Talk:Shiatsu/Archive 1

Cure for Polio
Here are some instances where massage actually did assist in curing Polio. Some people may not realize the damge stress can have on the body. Massage actually releases toxins from the body, which does improve health. Why would it be then, that serious ailments cannot be helped or even cured by massage. In this day and age I am amazed that people can still be so closed minded. The entry below is FROM wikipedia, under "massage" not specifically shiatsu, but hopefully it will help you understand
 * What evidence do you have to support the notion that massage had any affect at all in 'curing' or helping to cure polio. When people have polio they are given food too. That does not mean that food is a cure for polio even if it is essential to sustain life while the patient recovers. Using your logic we could say that houses help cure polio too. And as for massage releasing toxins from the body; I do that every time I go to the toilet. It is easy to dress up mundane things with a little dramatic license. I think it is inappropriate in this type of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"An actor (Alan Alda) most famous for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in the television series M*A*S*H. Alda contracted polio at age seven, during an epidemic. His parents administered a painful treatment, developed by Sister Elizabeth Kenny, in which hot woollen blankets were applied to the limbs and the muscles were stretched by massage.[21] Dinah Shore was a big band singer, actress and talk show host. Shore caught polio, aged 18 months, which left her right leg crippled. She recovered strength through massage, swimming and tennis.[22] Wilma Rudolph was a track and field athlete, Rudolph was the first American woman to win three gold medals at the Olympic Games. At age four, she contracted polio and lost the use of her left leg. After five years of massage and exercises, she managed to walk again without her leg braces. By the time she was a teenager, Rudolph was faster than the boys in her neighbourhood were. Rudolph won a bronze medal, aged 16, at the 1956 Summer Olympics and three gold medals in the 1960 Summer Olympics.[23] Bud Daley was a Major League Baseball pitcher. Commonly reported to be a right-hander who had to learn to play southpaw after an attack of polio in childhood left his right arm weakened and shortened. Daley instead asserts that his right arm and shoulder were damaged at birth when forceps pinched a nerve. A combination of massage and exercises helped restore his limb to health." 75.71.228.245 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These are interesting anecdotes, however Wikipedia articles on medical topics need to be based on reliable sources of medical information WP:MEDRS. If these anecdotes have been verified by a reputable medical publisher then we might have something to include in the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization
Almost all instances of the word shiatsu in this article are capitalized. Is there any reason for that? It's not a proper noun. It should be capitalized only in such phrases as International Shiatsu Association. JamesMLane t c 09:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this article has some embarrasingly stupid entries? "contraindications... trauma (wounds, broken bones, dislocations)" Anyone else think that its somewhat unnecessary to suggest that masaging a broken bone or gunshot wound will not in fact heal it? ALso, hardly NPOV, and I doubt very much that shiatsu will heal paralysis.


 * Then change anything you find inappropriate, or exercise a healthy critique as to what you think is POV. I am afraid the concept "Shiatsu" exists, whether you like it or not. The way to do is to cite opinions for and against, it should not just be removed. Dieter Simon 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is not (as you so kindly tried and failed to point out) whether or not I like the idea of shiatsu existing, rather it is whether or not I like the idea of something being billed as an encyclopedia claiming that massage will heal serious nerve disorders like paralysis, viral diseases like polio, or vitamin deficiencies like beriberi. Hence the NPOV flag which you mysteriously removed. I don't particularly feel like doing a bunch of research right now to revamp this article, and frankly it doesn't interest me much, so I'd leave that to someone conversant on the subject. Which now that I think about it is the exact point of the NPOV flag, is it not? Since when does NPOV flag = delete this article?--70.70.143.237 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 70.70.143.237, yes we as Wikipedians want you to edit this article. That is what it is all about. If you have expert knowledge, don't hold back. Give the various pros and cons, of what other experts say, and we will be very happy. You should not, however, include your own research into the subject which has not been already published by other sources. Dieter Simon 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem - extraordinary claims like that shiatsu can cure cancer require extraordinary evidence. Link to the studies that show that shiatsu is effective in all of these things and they can go in. Otherwise, the entire section of what shiatsu cures is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The entry for Quantum Shiatsu, Cliff Andrews Pauline Sasaki, Cliff Andrews claims are called quack medicine by Professor David Colquhoun of University College London www.dc'simprobable science page. Nothing more to add. (user j garrington 17/8/2007)

Clearly the talk page guidelines are being ignored here. The aforementioned should spend more time being a professor and less time making false accusations which may affect his targets negatively; not to worry, his karma will balance. And did he offer proof? Doubtful, so he has no right to make the accusation in the first place. How has his science been threatened by what someone else does, in an unrelated field? As for some of these other brilliant entries: knowing how to write grammatically correct sentences and spell "embarrassingly" or "massage" would be a start for anyone wishing to be taken seriously. Shiatsu is in fact serious medicine and it does in fact work- but it is not based on western science so using that medium to examine it is comparing apples to oranges; and if you don't like it, you don't have to try it. No one held you down and performed a treatment. Lastly, no self respecting trained Shiatsu (yes, I'll capitalize that) practitioner, or massage therapist for that matter, would directly palpate a wound like a broken bone. Educate yourself, then talk. Or not- that would be better for all.Benjazen (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The global nature of shiatsu
Hi,

I happened upon this article and felt that it was biased in favour of Namikoshi and his school. It also did not explain enough. Both these faults I have tried to correct. I do not know whether we should go into what its purpose is and how it functions. This discussion doesn't really seem to be informed about the role shiatsu has to play in both personal and global health. Arguments about mending broken legs is just silly. Shiatsu is about mind as much as it as about the body. Ankank (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any ahoritative sources concerning other schools of Shiatsu? Please feel free to publish links to reliable research. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I've removed this tag, seeing as there seems to be no more dispute about the revised article.

Ankank (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the last bit about opposition to shiatsu seems a little questionable. Seems like you start having NPOV issues as soon as you say "arcane laws against..." - Will

The article is misleading
In the article it is stated that the Cancer Research UK believe that there is no evidence to support the use of Shiatsu in the treatment of cancer, "...however they do state that massage therapy can be beneficial for some patients." Well, this latter point may be true in much the same way that a milk shake can be beneficial for any patient, if they like milk shakes, but it is a misleading statement in the context of the paragraph where it is clearly meant to undermine the veracity of the statement which preceded it - that Cancer Research UK do not believe Shiatsu is capable of treating cancer. Feeling better does not mean that the illness has been treated.

Liking a thing, and feeling better in some way after receiving the thing is not the same as being cured, or having a malady treated by that thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the efficacy of shiatsu, and on cancer
I should point out that shiatsu really is offered to people with cancer, which makes Cancer Research's page particularly relevant, although that page covers shiatsu generally and not just cancer. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not what is being referenced from the cancer website. The site says shiatsu is used by people with cancer to cope with stress, anxiety, depression, muscle pain, nausea etc. The person referencing the site clearly has an alternative motive by writing "there is no scientific evidence proving that shiatsu can treat any disease." when shiatsu is not aimed at treating disease such as cancer, and the cancer site even states "shiatsu therapists promote the therapy as a natural way to help you relax and improve your wellbeing".


 * The citation used in this article does not belong as it is not referencing anything and is being linked in both cases with another reference "trick or treatment" a self published book through amazon.co.uk which is subjective writing www.trickortreatment.com/references.html, and not a reliable reference. It has been included in an inappropriate section of the heading and copied and pasted in the beginning of another section. This is clear advertisement for the book. 119.12.164.237 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be absurd to discard references to a reliable source under the pretence that they're "advertising" a book. Pro-shiatsu external links - which send readers directly to people who make a living out of Shiatsu - were not deleted at the same time. Please assume good faith rather than claiming that someone trying to write an accurate article on shiatsu has sinister motives. Please don't discard a reliable source as "subjective" and "self-published" - that further discredits your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; its articles should be based on reliable sources. If you have better sources that show shiatsu is effective (regardless of logic-chopping over the meaning of "treat" or "therapy"), it would be a good idea to point them out here. bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you raised concerns about advertising, I removed the promotional links from the "external links" section. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not meet the requirement of being a reliable reference at all. It is not "my" argument, it is the guidelines of the wikipedia and  if you think it is, take it to the reliable references board and gain consensus among admins and such.121.91.9.62 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A self-published book and a FAQ page of a .org website is hardly enough evidence to back up such a grandiose claim in the beginning of this article that "there is no scientific evidence proving that shiatsu can treat any disease". I am not an expert on this topic, but there must be peer-reviewed articles on this subject. Please, either link to something more reputable (and not some obscure journal) or trim down the grandiosity of the claim accordingly. Tornado.catcher (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Appropriateness of "Hyper Scepticism" in Complementary Health Articles
It is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia article to frame the exposition of a topic according to the standards of another discipline. In this case that means it is not appropriate to bracket a discussion of shiatsu in the criticisms or scepticism of western biomedicine (i.e. claims that "it is not proven"). The correct place for these comments (and they indeed must be included for a balanced article) is in a "criticism" section. Framing exposition inside criticism is not intellectually neutral or responsible: it is a highly prejudicial and makes the whole article look amateurish, agenda-ed and biased. I *strongly* suggest that, in the name of intellectual neutrality, the prejudicial comments in the lead paragraph be deleted and that criticism take place in the criticism section, which should be moved to the end of the article AFTER a neutral, non-biased exposition of the topic. Indeed, the repeated line that "There is no scientific evidence proving that shiatsu is effective at treating any disease.[3][4]" has exactly the same citations (notes 1 and 3, and 2 and 4 are copy paste jobs). The article is also prejudicially structured (by having evidence base criticisms placed before even an explanation of what shiatsu is and its history). Small changes could make a great improvement to the neutrality of the article. Sleeping Turtle
 * This is an encyclopædia; first and foremost it should reflect what reliable sources say. Unfortunately, this stance can cause some difficulties with alt-med articles where many people believe in something incompatible with the available evidence, but it's important to rely on WP:MEDRS for any medical claims. "Intellectual neutrality" does not mean giving fantasies and fiction a head start then introducing reality in a ghettoised "criticism" section further down the article (which WP:CRIT advises against anyway).
 * There's probably some scope for tidying, though; the article has got a bit unkempt after so much back-and-forth editing (like certain other alt-med articles, the history is mostly about one editor attempting to "balance" the article by removing any criticism, followed by another editor restoring reliable sources, rinse and repeat over and over again). bobrayner (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A neutral presentation of the information would be just that: an exposition of what the thing is and what people say about it. Then criticisms would follow. The criticism would not be part of the exposition. Dubious claims would be presented with formulas like "some practitioners claim.. " etc. That is standard procedure in academic presentations. You have clearly taken ownership of this article and are enforcing your personal views (under the cloak of "documentation" and "proof") by means of edit wars. That is apparent from the history page. This article will remain biased and of poor quality until you stop doing that. Sleeping Turtle —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
 * It's definitely not a violation of WP:N to put the mainstream view first (i.e. Shiatsu has not been proven effective against any disease). This is especially important for an article whose subject is arguably WP:FRINGE. The overwhelming view of qualified medical researchers is that there is no evidence that Shiatsu works, hence it would not be appropriate to put this mainstream view in a "Criticism" section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I still get little sense that the concept of an exposition of a position is really understood. I can give a neutral exposition of Hinduism´s belief in reincarnation (or any other concept I find implausible) without framing it in such a way as to undermine it before I have carefully explained in terms that proponents would accept what exactly is believed. I see little point in contributing to this article at the moment (and I typically do this by helping with restructuring and referencing). This, to my mind, underlines a fundamental weakness in the wikipedia project. Sleeping Turtle —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC).
 * We frame things how reliable sources frame things, taking into account WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and other guidelines. If your issue is with wikipedia in general then we can not help you on this talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some recent problems
Hi, Recently there has been quite a lot of reverting to introduce some problematic content into the article: This has got to stop. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it must reflect the mainstream view; it shouldn't make excuses for quackery. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing Japanese wikipedia for a quote about technique. Citing another wikipedia is a bad thing; citing it for a quote which is not even on that wikipedia is just bizarrely wrong.
 * Copy-and-pasting text about the efficacy of shiatsu from some random dictionary website. Presumably this was done because a search of more reliable sources didn't find any which pretended that shiatsu was effective. Even if it weren't a serious copyright problem, it's an unreliable source.
 * Outright misuse of sources, and discarding reliable independent sources which don't fit the shiatsu fantasy.
 * And yet more editwarring, with false edit summaries such as "My sources are more reliable". Please stop distorting, please stop removing reliably sourced content, please stop adding copyright violations. Please try to discuss. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with comments above. The editor wishing to make changes needs to get consensus here first and address the above issues prior to trying to re-instate. Yobol (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How can a book (Ernst and Singh's) be more reliable when they don't cite one single source or reference, than one that does? then perhaps citing another article from wikipedia is not the best source, but it's certainly better than citing a private website for publicity that doesn't even agree wit the definition given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiatsushi (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a notice at. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call! --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has undone my latest edition to the article shiatsu citing that letterss to the editors are not MEDRS. Since this letter to the editor was sent to me by Dr Singh himself as evidence for his claims on the book 'Trick or Treatment' which is cited as a source twice in this article, I believe they should either remove the book as a source or accept HIS source. If they don't agree with this I want mediation by an impartial administrator. I certainly don't believe they are impartial. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen such a biased person,citing a book and not accepting the source for the claims in THAT PARTICUALR book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiatsushi (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Letters to the editor are not reliable sources for medical claims. If you have relevant sources that meet our criteria, and not hand-waving about what one author of one source may have written to you personally, please present that source. Yobol (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Letters to editors are not reliable sources. You also commited a copyright violation when you copied the text directly from your source, do not do so again (I have templated the userpage). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If letters to the editor are not reliable sources then the book 'Trick or Treatment' is not either, since the letter to the editor I have given is the evidence that Dr Singh has produced for his claims about shiatsu. So you either remove the book as one of the sources or accept my changes. Or alternatively, ask the author to present that source as I have done - and suspend his book as a source in the meantime -, as you have done in my case. Otherwise let's get mediation.Shiatsushi (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. The book does not use the source in the manner you are trying to use it (as fact). If it was used it is by the book it is most likely to demonstrate something said by a Shiatsu practitioner. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

1) This book doesn't cite ONE SINGLE SOURCE OR REFERENCE (as anyone can check in a library) for its claims on shiatsu, therefore, according to Wikipedia rules, it shouldn't be used as a reference. 2) Someone has deleted the timeline in this article citing the lack of secondary sources. If we apply the same argument to the book's claims, any reference to the book should be deleted. 3) There are at least two versions of the book, but mine says that there is no evidence that shiatsu is MORE efficient than conventional massage, which is not the same as the article in wikipedia says, so at least the wording in wikipedia should be changed. 4) I hope you change YOUR wording too. You say that the source in the book "it is most likely to demonstrate something said by a Shiatsu practitioner." If, as you claim, letters to the editor are not proof, I can't see how it can DEMONSTRATE anything. 5) You are completely wrong. In the book, as anyone can see by reading it, the authors claim that "there are reports" of shiatsu producing cerebral and arterial embolism. Of course, it is only ONE report, not reports as they claim, and in the same article you can read that there is no evidence of shiatsu directly producing cerebral and arterial embolism - which they conveniently forget to mention. So the authors use this letter to the editor - which is no evidence according to you - to slag off a therapy. It is not only unlikely that they want to demonstrate something said by a Shiatsu practitioner, it is impossible. 6) If you want to defend the book, I suggest you join one of the many forums available, but I don't think wikipedia is the place to present your personal opinions as facts. 7) Since I don't have any administrator friends in wikipedia, I insist on mediation. As I said, anyone can go to a library, and see that this book doesn't cite one single source or reference for its claims.Shiatsushi (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have the wrong book. You said it has no references yet you say they have a reference to this letter, that doesn't seem consistent with what you say. Trick or Treat has already been deemed reliable for its current use: . IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think misinterpreting my words, or pretending to forget your OWN words, is going to do your cause any good. I told you that this source was from an email sent to me by Dr Singh. Not that it was included in the book. You own words were "If you have relevant sources that meet our criteria, and not hand-waving about what one author of one source may have written to you personally, please present that source." So pretending that you haven't understood is - in my humble opinion - pretty low. It is not - repeat so that you can understand - IT IS NOT included in the book. I was told that using another Wikipedia article as sources was not acceptable. I haven't been able to find the reference for its reliability either. And no, I INSIST ON MEDIATION. The book doesn't mention any sources or references, anybody can see that, and as I told you before, wikipedia is not the place to defend the book. You have plenty of forums to do that. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I made a mistake in my previous editing. Those were not IRWolfie's words but Yobol's. IRWolfie, you are an administrator who has supported Yobol in him undoing my editing. You seem to support him without reading what he says. So now more than ever, I think mediation by someone impartial who can check that what I say is true with just a trip to the library would be necessary.Shiatsushi (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I should point out I am not an administrator and I am unsure why you would think I was. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This time Yobol has undone my editing of shiatsu for some personal reason of his. He doesn't seem to have given any reasons for it either. I have used EXACTLY the same article (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu) that is given in wikipedia as a source. I just felt that choosing just the part of the article that he personally likes, without mentioning the rest, was not impartial at all. Since he is obviously more articulate than me, let him add something that reflects "Some people with cancer use shiatsu to help control symptoms and side effects such as poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood. They say that it helps them to cope better with their cancer and its treatment. After a shiatsu treatment a lot of people say they feel very relaxed and have higher energy levels." and "This does not mean that shiatsu may not work in controlling symptoms or side effects, simply that it has not yet been tested properly." Since I don't think he is going to do it I need mediation - formal if possible - between him and me. I believe he is biased and opinionated Shiatsushi (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Shiatsushi (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would strongly advise you not to accuse other editors of being "biased" and "opinionated". I notice that your own edit history seems to be confined to a single article. Your username suggests that you have a significant personal interest in this topic. I suspect you might find yourself accused of the same thing! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. My own edit history is confined to what I know about. I try to avoid talking or writing about things I don't know anything about. If this causes any problem just let me know so that I start writing about anything. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that I have shown impartiality. When I use one particular source such as I try to present ALL sides of the argument even if they do not suit my personal interests. (What could I possibly gain from allowing the words "There is no scientific evidence for any medical efficacy of shiatsu" which the article states? Please enlighten me). In contrast, Yobol has just taken one sentence that supports his view and ignored all the others. If you don't believe that I am being impartial when I want to present both sides of the argument, please say so, and we'll refer it to someone else.Shiatsushi (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The section you want to cite is clearly only intended to describe public opinion of shiatsu. The following section makes it very clear that Cancer Research UK do not believe that Shiatsu is effective for treating cancer symptoms. I think you are wasting people's time with this advocacy. I'd urge you to read the policy document WP:SPA. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who is completely wrong. I have never written or claimed that shiatsu is effective for treating cancer symptoms. In fact, I haven't even mentioned cancer symptoms. So could you please stop wasting my time by twisting my words and putting words into my mouth? I suggest YOU read the article in full and the changes I have suggested before making judgements (or should I call them pre-judgements?)Shiatsushi (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way it isn't supported by the reference? Could you be more specific? In what way it doesn't support the words in the reference "This does not mean that shiatsu may not work in controlling symptoms or side effects, simply that it has not yet been tested properly." and "Some people with cancer use shiatsu to help control symptoms and side effects such as poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood." If you don't think my rendering of those EXACT words was fair, I suggest you either write something that reflects those words INCLUDED in the reference - as anyone can check - or that we get mediation by someone who checks that what I say is true. You have also changed back the word "created" by "invented". The original word in the reference is "founded". I suggest we get mediation for that too, since in my humble opinion, invented is not the same as founded. I don't think you are being impartial. That is why I must insist on mediation - formal if possible. Shiatsushi (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC) I have added some changes that, in my opinion, reflect better what both sources say. As anyone who has read any books on research or the scientific method knows, when you have no clinical trials you suspend judgement. So I thought adding there is no evidence either way would convey better the message of both sources. If anyone disagrees with me, I beg them to explain their reasoning before undoing the changes, and I'll be very happy to discuss them. If they don't like the sentence saying there is no proof of its efficacy or inefficacy at treating any disease, I'll ask them to think how they would feel if the sentence just said "there is no proof of the inefficacy of shiatsu at treating any disease" which would be as true, but imply somethng different. Shiatsushi (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is two separate sources that verifies the text. It appears you are trying to pick which source you use and ignore the other. There is no evidence of efficiacy, that is mentioned in both. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also consult WP:BRD for the typical approach to editing on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case. Both sources menrion the lack of clinical trials. I explained that in my previous editing of the talk page but for some reason you have chosen to ignore it. I have just read WP:BRD as you suggested and it says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." It seems to me that you are the one not following wikipedia guidelines. If you don't like my changes because they don't agree with your opinion, that is not reason to undo them. I'll repeat it again. Both sources say there are no clinical trials, from whichever angle you want to look at it, it means there is no evidence for the efficacy or inefficacy of the technique, which is what I was trying to convey. Now, I'd like to see how neutral you are - and sure of your point - by starting formal mediation for this issue. Informal mediation hasn't worked because nobody has volunteered for it. If you refuse, as you have done in the past, I'll request it. Shiatsushi (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We already have mentioned the lack of trials in the article. After mentioning there is no evidence you added some vague claims by those who've recieved this treatment. Note that the Cancer UK source is less reliable than the Ernst & Singh source. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the lack of clinical trials is mentioned in the article, I must be blind because I can't see it. If the claims by those who have received it are vague, then so is the whole reliability of the source. Or are you saying that the bits that are convenient for your point of view are reliable and the others are not? Why should be those claims vague and not the fact that there is no evidence? Because you say so? It doesn't matter which source is more reliable than the other. If both mention the lack of clinical trials, it means there is no evidence for its efficacy or inefficacy, but- for some reason you refuse to explain - the article must ONLY mention the lack of evidence for efficacy. I insist on formal mediation, and if you don't request it, I will. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Shiatsushi, you are free to request any kind of mediation you want. You do not require permission, however as I cautioned you before you may find your entire editing history taken into consideration and need not address the issue that you have asked them to deal with. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In which case I have misunderstood. When reading about mediation, I have read that it is not the same thing as arbitration. Mediation is only for content. Is it not true any longer? Now mediation HAS to do with private reasons and not content? Is it me who doesn't know how to read? Why are you replying to me? Are you taking sides? Doesn't IRWolfie have any explanation for undoing my changes except my editing history? Is it a vendetta? Shiatsushi (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe the point here is whether we accept a source as reliable or we don't. If one source is accepted as reliable, I think I have the right to edit the article and add aspects from that source that were not included before in the article. But Salimfadhley and IRWolfie seem to want to deny me that right. If this is the case, please say so, that I will explain how "free" wikipedia is. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what you must do. Sources are not always declared completely reliable. They are reliable for specific statements. I have given my reason for undoing your edit above, which you have seemingly ignored. The lack of trials is specifically covered by this text: no scientific evidence for any medical efficacy of shiatsu. There are more editors than me on this talk page, hence there is no need for mediation; you can simply wait for other editors to post in this talk section. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, the source is only reliable for what you say it is. So, according to you, nobody can post anything that contradicts your opinion. And I mean opinion. If you have the power to choose what is reliable and what is not, could you please explain why is it called the free encyclopedia,and not the IRWolfie encyclopedia? AND your reason for undoing my editing is not clear. As I have explained - and you seem to have chosen to ignore - the lack of trials is NOT specifically covered by the text: no scientific evidence for any medical efficacy of shiatsu. If there are no clinical trials, then there is no evidence for the efficacy or inefficacy of shiatsu, which is EXACTLY what I wrote. Why we have to write only half of this sentence (the half you like) is what you have failed to explain, so there is need for mediation. Shiatsushi (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no evidence something works, it is misleading to mention in the text that maybe it works, you also added text stating that "some experts uphold judgement" which appears to be OR. That there is no scientific evidence is all we need to say. It's also misleading then to add the text "Some of their recipients have reported that it helps them cope with poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood. Others report a feeling of relaxation and higher energy levels." since it is only anecdotal evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to reply to you without being blocked. Can I? Shiatsushi (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, best to leave it then. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you wouldn't like it. Shiatsushi (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice try IRWolfie, but apparently I'm still allowed to reply after your attempts to block me because I don't agree with you. I have explained my reasons on your talk page. I have a question. When on your talk page you say you value reason, do you mean that eveyone has to agree with you? Do you mean that you are allowed to refuse to explain your editing and ask for others to be blocked when they don't agree with you as you have done on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_April_2012/ when I have asked for mediation? Yeah, I can see what you mean by reason. Shiatsushi (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just reading "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." and "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." I wonder if it applies to IRWolfie's statement: "If there is no evidence something works, it is misleading to mention in the text that maybe it works". (not exactly my words, but his). I would have thought it would be misleading to NOT mention it. Certainly not neutral. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge
I've performed the Equine merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

small study
I have removed the text saying "Research has proved that patients in primary care who received shiatsu needed fewer consultations and prescriptions for medication". It is straight out not supported by the text. Firstly, it was a small study (ten people), secondly they asked the patients for their opinions (very subjective) about what they thought and then used that, and thirdly I am concerned about the reliability of the journal in general. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS also warns about the danger of using small studies for medical claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200172/ - this article show data about studies, their quality and results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathry (talk • contribs) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Shiatsu in Japan
in Japan; Shiatsu is a no-nonsense model of manual therapy that focuses on providing tissue-level fluid exchange for, and stretching of, contracted connective tissue and musculature (the health benefits of such body maintenance are not disputable).

Western, registered massage techniques have high physical demands (practitioners will tell you their hands are "falling off" after some 4 years of practice). Shiatsu is a collection of techniques that put less physical stress on the practitioners joints to the same therapeutic effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chedca (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Material and reference removed
I have moved the following material here. The source is not a reliable source, in fact it is a promotional website:

It can also be performed on horses and other animals.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

biased and inaccurate
First of all I want to say that this Wikipedia page is slander for Shiatsu Therapy, it omits important information on the practice and users constantly revert changes and additions made by others. This page is a poor representation of Shiatsu Therapy.

It is very clear that this article is written by people with barely any understanding or experience with the practice and the article has an overall negative, biased tone.

(**Shiatsu practitioners believe these are major Tsubos onMeridian Lines**)


 * Namikoshi Shiatsu (the standard original form does not acknowledge meridian lines or energy in general. It is entirely based points based on western anatomy and neurology. Masunaga Style and Tao Shiatsu acknowledge the meridians, however the flow of the meridians are different from conventional acupuncture. This image is of the chinese acupuncture point system. Inaccurate. There should be an image of the Namikoshi points describing their foundation in western science, and another image properly depicting the Masunaga meridian charts.

Shiatsu (Kanji: 指圧 Hiragana: しあつ) in Japanese means "finger pressure"; it is a type of alternative medicine consisting of finger and palm pressure, stretches, (**and other massage techniques.**)


 * Shiatsu does not employ "massage techniques"

(**Shiatsu is an implausible therapy,[1] and there is no evidenceof its effectiveness.[2]**)


 * This comment is biased and uninformative. "Due to a lack of research amd funding, there is little evidence of it's effectiveness." That is a more appropriate and accurate statement.


 * [1] "trick or treatment" is a biased and from a book based on one person's opinion. This is not a credible source of information for Shiatsu.

(**Shiatsu practitioners promote it as a way to help people relax and cope with issues such as stress, muscle pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression.**)


 * Spa owners, schools and instructors also promote it for those purposes. "Shiatsu is promoted as a way..." is more appropriate.

Tokujiro Namikoshi (1905-2000) invented shiatsu and founded the first shiatsu college in 1940.[1](**Shiatsu draws on concepts from the field ofTraditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).[3][4]**)


 * Once again, the Namikoshi system is founded in western sciences and draws on no concepts from the field of TCM. The Masunaga lineage does.

(**A 2011 systematic review of shiatsu's effectiveness found that only a few studies had been carried out, and concluded that the available evidence "was of insufficient quantity and quality".[4]**)


 * actually, the conclusion of the source used states that: "Evidence is improving in quantity, quality and reporting, but more research is needed, particularly for Shiatsu, where evidence is poor. Acupressure may be beneficial for pain, nausea and vomiting and sleep."


 * This source also states that "Shiatsu incorporates acupressure" the wikipedia author seems to have twisted this statement in a negative light.

(**Commenting on this conclusion Edzard Ernst said: "what does that tell us about shiatsu? It clearly tells us that it is an unproven therapy".[5] Ernst has previously been a co-author of the Oxford Handbook of Complementary Medicine which had concluded that there was no convincing data available to suggest that shiatsu was effective for any condition.[6]**)


 * Why quote a man known as "the scourge of alternative medicine" on a wikipedia page about alternative medicine. Then dedicate a paragraph on Shiatsu's information page to describe his background? This is not relevant and certainly not credible information about shiatsu therapy.

(**According to Cancer Research UK, "there is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer."[2]**)


 * This statement is from a source that promotes Shiatsu for cancer patients. The overall tone of the site is positive, but why is it twisted in such a way to discredit Shiatsu?

Schenks (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So what are you suggesting? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy and partial quotes
These are five (5) statements that literally provide the exact same information. If you would like to cite all 5 sources, I think it should be done in a single statement. The truth is, a lack of studies and thus scientific evidence does not disprove the effectiveness of Shiatsu. The fact is, there is little research on the subject and no funding for such conclusive research.

+"Shiatsu is an implausible therapy,[1] and there is no evidence of its effectiveness.[2]"

++"only a few studies had been carried out, and concluded that the available evidence 'was of insufficient quantity and quality'"

+++"Commenting on this conclusion Edzard Ernst said: "what does that tell us about shiatsu? It clearly tells us that it is an unproven therapy".[5]"

+++"Oxford Handbook of Complementary Medicine which had concluded that there was no convincing data available to suggest that shiatsu was effective for any condition.[6]"

"There is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer."

+"Shiatsu is an implausible medical intervention. However, like all massage techniques it may generate relaxation and a sense of wellbeing." This is the full quote and I believe it should stated as such.

++"Evidence is improving in quantity, quality and reporting, but more research is needed, particularly for Shiatsu, where evidence is poor. Acupressure may be beneficial for pain, nausea and vomiting and sleep." That's the full quote. I was told Acupressure has no place on this page, however the same source states that "Shiatsu incorporates acupressure". I think the full quote above should be used.

+++Although I acknowledge Ezdard Ernst's place in the field of complementary medicine, I do not believe he belongs so prominently featured in this article. His quote is merely a comment and the conclusion of the Oxford Handbook simply reiterates the statement he was commenting on. I think this should be removed.

If these parts are edited as such, they will each be providing more information rather than rephrasing the last quote.

Thoughts?Schenks (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)