Talk:Acupuncture point

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I moved that sentance to the criticism section.  Rhetth 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section and pseudoscience category

message: The article Investigating Acupuncture Using Brain Imaging Techniques: The Current State of Play Investigating Acupuncture Using Brain Imaging Techniques: The Current State of Play - Lewith et al. 2 (3): 315 - Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 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)
thread_title: Evidence from neuroimaging studies?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  identifying accupuncture points 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge to [[Acupuncture]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You should read WP:No binding decisions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PROVEIT and MEDRS 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plausible theories for "points", or for "random needling"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ernst (2006)? Email me and I'll attach the pdf to my reply. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How do I find your email address? PPdd (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There is evidence to suggest acupuncture points exist? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias