the previous version of the article before drawing that conclusion?

Incidentally, it's not my POV. I personally don't believe in alternative medicine, but this article made statements beyond those supported by the science. Rufe12 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes and yes. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good! If you read the sources, you should have seen that citation 7 used for the statement "neither qi nor meridians exist" literally reached the opposite conclusion, that there's "suggestive" evidence of meridians. (Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: a systematic review: "the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data.")

It's clear that the original text was fishing for sources to support the author's own bias regardless of the actual content of the cited articles. Rufe12 (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to make a difference between signal and noise. The signal is "the quality and quantity of research is too small to conclude shiatsu is effective for any condition." The noise is "Some studies included found evidence that shiatsu may help with certain types of pain, stress, sleep quality, mental illness, fibromyalgia, and inducing labor". The noise does not belong in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the same thing as some pseudoscientific treatments where a control group getting sham treatment had no significant difference from the treated group. Every quality study found some effect from shiatsu, they were simply limited in their ability to draw conclusions.

The statement "there is no evidence that shiatsu is effective" is simply a false statement. A more accurate statement would be "there is not conclusive evidence that shiatsu is effective for any condition" with the caveat that there is some inconclusive evidence of efficacy for pain, stress, sleep quality, mental illness, and inducing labor (which is not even surprising, pretty much all types of massage has evidence of efficacy for these conditions). Rufe12 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

From the CRUK source: "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer". Seems pretty clear. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That very same article goes on to say there's evidence that it can help with sleep quality and discomfort from cancer treatment so it's clearly not conclusive. For example, helping with stress is not the same thing as treating a disease since stress is a normal condition. Inducing labor in healthy women is another example.

Furthermore, I would still argue that Cancer Research's article is narrowly focused on cancer. They clearly mean it won't help you get better from cancer, not that it can't help you getting to sleep or with pain. Rufe12 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stroking a cat relieves stress; that doesn't make cat stroking a "medical treatment". We do say in the article "some weak evidence suggests it might help people feel more relaxed." It's debatable whether something like that belongs in the lede too. The CRUK article is explicitly not specific to cancer ("any type of disease" it says). Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Cancer research UK is not an authority on anything other than cancer. Rufe12 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"there is not conclusive evidence" - The usual wording is "there is no good evidence". That means there is the sort of evidence you would expect if there is no effect: 5% significant results and 1% highly significant results (Texas sharpshooter fallacy), plus enhancement by the file drawer effect. This case looks exactly like that. Of course, this sort of evidence is no good. You need reproducible results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And Cancer Research UK, as one of the foremost medical organizations on the planet, is super-reliable for all things medical. For something like shiatsu it is complete overkill as a source, but we're lucky to have it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy means you look for statistical significance in anything until you find something that is. Looking at massage for pain is not that. Observational studies are not useless as evidence, you can often correct for bias by looking at the effect for a certain group and yes, some of these studies did try to correct for biases. That's similar to the argument the tobacco industry used against observational studies that tobacco caused cancer.Rufe12 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, cancer research UK is a foremost medical organization. No, they do not research nor are they particularly an authority on subjects other than cancer. Rufe12 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If stroking an animal can be proven to relieve stress, it could very well be a viable medical treatment (in fact, animal therapy is a popular form of alternative medicine) Rufe12 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, another dodgy altmed. The point is lots of things from smoking to masturbation to (sometimes) editing Misplaced Pages "can relieve stress". That does not mean in plain English they are "effective medical treatments". We need to follow the sources and be plain that woo is woo. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No offense Alexbrn, but you don't even have a background in science, much less medicine. You have no qualification to determine what the sources say or don't say regarding if a therapy is woo or real, only your feelings. Rufe12 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is that a deliberate personal attack on Alex? have you read WP:NPA? Alex is one of our most experienced editors in this, and other, areas, and as a rule knows what he is talking about. Comment on content not contributers. you could learn something. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rufe12: Editors here need to find, read and understand good sources, and then humbly summarize their content. Subject matter expertise is not a requirement (sometimes, it can be a hindrance). Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A peer reviewed survey of sources has evidence of efficacy. You, despite a lack of any qualification, concluded that that academic publication is not a good source and your own is. That is the fundamental problem, the sources shots be summarized, not the belief of the editor. The text of the article is beyond anything that can be concluded from the sources.

I don't intend this to be an attack on your person; if a particular editor is determining what appropriate sources are instead of three peer review process, however, the qualification or lack thereof of said editor is relevant. Rufe12 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your statement above is of course, nonsense. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rufe12: Peer-review is not sufficient for a source to be reliable. Read WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS to understand medical sourcing, and WP:FRINGE to see how fringe topics like Shiatsu are handled. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice dogma you got there

"Neither qi nor meridians exist." Lol, I don't get how sh*t like this actually can read on a Misplaced Pages article. A contribution to an encyclopedia should never be based on biased opinions, only neutral facts. No one is qualified to say that "qi doesn't exist", that's like saying that "there was nothing before the big bang". There is no compelling evidence for either of those statements. Both are out of our scope right now. Science is not almighty and all-knowing although humans like to think so, and can't yet acquire information about certain things, but that's just a matter of time. Think about quantum mechanics: nowadays it is a well-known scientific fact that eg. quantum particles exist, but not even a long ago anyone would have called a theory like that "pseudo-/fringe science" and "far out". There's some pretty weird stuff going on on the quantum level which is transforming our conceptions about the world, and findings from quantum physics have already forced science to expand its' borders quite a bit. I see absolutely no reason to believe that science couldn't uncover the mystery of what is called "qi" sometime in the future. Maybe it even has something to do with quantum mechanics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:1ffc:9300:4def:39f3:6f98:50d9 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

1. New contributions go to the bottom.
2. The usual second sentence after "Nice * you got there" is "Would be a pity if something happened to it".
3. This page is not a forum, it is for improving the article.
4. The only thing qi and quantum mechanics have in common is that many people do not understand them. That is not enough to draw a connection between them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

AlexClwn you seem to be repeatedly trying to change the article to your preferred version, but there are problems with your edits:

• A section on "Efficacy" should discuss efficacy up-front, rather than making it a subordinate "however" clause.
• We generally don't go into the weeds discussing types of study, numbers of trial subjects etc. Misplaced Pages is meant to summarize.
• Per WP:MEDMOS Misplaced Pages does not refer to "patients".

Rather than edit war, perhaps explain what you are trying to achieve, because it doesn't look very good so far as attempted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Qi and Meridians are unproven to exist, rather than do not exist.

It is a bit unfair to claim that Qi and Meridians do not exist. It should be treated as any other religious based belief that can not be proven. It is neutral to not make a case for one side of the opinion or the other. It would be as wrong to say that Qi and Meridians do exist, as it is to say that they don't exist. Paladin359 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

e/c Haha, that is like saying we cannot say the earth is round because nobody has proven it not flat yet. This isn't a religion either. Sheesh. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, this talk page came up at the top of my watchlist just now, and I didn't see you edit warring. Naughty. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Earth has absolutely been proven to be round. Unlike Qi, you can see the state of the Earth. Qi an incredibly important part of the religion, Taoism. Paladin359 (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but as our cited sources discuss, proponents want to claim it's scientific too. See for example: Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Something that is claimed to be utilised in medical treatments but “can not be proven” sounds a little pseudoscientific to me. And thanks for that link, Alexbrn, I’ve now wasted some time trying to find the original source for the quotation from Albert Szent-Györgyi (I think it might have been a lecture given in 1972, but can’t find the text of it to confirm). Brunton (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Scientific Reasoning

Dear @Roxy the dog:, You reverted my edit on Shiatsu in which I replaced "good" with "scientific" to keep true to the source. I would like to know your reasoning for this decision as "return to last good" isn't an explanation. Thank you. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a recurrent topic. The problem often expressed about saying "scientific evidence" is that it can imply there are other ways of proving beyond the purview of science. Another problem is that editors will spring up pointing at a crappy journal article on Shitsu saying "look, there is evidence! Misplaced Pages lies". So "no good" covers the bases, and is also technically correct when referencing a secondary source which has sifted the evidence. If readers are really curious they can click the hyperlink for more info. Alexbrn (talk)

E/C That is so strange. My return to good (it seemed at the time) removed a swathe of the "Timeline" nonsense as well as your edit, and yet the edit history says otherwise. I seems I just replaced the word "scientific" with good. That was deliberate too, as using the word scientific in that sentence implies that there is some evidence, which is not the case. I see that since your edit replacing your wording, another editor has made the same edit as me. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"neither qi nor meridians exist"

Claims on Misplaced Pages must be backed by reliable sources. The cited source does not say that qi and meridians are nonexistent. They say that qi is unverifiable and meridians are not supported by evidence. We should also keep in mind that no claim in science is ever considered to have absolute certainty, only support or lack of support. I have updated the article to be more accurate to the source. Also I should note that the Accupressure article goes into more detail regarding meridians and we don't need to be duplicating it. The sources cited for this blurb do not apply to Shiatsu specifically but Chinese traditional medicine in general. MarshallKe (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the good version before your edit, per the source, which says "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you notice that "There is no scientific evidence that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." is not synonymous with "neither qi nor meridians exist"? MarshallKe (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

... and you are pointing this out because? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• The status quo text is a good summary of the cited sources, and the content is necessary for a NPOV. MarshallKe, now edit warring, has been alerted to the WP:Discretionary sanctions in place for this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The "status quo" text is a not at all a summary of the cited sources and is obviously POV and inconsistent with both NPOV and the cited article. MarshallKe (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Qi is a myth. For WP:PSCI policy reasons we need to be upfront about that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In order to best be upfront about pseudoscience, we should demonstrate that science has studied the topic and found no evidence for it. This is what my edit does. MarshallKe (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The SBM source says, Acupuncture meridians and acupoints are imaginary until proven otherwise. The Ernst source says, Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths Are you saying that "imaginary" and "myth" do not imply "does not exist"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ernst source later says "the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven". Would you say that the source conflicts with itself? MarshallKe (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. That's true of things many quasi-religious things that don't exist, like faith healing powers e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• C-Class Japan-related articles
• Mid-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure