| Revision as of 18:24, 10 February 2011 editPPdd (talk | contribs)11,006 edits →Proposed conventions for using the term "acupunture" in the article: modify← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:38, 16 February 2012 edit undoMallexikon (talk | contribs)2,929 editsm ←Blanked the page | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{tasks | |||
| |requests= | |||
| |assess= | |||
| |cleanup= | |||
| |copyedit= | |||
| |disambiguation= | |||
| |expand= | |||
| |infobox= | |||
| |maintain= | |||
| |merge= | |||
| |npov= | |||
| |photo= | |||
| |split= | |||
| |stubs= | |||
| |update= | |||
| |verify= | |||
| |wikify= | |||
| |other= | |||
| }} | |||
| == Help fix and watch for ambiguities in the article == | |||
| :*(0) When the source so indicates, use "TCM acupuncture", "Japanese acupuncture", etc. | |||
| :*(1) Use "traditional TCM acupunture" to refer to TCM based points. | |||
| :*(2) Use "penetrating needling" to refer to random points. | |||
| :*(3) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of TCM acupuncture point" when the RS uses "acupuncture" in this qualified usage. | |||
| :*(4) Use "nonpenetrating needle stimulation of random points" when the RS talks about this. | |||
| :*(5) Use "placebo for traditional TCM point needling" for "random penetrating needling" ''as placebo'', per the RS. | |||
| :*(6) Use "placebo random nonpenetrating needling as placebo for randon penetrating needling" per the RS. | |||
| :*(7) Use "placebo non-needling control" per the RS. | |||
| :*(8) Use "efficacy for all TCM claims" when appropriate. | |||
| :*(9) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of nausea)" for that specific kind of nausea. | |||
| :*(10) Use "efficacy for relief of (this specific kind of pain)" for that specific kind of pain. | |||
| :*(11) Use "significant efficacy" to distinguish from "minor efficacy". | |||
| :*(12) Never use "further study is needed". | |||
| ::*Instead use "have an opinion that expenditure of limited medical research funds is merited" when the cited entity expresses a subjecive opinion and thinks further research funding is a good idea for limited available medical research funding. | |||
| ::*Use "further study would have to be funded to draw conclusions" to express an objective fact from a MEDRS entity, when there is no ''opinion'' on the merits of spending limited medical research funding, but when no conclusions can be objectively drawn from what has been spent so far. | |||
| *That is alot of conventions, but there are ''at least that many'' ambiguous semantic abuses in the article itself, which both misleads the reader, and causes meaningless debates over semantics at talk. | |||
| * I further propose that this list become a FAQ answer at the top of talk. | |||
| *Please suggest modifications to the list by number, or add to the list other ambiguities you have found in the article, which I have overlooked. ] (]) | |||
| :::More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --] (]) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) | |||