Talk:Zero balancing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested articles

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 12 March 2012 by reviewer Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs).

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles

Skepticism Low‑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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Hello, made some edits to improve article based on previous notes and edits. Still very new at this - not sure how I was supposed to document my edits other than writing it here. If anyone is watching this page I would love further help or suggestions, thank you. I will be adding some photos soon. Guinyviere2000 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia's policy on reliable medical sources before continuing. There are several medical or health-related claims in this article that are backed up by non-medical sources. There are also several self-published sources and primary sources. Over-use of SPSs or primary sources can suggest that a topic is not notable enough to have been the subject of independent, third-party publications. There is also some promotional language. I have tagged problem statements so you can easily identify what needs work. Famousdog (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No changes/improvements have been made to the tagged portions of this page. Does that mean I can start deleting content? Famousdog (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes that make it clear how few sources this article has and removed some SPSs and non-MEDRSs. Edited the language to bring it closer to a neutral POV. Famous_dog 09:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been traveling and unable to respond to your edits. I am a bit dismayed at the deletion of so much material. I am new to Wiki and am not understanding choices about content that seem to be more opinion. Why were the sections removed related to Practitioner certification and organizations? I had looked at other alternative therapy pages and many of them included the training process for that therapy. It seems relevant material. What are the criteria for establishing a source as an "unreliable medical source"? There is also a strange abandoned sentence in the last section. "If a client." I spent a great deal of time writing this article - I would appreciate if it gets edited that the same amount of care be put into the edits. Thank you for your help with this. (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

On a separate note, I received an OTRS permission flag for use of content from www.zerobalancing.com but it's displayed on my sandbox talk page where I had been developing the article. How do I get it over to this page? Or I'm assuming it Should be connected to this talk page, is that right? Again apologies for the newbie questions. (Guinyviere2000 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry you are confused by my edits. I suggest you read the articles that I linked to in my first comment above. My edits are not informed by opinion, as you seem to be implying above. WP articles need to be verifiable and well-sourced. Articles that make medical claims need to follow appropriate policy and self-published or promotional sources are to be discouraged (especially in articles making medical claims). I have merged the citations since the reference section was getting very long (despite the relative paucity of (reliable) sources on this topic). Sorry about the sloppy edit that resulted in "if a client" - I have actually deleted this partial sentence because it contains a piped link that sends you to a very different article. There are important reasons why alt-med practitioners refer to "clients" and not "patients." Using "easter egg" wikilinks like this indroduces a subtle bias into the article. Famous_dog 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't help you on the OTRS thing, sorry. Famous_dog 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, life kind of blew up for awhile and I am just now getting back to working on this article. I have deleted a couple of the areas that didn't make sense. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) have specific suggestions for how to make this sound less like an advertisement (the most recent flag that was added.) I have tried to keep the tone neutral, so I'm thinking it must be something else that's wrong. Thank you all. Guinyviere2000 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, references[edit]

What is the basis of notability for this article? As a biomedical subject the references should be MEDRS compliant. A pub med search returns three results one the 2011 study of a program which included Zero Balancing and 2 other treatment modalities which participants could mix and match at will. There is no data on how many used only Zero Balancing, no comparison of ZB versus other tx, no control group, only 7.5% of the participant surveys indicated they used ZB at all. The study itself is WP:FRINGE with a theoretical basis in qi, yin and yang and stretches such as, "McCraty and Childre's review of coherence in the electromagnetic field of the heart19 suggests resonance with Chinese understanding of heart qi." The authors go on to state, "In a healthy ANS, sympathetic arousal (what the Chinese call yang) and parasympathetic restoration (what the Chinese call yin) mediate sympathetic activation and parasympathetic collapse." Way fringe, regardless the study provides no data on the use of ZB at all only that it was one of 3 non exclusionary choices. The content is cut to here:

A 2011 study published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, evaluated the benefits of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapy in the workplace. Zero Balancing was among three modalities participants could choose from. Subjects reported feeling, "more relaxed, less stress, more energy, less pain and experienced increased compassion with patients, better sleep, improved mood, and more ease in relations with co-workers."^[1]

^ ^{[unreliable medical source?]}Duncan, A.D.; Liechty, J.M.; Miller, C.; Chinoy, G.; Ricciardi, R. (2011). "Employee use and perceived benefit of a complementary and alternative medicine wellness clinic at a major military hospital: Evaluation of a pilot program". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 17 (9): 809–15. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0563. PMID 21834662. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Clearly this is WP:UNDUE as above no data on ZB use in study, fringe study with poor methodology. The other two Pub Med results are a 2009 "conceptual review" and 1998 "information on a therapy". Neither of which meet WP:MEDRS standards.

A Google search returns only promotional material from those who sell Zero Balancing as does a Google Books search. The sources in the article now not independent nor very reputable as MEDRS. This article needs high quality independent third party sources for general information and WP:MEDRS sources for any descriptions of treatments, claims of effects, descriptions of mechanism or other biomedical information. I don't know if such support can be found. This article may wind up a stub if there is enough notability for it to exist at all. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] {[unreliable medical source?]}Duncan, A.D.; Liechty, J.M.; Miller, C.; Chinoy, G.; Ricciardi, R. (2011). "Employee use and perceived benefit of a complementary and alternative medicine wellness clinic at a major military hospital: Evaluation of a pilot program". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 17 (9): 809–15. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0563. PMID 21834662. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]