This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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).
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).
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)
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 [6]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 00:23, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've performed the Equine merge. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
- - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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**)
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 is an implausible therapy,[1] and there is no evidenceof its effectiveness.[2]**)
(**Shiatsu practitioners promote it as a way to help people relax and cope with issues such as stress, muscle pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression.**)
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]**)
(**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]**)
(**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]**)
(**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]**)
Schenks ( talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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).
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).
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)
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 [6]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 00:23, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've performed the Equine merge. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
- - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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**)
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 is an implausible therapy,[1] and there is no evidenceof its effectiveness.[2]**)
(**Shiatsu practitioners promote it as a way to help people relax and cope with issues such as stress, muscle pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression.**)
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]**)
(**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]**)
(**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]**)
(**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]**)
Schenks ( talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
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)