This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PPdd (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 10 February 2011 (→Proposed conventions for using the term "acupunture" in the article: modify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:24, 10 February 2011 by PPdd (talk | contribs) (→Proposed conventions for using the term "acupunture" in the article: modify)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 |
There are no active tasks for this page
|
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. PPdd (talk)
- More bullet points at the top, please! True greatness awaits! --Middle 8 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)