Talk:Colorpuncture

Copyleft

Roze Company has agreed for Wiki to use the content on this posting. The content is similar to what is on Roze Company's website at: http://www.rozecompany.com/info.php Roze Company may have posted similar information on other locations, and agrees that the content can be posted on Wiki's website. Roze Company has copyright on the posted information, but agrees for free usage of the content by Wiki.

Since this page was first posted on Wiki, Roze Company has placed a "Copyleft Statement" on their page, indicating it is OK to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Who removed all the "further reading" I previously had for this article. I don't see any notes about it being removed in the "history". If there is no response I will put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstracts

The following abstracts were added to the article. However, this is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article although they may be good sources for assisting in writing the article. As such, I've moved the text to this talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The following are three research articles on color light acupuncture:

The American Journal of Acupuncture Vol. 24, No. 2&3; Vol. 25, No. 2&3; and Vol. 27, No. 1&2

These three issues of the American Journal of Acupuncture contained articles by Manohar Croke on Esogetic Colorpuncture and Kirlian Energy Emission Analysis. The articles include extensive discussions of theory, as well as case histories and summaries of early clinical studies. Abstracts of the articles are presented below with the permission of the American Journal of Acupuncture. (reprints of the complete articles are available from IEC, USA)

1. A Brief Introduction to Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy -- A System of Wholistic Acu-Light Therapy: Theory and Case Studies by Manohar Croke and Rosemary Dass

Abstract: Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy (ECT) is a new system of light therapy based on concepts of acupuncture. Developed by Peter Mandel, a German naturopath and acupuncturist, this system offers a systematic method of using colored light applied as a stimulation at acu-points in order to facilitate the healthy exchange of information between the physical and subtle bodies, to clear the energetic remnants of trauma and to support the evolution of the individual. The authors briefly discuss the theories and research which have served as a basis for development of this work, and present three case studies to demonstrate the wholistic healing potential of this unique healing modality.

2. Assessing Kirlian Phenomena via Energy Emission Analysis (EEA): An Interview with Originator Peter Mandel by Manohar Croke & Rosemary Dass

Abstract: The use of Kirlian photography to evaluate energetic disturbances has been a topic of research since the early part of this century. After two decades of research, German naturopath and acupuncturist Peter Mandel developed Energy Emission Analysis (EEA), a method of correlating and assessing physical and psychological symptoms via Kirlian emission phenomena. In this interview, he explains how he started working with the Kirlian camera and describes some of the basic principles of his approach, including his emission "topography." A case study in which Kirlian assessment was used during the course of treatment is included.

3. A Review of Recent Research Studies on the Efficacy of Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy – A Wholistic Acu-Light System

Abstract: This article reviews recent studies conducted in Europe, which sought to evaluate the effectiveness of Peter Mandel’s Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy (ECT). These investigations addressed the use of specific ECT therapies for treating a variety of difficult health problems: migraines, childhood insomnia, bronchitis, ADD or learning disorders, and uterine fibroids. Limitations in research design and sample size necessitate that these studies be viewed as pilot or preliminary research. However, in all the studies, the findings showed dramatic improvement of symptoms after ECT treatments. This suggests that ECT may offer fast, economical, non-invasive and non-toxic methods for treating the selected health problems and that ECT continues to show promise as a powerful new method of wholistic healing.

Remove sentence?

I suggest that the following sentence be removed from this article, and the associated reference #2: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" This is one man's opinion, and is specifically related to acupuncture not to colorpuncture. I did not see this statement or reference in Wikipedia's "Acupuncture" article, where it is more relevant. I think it could easily be taken out of context the way it was stated in the Colorpuncture article. It appears to state that acupuncture has no medical relevance. Yet Wikipedia has a long extensive article on Acupuncture and all the associated benefits. Could someone please remove it? I have a bit of a COI with this article so will be extra careful on what I edit myself. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Very Strongly Disagree This is mainstream scientific consensus. Simonm223 (talk)

Strongly disagree I'm a mainstream scientist and I concur ;-) There is no evidence that meridians exist or that acupuncture points have any particular "medical relevance". The scientific support for acupuncture (aside from faked Chinese "demonstrations" [1]) is very weak. Famousdog (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger, the subject is dealt with in this section, and therefore also mentioned in the lead of the acupuncture article. Since colorpuncture is predicated on the existence of acupuncture points and meridians, this fact (no evidence of existence) should obviously be mentioned. So rather than be removed, the point should be improved. You'll find the links to use in the acupuncture article. Now let's see how good a wikipedian and respecter of NPOV you are... (it's called writing for the opponent). -- Brangifer (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- Then I would suggest adding the following few sentences, right after the one I mentioned: "However,some research has found evidence suggesting that acupuncture points have measurable differences in electrical impedance and optical conductance compared to the surrounding skin tissue.(ref 1, 2, and 3 below). The findings of a 2005 systematic review of the effects of acupuncture on brain activation as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography were summarized as follows: "These studies show that specific and largely predictable areas of brain activation and deactivation occur when considering the traditional Chinese functions attributable to certain specific acupuncture points. For example, points associated with hearing and vision stimulates the visual and auditory cerebral areas respectively." ( ref 4 below, taken right from Wikipedia's "Acupuncture point" article)

(REFERENCE 1) Frequency dependence of impedances at the acupuncture point Quze (PC3)

Johng, H.M. Cho, J.H. Shin, H.S. Sah, K.S. Koo, T.H. Choi, S.Y. Koo, H.S. Park, M.S. Dept. of Phys., Seoul Nat. Univ., South Korea; This paper appears in: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE Publication Date: March-April 2002 Volume: 21, Issue: 2 On page(s): 33-36 ISSN: 0739-5175 INSPEC Accession Number: 7302773 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MEMB.2002.1000183 Current Version Published: 2003-07-09 Abstract Investigates an equivalence circuit model for characterizing a person's electrical properties. It is not straightforward to compare skin-impedance data of various research groups because the impedance depends very sensitively on measurement conditions such as the shape, size, material, and contact pressure of the electrodes, the skin humidity due to sweat, the applied current, the shape of the wave, and even the psychological condition of the subject. With these subtleties in mind, we show the impedance data taken by various groups and our data (shown with curves). Data of other groups are scattered around our curve.

(REFERENCE 2) Detection of the acupuncture points in Skin by differential path-length spectroscopy

Book Series IFMBE Proceedings ISSN 1680-0737 Volume Volume 14 Book World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006 Publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0 Copyright 2007 ISBN 978-3-540-36839-7 (Print) 978-3-540-36841-0 (Online) Part Part 24 DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0_903 Pages 3572-3575 Subject Collection Engineering SpringerLink Date Thursday, July 05, 2007 FMBE Proceedings World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006 August 27 – September 1, 2006 COEX Seoul, Korea “Imaging the Future Medicine” 10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0_903 R. Magjarevic and J. H. Nagel Abstract: An optical fiber-based diagnostic system was developed to detect the acupuncture points (Bonghan Corpuscle) with small depth in human skin. A split fiber with 600 micrometer diameter was used in contact with the skin to deliver and detect the light to yield backscattered signal, which took information from both small and deep layers. The effect of backscattered signal from deep layer of skin was removed by another single fiber with the same diameter as the split fiber. Both fibers were arranged as close as possible to each other to detect the optical properties of tissue in a very small volume. The optical properties of the acupuncture point and its surrounding tissue in the skin were measured separately in the visible wavelength range (400–700nm), and significant difference was found between them. To control the consistency and reproduction of the experimental conditions of the fiber on the skin, a precise pressure sensor was employed.

(REFERENCE 3). Do acupuncture points have different absorption properties to laserlight than surrounding skin?

Lazoura, H. Cohen, M. Lazoura, E. Cosic, I. Dept. of Electr. & Comput. Syst. Eng., Monash Univ., Clayton, Vic.; This paper appears in: Bioelectromagnetism, 1998. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Publication Date: 15-18 Feb 1998 On page(s): 171-172 Meeting Date: 02/15/1998 - 02/18/1998 Location: Melbourne, Vic., Australia ISBN: 0-7803-3867-7 References Cited: 6 INSPEC Accession Number: 6146646 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ICBEM.1998.666450 Current Version Published: 2002-08-06 Abstract Traditional Chinese Medicine suggests that acupuncture points are sites of energy exchange between the body and the environment. The authors examined the relative absorption of near infra-red laser light (3 mW, 780 nm) using different pulse repetition frequencies at acupuncture points compared to non-acupuncture points. Results revealed that at 1 Hz absorption was greater at acupuncture points compared to nearby nonacupuncture points. At higher pulse repetition rates this difference was reduced. This suggests that acupuncture points do in fact have different absorption properties to non-acupuncture points and that there is a correlation between the skins' electrical conductivity and absorption of laser light

(REFERENCE 4). ^ Pariente J, Lewith GT; White PJ (September 2005). "Investigating acupuncture using brain imaging techniques: the current state of play".

Evid Based Complement Alternat Med - Oxford University Press 2 (3): 315. doi:10.1093/ecam/neh110. PMID 16136210. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/315. Retrieved 2007-03-06.

Let me know your thoughts on this. I can find a lot more references if you don't feel these are sufficient. There is a lot of worldwide research either complete or still in progress in this area. Best regards, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering what I know of past conversation on "Bongan Theory" on Wikipedia along with past debate on this article those references are not compelling in the slightest. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They'd have to prove meridians exist first, otherwise they're assuming false in their premise. Verbal chat 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the quotes you provided from the articles suggests only a peripheral connection to your product so, notwithstanding your WP:COI there is a WP:SYNTH issue here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon. WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

I don't see this connection in the statements and references I listed, could you explain your reason for thinking there is a WP:Synth please?

As I said previously, I'd rather remove the whole discussion on acupuncture points from this article, because it is already covered by Wiki in the "Acupuncture Point" article. And I am not stating or implying that just because there is evidence that acupuncture points exist that therefore Colorpuncture must be effective. I am just trying to add some context after the single sentence about acupuncture points (which I'd rather just have removed, and/or reference the Wikipedia "Acupuncture Point" article).

Thanks, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So, lets assume that this research is valid and replicable (big assumptions). The skin at acupuncture points has (allegedly) different absorption and impedance properties, and needling acupuncture points increases cerebral blood flow (CBF) in the "corresponding" (according to TCM) regions of cortex. So? How is this relevant? Does this show that meridians or Qi exist? How does simply increasing CBF in a region of cortex associated with, say, the lungs, have a beneficial effect on that organ? (increased activity in cortex could be a result of inhibitory activity or suppression as well as excitation so the interpretation of neuroimaging studies is fraught with peril) How does this contribute to the discussion of whether colorpuncture (or acupuncture for that matter) does anything? Once again you've demonstrated how alt-med proponents clutch at straws, hint, eyebrow-waggle, nudge-nudge, imply (as opposed to explain) and confuse the discussion with irrelevant, misinterpreted or (more usually) deliberately uninterpreted science. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- Colorpuncture is based on the assumption that acupuncture works, meridians exist and acupuncture points exist. The debate on acupuncture and acupoints should not be done in this article. But if it must, then we need to step back and start with the 8 steps of the scientific method for investigating a phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge which are:

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

4. Perform experiment and collect data

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

For the "short version" of the results regarding Acupuncture:

1.Does acupuncture promote healing and better health?

2.Observations: The World Health Organization published a review of controlled trials using acupuncture and concluded it was effective for the treatment of 28 conditions and there was evidence to suggest it may be effective for several dozen more.

3. Hypothesis: The stimulation of acupoints stimulates the meridians to promote energy flow to organs and systems to promote healing and better health.

4: Experimental data: See the Wikipedia Acupuncture article for numerous references on Acupuncture studies.

5: Analysis: The data did show that when patients were treated with Acupuncture there was an improvement to the medical conditions being treated.

6. Conclusion: The exact physical mechanism for Acupuncture is still illusive, but the results indicate it can promote healing and better health.

7: Results are being published in hundreds of articles yearly.

8. Retesting is going on continuously.

Does this prove that Colorpuncture works? No - but it supports the foundation for why it could work, and medical treatments are rarely 100% definitive. The research articles listed on this Colorpuncture article indicate very positive results. Should a possible non-invasive method to treat medical conditions (Colorpuncture) be dismissed because we can't fully understand it? No. A analogy is Aspirin, still very widely used, it was first introduced around 1897, it's mechanism of action was not discovered until 1971 - so it was in use 74 years before it's mechanism was understood. It continued to be used because of the positive results it produced. I have seen first hand very good results from Colorpuncture, and so have hundreds of therapists. There is enough positive results to warrant a continued study and use of it. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger, please only post here if you have specific changes to suggest on the basis of reliable sources. This is not a forum for you to convince skeptics of the potential merits of colorpuncture. Fences&Windows 01:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fences, I honestly want this to be a non-biased article as much as anyone. But when there is a single statement saying that acupuncture points and meridians don't exist, I felt that was very biased, and needed to be balanced with the abundance of evidence available. So I referenced 4 articles taken from: IEEE, Oxford University, World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering and Bioelectromagnetism, 1998 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference. These are reliable sources. One of these was taken from from the Wikipedia, Acupuncture Points article. Could you explain why it was considered a reliable source for that WP article but not for this one, and why you think the other sources are considered unreliable.

Thanks, Sincerely: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your basic problem is that you are engaged in a SYNTH violation. The day that the existence of acupuncture points and meridians (as physical, measurable, histological entities) is conclusively proven, it will be headlines in nearly the same way that a proof for real effects of homeopathy would be. (If I were to bet on it, there is more likelihood for acupoints than for homeopathy ;-) THEN you will be able to find numerous (hundreds, thousands....) scientific sources of excellent quality (not just newpapers) that clearly state it in no uncertain words. You won't have to resort to pasting together various sources on somewhat different topics to make a picture of your own invention. BTW, do you even have a secondary source that puts them together in this manner? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brangifer, I sense some sarcasm in your question :-), anyway, the answer is no, I don't have a secondary source. There are thousands of research articles on this topic, it doesn't take long to find them. And I can't understand why the conclusion from the World Health Organization that acupuncture is found to be beneficial for 28 medical conditions and possibly dozens more, isn't enough to make you think that acupuncture must have some merit? --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because very few if any of the studies used to make that comment by the WHO are considered to be of good quality. - Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The potential efficacy of acupuncture is irrelevent to the existence of meridians or the efficacy of colorpuncture. Fences&Windows 00:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fences, Since it is irrelevant to the efficacy of Colorpuncture, then any statement about the existence or non-existence of acupuncture points or meridians is irrelevant in this article, and should therefore be removed from this article, would you agree? --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so Roger. Fences makes a very good point. Your SYNTH violation occurs in your thinking. You think that acupuncture is effective, and that it therefore follows that the explanations of how it "works" must be true. IOW, if acupuncture works, then that confirms the existence of acupoints and meridians. That's not true, and a casual understanding of the history of acupuncture should lead one to immediately dismiss them as the fabelings of prescientific peoples (unless you believe they had a direct line to God). Their conceptions of the body, physiology, illness, the world, the cosmos, and the universe, were incredibly primitive and inaccurate in many ways. Sure they were right on some things, but their guesses and explanations about the causes of disease and the workings of the body are obviously primitive and inaccurate. That also doesn't take into account that your belief that it works isn't accurate, so even on that count your misguided belief still wouldn't confirm or deny the existence of acupoints or meridians. Your reasoning is related to the classic logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning: "after this, therefore resulting from it: used to indicate that a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one." -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I insist that this sentence be removed and be replaced by reference to Wiki's full discussion article on Acupuncture. This sentence gives a very slanted and seemingly conclusive view of acupuncture - which obviously does have some basis and is currently the subject of much discussion and even controversy which this sentence does not convey - instead it conveys one person's conclusive opinion about acupuncture. And used here gives a biased against slant to the Colorpuncture article. Readers should instead be referred to the full information contained in Wiki on the topic of acupuncture. I will make the edit and look to any future discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Insist away, but articles are built by consensus. There is a discussion in the next section in which you may wish to participate. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Presentation and context - large undiscussed edits

Taking this edit point by point:

1. Stating right off that this practice is part of alternative medicine immediately gives the reader a frame of reference, and is appropriate to the introduction.
2. Theory is in this context a word to avoid, as the term is being used loosely rather than precisely.
3. The place where this idea falls in the context of the general practice of medicine is also necessary context. Please do not remove valid references.
4. Biophotons are not generally considered medically relevant. At the very least, this needs to be couched in terms of what proponents assert.
5. Phrases such as cutting edge scientific insights fail the Neutral point of view policy.
6. colorlightenergy.com, colorpunctureusa.org, alternative-medicine-works.com, and the works of Peter Mandel, and Cyndi Dale are only a reliable source for statements about themselves, not for general statements of fact. Also, please do not indiscriminately add links to the References section unless they were used in building the article.
7. Crystal treatments and Kirlian Energy Emission Analysis are not valid medical techniques, and should not be presented as accepted or evidence-based.
8. Other light applications are off-topic, and should not be presented to synthesize the view that their acceptance and utility transfers to this practice.
9. LEDs do not generally lase.
10. In fact is poor encyclopedic style.
11. The listing of "laser puncture" by the state of Washington is probably relevant, but it needs to be better sourced (for instance, to the state licensing board or similar).
12. If other health issues than those listed are claimed to be treatable, there needs to be a source. The one given includes only those listed in the article.
13. many health issues ... and more is redundant
14. Please do not remove valid citations.
15. More research is needed ... covers pretty much any medical practice, and adds nothing to the article. Rather, it gives the misleading appearance of an active research base.
16. Articles that are already linked are generally not included in the See also section - WP:SEEALSO
17. Category:Pseudoscience is a navigational aid - readers of this article might reasonably be interested in other articles in the category. It is explicitly not a condemnation of this practice.

The major points are: this article is covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and we must be careful not to misrepresent the status of this practice in the medical field; sources independent of the practice are preferred to self-published sources; reliable sources in general are necessary, with special emphasis on reliable sources in the context of medicine summarized in relation to their prominence to the topic; and this article should be careful not to conflate off-topic issues with the topic at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can I commend 2/0 for this excellent summary! Thank you for the work you put into thinking about and typing this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why were the items included in "Further Reading" removed. From what I've read on Wiki about this - there is no special standard these must meet to be included and the books I included do contain source material and relevant discussion of the topic that would be of interest to those wanting to find out more. The books already accepted to be listed are of similar presentation so why disclude these added books?Quantummech (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I am a newbie (first contribution) - wondering if you might provide some examples of fully discussed mainstream medicine and alternative medicine articles that might help me learn more about contributing for wiki. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Wiki was in maintenance so submission was delayed and I forgot the signature thing Quantummech (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking at the featured articles listed at WP:WikiProject Medicine#Featured articles as examples of what is considered to be Wikipedia's best work. Each one will have a talk page and an extensive review – for example Hepatorenal syndrome, Talk:Hepatorenal syndrome and WP:Featured article candidates/Hepatorenal syndrome/archive1. There is a project called WP:WikiProject Alternative medicine that should give you some help with alternative medicine articles - you may wish to have a look at the talk and FAC pages for Getting It: The psychology of est. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

There is some pretty obvious sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here. I have tagged the accounts accordingly. See:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Roger13Zimmerman
• Category: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Quantummech

I don't have the time to create an SPI right now, so if anyone wants to do it, go for it. Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the socks even filed a spurious vandalism report against me! It was of course removed as "spurious". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I being accused of sockpuppetry? I am a newbie and just signed up for an account this week. A friend of mine was also working on this article with his own edits under his own account (which may have been similar to mine but I don't know since every edit appears to be reverted immediately by certain editors of this article). I do not have more than one account and am rather disgusted with the treatment I have received thus far. If simple misunderstandings by a newbie can get me reported both for sockpuppetry and edit warring - when I didn't even have the knowledge of wiki to contemplate either of those things - something is wrong. How many walk away from wiki without contributing because of treatment like this? That certainly does not facilliate a community for sharing information.Quantummech (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And what is an SPI? Should I expect I will be further reported and banned from contributing here? The level of bias of the editors is also disturbing and if everyone who has something to contribute is treated this way - there is no possibility of objectivity in wiki articles. RogerZimmerman (who I do not know except for from his comments here) has some valid points that should be considered for inclusion. Quantummech (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I be accused of being a sockpuppet simply because I agree with another contributor? How can consensus be built if all alternative viewpoints are immediately reverted?

To be helpful: SPI=WP:Sockpuppet investigations. It's merely a check that someone is not editing under multiple accounts to create an illusion of WP:consensus. Every editor has a bias, but Wikipedia has evolved a method of working that eventually balances that out. Please accept an apology if you feel your contributions have been treated harshly, but our method of working revolves around editors reaching a consensus on the content of an article, based on the concept of citations from reliable sources that verifies its text. If you feel that the text needs alteration or expansion, find a good quality source that illustrates the content you want to change or add. I'd strongly recommend discussing the source here on the talk page before making large-scale edits to any established article. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I defend myself from these allegations of sockpuppetry? There is no SPI since the reporter seems to have time to make allegations against me but not the time to give any evidence. How do I report BullRangifer for unfounded allegations? Though I have no interest in a battle like this here - only wanted to offer some valuable information to add to this article. Quantummech (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the criteria for reporting someone as sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Is there any standard of evidence that the accuser has to abide by or can they just forward their view that others that have similar viewpoints (that differ from their own) must be sockpuppets or meatpuppets? I would appreciate a formal retraction of this accusation against me.Quantummech (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no minimum standard of evidence. Editors are usually pretty careful with such accusations, because a pattern of false accusations will harm the accuser's reputation.

If you were coordinating your edits with the unnamed friend you mention above, then, yes, you'd be in a bit of trouble. In the absence of a formal complaint, you can simply ignore the accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry situation has been dealt with:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantummech

Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

only 5 hits on pubmed use the term,

these are results from tool I posted on project med page,

Calvo Sanz, JM (15-Jun-2002). "[Treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia with colorpuncture]". Atencion primaria / Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria. 30 (1): 68–9. PMID 12106582. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Croke, M. "Introducing esogetic colorpuncture: a wholistic system of acu-light therapy for body, mind & soul". Beginnings (American Holistic Nurses' Association). 22 (2): 10–1. PMID 11911071.

Shen, H; Sun, T; Zhang, J (Dec-1998). "[Effects of clinorotation on cytosolic free calcium level in embryonic chick brain cells]". Hang tian yi xue yu yi xue gong cheng = Space medicine & medical engineering. 11 (6): 447–50. PMID 11543383. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Croke, M (1999). "A review of recent research studies on the efficacy of Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy--A wholistic acu-light system". American journal of acupuncture. 27 (1–2): 85–94. PMID 10513101.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Cocilovo, A (1999). "Colored light therapy: overview of its history, theory, recent developments and clinical applications combined with acupuncture". American journal of acupuncture. 27 (1–2): 71–83. PMID 10513100.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are making here. It's pretty much what you'd expect for a spurious magic-based completely invented fake pseudoscience! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No point, you don't describe a crime scene to make a point nor begin a lit search that way if you can avoid it :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to simply present information about Colorpuncture for public knowledge and consideration and am not trying to suggest that it is medically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. At least the asserted information about this modality should be allowed to be provided as information here without drawing a conclusion about proven effectiveness. It is a relatively new modality and is more widely accepted in Europe having originated in Germany.

I'd appreciate guidance on how further information on this topic can be presented without being immediately deleted - are there standards for qualifying words I should be using to reflect that it is as of yet unproven?

Also, the acupuncture debate should be conducted on the acupuncture page and I wonder why many American MDs and NPs are now licensed to practice acupuncture and health insurance plans are paying for this service if it has no basis. Zimmermans citations and the WHO info are valuable yet are being rejected out of hand. At least allow contributors to present that there are opposing viewpoints and research rather than only allowing a statement which is clearly a blanket rejection made in one man's opinion (Felix Mann) over 13 years ago (reference is from 1996). This reference can not be considered the most relevant or important reference to place here in this regard and whether anything else replaces it should be removed.

I reposted information mostly because I am a newbie and had no idea why my posts were not staying and thought I had just done something incorrectly in submitting or had a glitch on my end. I request that the report against me be removed immediately. Quantummech (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I've attempted again to contribute information and it has all been removed restoring the article to the original in its entirety - how can there be no allowed changes? I linked to wiki articles already approved for information and can provide references for the added information though it seems those books have already been removed when I added them to further reading. Even the edit to stating "Some claim" regarding acupuncture was removed. Where is NPOV? Quantummech (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Start by discussing your sources here on the talk page. NPOV is always a matter of judgement, because we have agreed not to give undue weight to beliefs that fall outside the majority view expressed in mainstream literature. If an alternate view is supported by some reliable sources, then it normally has a place in the article, but don't expect it to receive the same coverage as the mainstream view.

If you are having a problem with all of your contributions being reverted, take it one step at a time. Propose new text here and give your source. Repeat that point-by-point and convince others that your text is an improvement on what is there. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would mention that you have to consider the "undue weight" with respect to the topic. That is, perhaps on an article on treating a given condition then this topic may get little coverage but the article has to cover the topic and colopuncture can not be a fringe belief about itself. Prominent views on colorpuncture or astrology or rock bands need not be scientific, just verifiable beliefs stated by reliable sources. A Wikan is possibly a reliable source on witchcraft. So, an appropriately stated relevant belief ( " The American Colorpuncture Association certifies all practioners with a comprehensive test" ) may be quite relevant even if non-colopuncturists don't consider the belief to have merit. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

True, though in keeping with Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources, we should focus primarily on what independent sources have reported about the practice. This is good practice in general, of course, but especially important here as it reduces both misrepresentation and debunking. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you never want to make an article into an advertisement even for drugs which the FDA considers safe and effective. But, you do need to cover the topic and once you have determined the topic has independent significant coverage, the best sources about the topic may in fact be from expert colopuncturists, regardless of the merit of their activities and thoughts for curing condition X. Personally I would just caution against militant use of qualifiers that can clutter an article. I guess rather than qualify with terms about an unrelated community, I'd try to change it to more concrete stuff- rather than talk about "Doctors" I'd say something about "controlled tests" maybe. This would help redirect from people to evidence even though you could still question quality of methods etc. For perspective, you may want to follow some biotech companies. Confident sounding theories come up, often stated as fact or very compelling in scientific literature, only to fail spectacularly when tested directly in a clinical trial- remember these folks need funding too and proposal writing is as much advertising as "tastes great less filling". So, in general, I'd be very restrained in talking about what constitutes a proven widget and for that matter even what constitutes a testable theory. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the Mandel Institute (not the American Colorpuncture Association) actually certifies all practitioners with a comprehensive test actually happens, which it does, it is a fact - not a belief - regardless of whether the information taught is considered valid or not. Thanks though as it seems overall you support various views on Colorpuncture being able to be given on this article.

I would like to offer more information on the views expressed about Colorpuncture by the originator, the scientists he has consulted, the practitioners and even those who have experienced it without having everything removed immediately. Is there a common phrasing that I could begin a paragraph or section with that would indicate that the following material is solely the view of the originator, the scientists he has consulted, the practitioners or those who have experienced it without suggesting that it is accepted science or proven to be medically effective? Many have found it to be an effective adjunct to their healthcare though there is unfortunately less than adequate research at this time to prove it - as is true for many alternative therapies as well as for many mainstream accepted treatments that are currently in use by American M.D.s. (This is discussed at Alternative Medicine. I think I understand the concern about Fringe Therapies, but what constitutes an independent source? And it seems that the source work of Peter Mandel, the originator of Colorpuncture should be able to be referenced at least as the source of these original views and those views out to be able to be outlined in the article. The article on Scientology allows the views of Hubbard to be included in the article (and that is total bunk if you ask me - though of course others should be able to access a Wiki that gives good information about it even though I might disagree with it). I appreciate any guidance in this regard as I have quite a bit of information I can share but am new to Wiki. Thanks.Quantummech (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You need intellectually independent sources largely to establish notability- someone who doesn't stand to gain from noting it makes it less likely that you are writing an advertisement of no known interest to anyone. This is can be a problem with subjective claims but usually such claims themselves attract a rebuttal from someone more commonly thought of as reliable. In either case, positive or negative significant coverage from independent critics or supporters would work. As long as sources are realiable and verifiable for the claims made, then the people obsessed with ignoring "fringe in some other universe" views AFAIK can't really complain. You need to cover the topic, if it is notable and sources are reliable for the claims made, it simply doesn't matter if it is mainstream within some other community, say the medical community. If the article says "prominent colopuncturist foo says blah" there shouldn't be any problem citing foo or reviews of foo's work but you do need to be careful with original research and cherry picking, and the anti-fringe people can pick on this but most articles have primary sources that go into more depth that secondary sources and indeed med guidelines suggest this is one area for which primary sources should be used however the presumption seems to be that mainstream primary sources will be used. All sources do need to be reliable, and the "reputation for fact checking" can be a subjective criterion, which may transcend particular claims, as reputation is almost inherently so ( not "proven in controlled tests" but rather the same subjective criteria that would flunk from the FDA). So, people who use gas chromatographs may be reputed to be more reliable than people explaining their dreams even after Climate Gate. If you write something and it reads like an ad or is overly confident and based on untestable or non-reproducible evidence( even case studies are largely not reproducible and history is not directly testable ) , it could attract a lot of criticism. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Theory vs. Belief

I would like the word "belief" in the first section changed to "theory." "In all cases, a theory is a system of thought used to explain phenomena." "... light can be used to stimulate acupuncture points for the purpose of balancing energy in the body and promoting healing and better health." is clearly a theory used to explain phenomena. Also, a theory is subject to research and a belief is not (based solely on each person's choice to believe in something rather than something that is verifiable via research.) Research is being conducted on this theory (as is stated in this article as well as the simple fact that it is being conducted worldwide).Quantummech (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, per my argument above. How about replacing the first sentence with: Colorpuncture in alternative medicine is the practice of shining light on acupuncture points for the purpose of stimulating them, balancing vital energy, and promoting healing and better health.? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Theory in this context is not being used loosely and research is being conducted. Also, this topic has been classified as Wikipedia:Fringe theories, therefore, theory is appropriate in this context. Though I have edited that section somewhat similarly to your suggestion with additional cited information leaving both belief and theory out of the text. Quantummech (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This was reverted without comment. Would whoever did this, please comment as to what they felt was wrong with my edit? Thanks. Quantummech (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the choice of the word "practice", as it's entirely non-judgmental and strictly accurate in any possible sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a theory refers to a statement that may or may not be right but hopefully it is testable and at least plausible. A belief has to do with state of mind, " acting in the belief the theory is true, we did foo." Practice is more observable for us non-mind readers as "belief" stated as fact can be difficult and " they claim to believe blah and act as if blah is true so maybe they are for real." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Underlying Bases & Insights

"The main underlying bases of Colorpuncture include acupuncture, biophotonics (especially related to the research by Fritz-Albert Popp), and medical astrology. Colorpuncture incorporates insights from neurogastroenterology (especially as researched by Micheal D. Gershon M.D.), iridology, physiognomy and [quantum physics]] (especially as researched by David Bohm)."

Regarding the above addition which was promptly deleted - please advise on correct form or what is needed to improve this information or its format for adding to the article. It is quite important to providing complete information regarding Colorpuncture.

Thank you - Quantummech (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

First, it replaced existing content, not a good practice. Second, it has no sources. Provide sources to back this and all will be well. Fences&Windows 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. In fact, it did not replace content - just rearranged it. Appreciate the other comments though I wonder - Bohm's ideas did have much to do with the development of the methodology of Colorpuncture as did the other topics/ideas I listed. Many scientists expand or apply other scientist's work which is what Peter Mandel has done in developing Colorpuncture - taking these concepts and finding practical applications for them that assist people in their healing. How should I phrase information about this to make it appropriate for wiki? It is very significant to accurately portraying Colorpuncture and the contributions of Peter Mandel. Quantummech (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

here The main problem with that sentence is that it was completely uncited. Every statement must be directly attributable to a reliable source. Bohm had nothing to do with this idea, and the topic should not be presented as in any way related to or a logical consequence of his ideas. Colorpuncture is likewise not an idea that can be found by a study of quantum physics; if an independent source states that colorpuncturists miscite ideas in QM as inspiration or as quantum mysticism, we can attribute and cite that. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User Deleted ??? Are you kidding me?

Found this on my userpage:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

23:02, 12 December 2009 Fences and windows (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Quantummech" ‎ (Sockpuppet templates added to userpage with no evidence presented)

What gives Fences and windows the right? I have not done any sockpuppeting. Seems some proof should be offered before just deleting my user page. Where do I report this?

Thanks for any help in resolving this - I have been experiencing reverts, edit wars, accusations of sock puppeting, a report of vandalism and now deletion of my userpage - and I've only been here two days. What gives? I am a newbie and if I am doing it all wrong - I apologize - but wow do I feel unwelcome.

Shoot! Forgot the signature thing again. Here it is: Quantummech (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You start off with an empty user page. Somebody placed a "sockpuppet template" on the empty page - which accused you of being a sockpuppet. Fences didn't believe there was any evidence of that, so restored your user page to its previous empty state (i.e. deleted the defamatory content). Fences was defending you from an accusation based on no evidence. I can see you are upset by having your contributions reverted, but you should try to understand when other are actually trying to be helpful. --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - had no idea that's what had happened - since all it says is that my userpage was deleted. Apologies Fences. This has happened to RogerZimmerman as well and still remains on that userpage. Again, I do not know him except from what he has written here but he had some valuable contributions earlier that have gone utterly unused as well. Should BullRangifer be allowed to just bully people off like that? How about these obviously experienced people (including BullRangifer) instead offer suggestions for how the valuable content that is offered - though it appears to be not in agreement with their view - could be incorporated? That way we can have an article that is actually useful to thinking people who are curious about different forms of alternative and complementary medicine rather than just one more page that simply provides the viewpoint that these various forms of therapy are quackery. Obviously some are and some are not - but wiki ought to be the place to get in-depth information to help decide that question for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I should've explained, I was indeed removing the unsupported sockpuppet templates placed there unilaterally. You may recreate a userpage for yourself. I can see why BullRangifer thought as he did, but if he won't start an WP:SPI, he shouldn't place the templates. However, you are heading for a block if you keep edit warring. Fences&Windows 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please describe exactly how I am edit warring and what I should be doing differently. As I have said, I am a newbie and definitely want to respect the wiki community. Obviously I have a concern about the acupuncture reference and am trying to find a way to provide a more balanced and unbiased NPOV - yet everything I do is reverted. I don't see anywhere in this talk that there was ever consensus created about having that Felix Mann reference included - yet I seem to have to jump some very high standard to get my reasonable edits included which happen to provide a different view and that reference stays no matter that there is a much better set of references in the Acupuncture article. Is not triple reverting an edit war issue as well? I have not reported anyone as I'm not trying to have a battle here - just a respectful discussion allowing different viewpoints. There has been no argument here by those reverting my edits as to why the Felix Mann reference is the best reference regarding the efficacy of acupuncture and it appears that RogerZimmermans comments more than a month ago were ignored and he was removed for saying them (perhaps that is not what actually happened - but that is how it looks). Quantummech (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources in Treatment section

I've just expanded the reference to the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies so that it's easier to review. This is one study undertaken on a single patient without any controls or ability to estimate significance, using a set of measurements that I've never heard of. Do "squeezed states", "bins" and "coherency indices" actually have any meaning in this context? I find it astonishing that the authors conclude "We suspect that coherency index greater than 0.85, in the range (0.50–0.85) and less than 0.5 respectively indicates normal health, mild ailment and severe ailment" without any explanation or evidence of why that should be so. I'm frankly disappointed that a primary study, so poorly conducted in my humble opinion, should be presented as evidence to support a claim that "Research ... found beneficial effects of Colorpuncture ... in a subject suffering from Multiple Sclerosis". --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one other physicist at this article, so I will restrict myself to a simple "no, those terms do not make sense in this context." Well, "bin" does - that just means discretizing the data so that everything from 50—100 ms or 250—300  is counted towards the same data point; this is pretty standard in statistical analysis (e.g. the 18—25 age group), but you have to be careful that your binning does not skew or obscure your data. Squeezed states are way cool, but, well, humans are warm and squishy and not generally a good environment for observing quantum effects; everything just gets jostled about to the classical limit. They also seem to be synthesizing a novel connection between emergence (caution: article is a bit confused) and holism. And spontaneous emission usually just means decay from an excited state without, say, stimulated emission. And they seem to have completely ignored black body radiation. Not to mention the issues of interpretation and generalization you note.

So, yeah, that paper should be used for a statement that people conduct research, and nothing else. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As a journal (Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies published by the Korean Pharmacopuncture Institute, do I hear COI, Coi, coooi, cooo, echo echoooo....) that isn't even listed at PubMed and publishes shoddy or plain out pseudoscientific "research", this totally fails our WP:MEDRS guideline. It can only be used to document that someone claiming to be a "scientist" has conducted what they call "research" in a pseudoscientific journal. The ref itself can't be used to make any statement of fact in a scientific sense and should be so qualified so we don't mislead readers.

For an interesting peek into the woo-woo world of this pseudoscientific journal (shades of Jacques Benveniste's ill-fated Digibio nonsense), take a look at this one: "In addition, we describe the first teleacupuncture performed between Asia and Europe."[2] It never ceases to amaze me what people consider "evidence". Joseph C. Keating, Jr.'s words about chiropractic leaders who were in denial is very apropos here: "[they] have no crap-detectors". This source is almost bad enough for our blacklist, except that it is a RS for documenting such beliefs, but nothing more. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - will remove. Quantummech (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. This isn't the first or last time that disputes about sourcing happen here at Wikipedia. RS is probably our second most important policy, right after NPOV. Discussions about this aren't bad and are part of the editorial process. I'm not saying that the source can never be used, it just can't be used to make statements of scientific fact, only to demonstrate the beliefs of two scientists who believe in colorpuncture. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder though why with this JAMS article you choose to leave it and add unreliable comment and every other time my edits are just reverted. I was wondering when you'd do that - seems you like to include things that just allow you to further your penchant to negatively slant information regarding Colorpuncture or remove the information entirely (can you recognize bait?)

On the same penchant to approve for inclusion only that which gives a negative slant, could someone please tell me what makes Skeptical Inquirer and Time Out valid sources here. It is obvious my the many comments on this talk that many here believe this is nothing more than magic - but NPOV is a wikipedia principle and there needs to be room here to actually tell what Colorpuncture itself says it is without all edits being removed.

Also, apparently some info was taken from Roze Company's website which has agreed this is OK, but what makes that a valid source and even apparently preferred source over the originator of Colorpuncture's website (since when I add info with that as the source it is reverted immediately). I am aware that the info about small light disks refers to a secondary product of Roze and is not a recognized part of colorpuncture. Quantummech (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We definitely should include sources that are favorable to Colorpuncture. The views of its proponents need to be included. The problems we often encounter in these situations are that the only sources are from fringe sources which produce and promote the method, IOW the websites are commercial ones, and we must be very careful when linking to commercial websites. It is rarely allowed. We need to get our information from sites that don't directly profit from it.

The sources of criticism can come from several types of sources. Scientific rebuttals come from secondary peer-reviewed sources, preferably reviews and meta-analyses. Skeptical POV are usually found in skeptical books, journals, and websites, since scientific research rarely even comments on pseudoscientific subjects.

If you'll study the WP:NPOV policy, you'll find that negative and critical content is expressly allowed, and actually a must. It is the editorial process that must be neutral. We include both positive and negative content. The idea that biased sources can't be used is against NPOV. They just have to be properly sourced and worded neutrally, IOW it mustn't appear that Wikipedia and its editors are taking sides. It must be apparent that the referenced authors have that opinion. If it appears that the opinion is coming from sources that aren't referenced, then it's editorializing, and we don't allow that. It can happen quite easily, and then we just delete or tweak it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that negative and critical content is needed. Though it seems that the standard for skeptical and negative sources is much lower than for sources providing just plain info on what the thing being discussed says it is. Are not the skeptic websites just as much there for profit motive as the source site that explains what something is? Seems the originators site or originator authored books ought to be able to be referenced at least as the source of what the originator is purporting about the topic.Quantummech (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

For NPOV, is it better to remove the disputed sentence: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" and refer to Wiki article on acupuncture for fuller discussion on validity of acupuncture or leave this sentence here and allow other sourced viewpoints on acupuncture to be added in this article on Colorpuncture? Quantummech (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. We include all POV, including criticisms, especially when they come from one of the most notable acupuncturists alive. This RfC is based on a misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV requires that editing is neutral, not article content. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that criticism of acupuncture be discluded, however every attempt I have made to include a positive view of acupuncture has been removed and there is a quite lengthy discussion of acupuncture on that Wiki article. I do not agree that this is the best source for a criticism of acupuncture either - it is one person's opinion in his own book and it's from 13 years ago. Who other than Felix Mann and his supporters say he is one of the most notable acupuncturists alive? If that is allowed to stand than this should be allowed about Peter Mandel: "I have to say that Peter Mandel is by far the most creative naturopath in the country: he has completely new ideas; he doesn't just take old concepts and adjust them here and there. In my view, he is a genius phenomenon who, someday, is going to have a place in history like all the big names in natural medicine, like Kneipp and Hahnemann, because he has revolutionized natural healing methods and set them on a modern path."

Josef Angerer, Naturopath, founder, Naturopathic School of Munich, President, Association of German Naturopaths, Color Me Healing

Well, that should be allowed anyway, it is a quote and I can provide the source.

If criticsm is to be placed here fine, but let's make it currently relevant and not one person's opinion. I am sure there are valid studies that could be used instead. The quote about the drunkard is definitely too much and quite biased and unscientific. If we are going to put a criticism here of acupuncture (and there should not be more than one since the acupuncture wiki does a fine job and should be the place for that), one positive reference should be allowed as well or at least a statement that the efficacy of acupuncture is the subject of some controversy.Quantummech (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this article barely managed to survive an AfD, so the very existence of this article is pretty much all the positive that is allowed, unless there really is scientific evidence of efficacy, which there isn't. Until that happens, this is an article about a fringe subject, and the scientific/skeptical/mainstream POV, which happens to be silent or negative, get what's called "weight" here. The "positive" consists of a factual description, without any fluff or misleading language. Beliefs must be labelled as such. Everything that isn't proven scientific fact needs to be qualified so readers don't take it at face value as if it were true. This is basically a pseudoscientific fantasy being described as reality, IOW quackery and healthfraud. That can't happen here.

This isn't about acupuncture, hence little detail other than a wikilink to the main article, but since acupuncture points are a basic element of colorpuncture, they get mentioned, and the mainstream POV about them also gets mentioned. If they ever get proven to exist, then the content will be changed. This isn't an article about Peter Mandel either, so only the basic facts about him. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Include sentence It provides an important level of context to the reader, without going too far. "These supposedly special spots don't seem to be so special" is an experimentally demonstrated fact. The sentence does not actually say (or mean) "nobody ever receives any benefit from this treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is an encyclopaedia, here to present facts and mainstream interpretations of those facts. This sentence should clearly be included to maintain NPOV. Verbal chat 07:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Include sentence Non-controversial and provides important context. Famousdog (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Include sentence Unless you have reliable sources that say there is an anatomical basis. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Include sentence Note: as above sources should be reliable sources. Nothing that can be traced back to Liang Yusheng and Jin Yong for instance. Althoug there is some research suggesting that Accupuncture is very slightly more effective for pain control than the placebo effect none of these provide an actual physical basis for the meridians. :D Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation Question

If a cited source is used for several sentences and in separate paragraphs, do I cite it multiple times (as I have done) or just once and somehow indicate that otherwise as the source of that material or is there another standard method for dealing with this? I could not find a reference to this situation on wiki (though it probably is here somewhere). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a standard method. One "names" the ref. See the format of the other references. Many of them have a name at the beginning. Later uses of the ref just copy the first part, but add a /:

• <ref name="ec">

• <ref name="ec"/>

Note that I copied this as it was. In this case the quotation marks aren't necessary. If the name is separated by spaces, then use quotations marks or use underlining instead of a space. We'll be happy to help you with this. Just ask. You can also look at how it's done in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)