Talk:Cupping therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

There is an actual picture on this website if you can use it

http://www.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1219989-9,00.html

This cupping offering seems a bit slanted and unbalanced at best and somewhat offensive in it's refrences to Muhammad QUOTE - (although Muhammad is said to have explicitly stated, roughly put, to have as much knowledge in things that need skill as any average person).

A distorted statement with no supporting references and totally out of context.

The author has serious issues.

Highlighting what the American Cancer Society says about anything alternative and free is like asking the Mob if they think security cameras are a good and beneficial idea.

This page needs a serious overhaul and review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.7.239 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I am interested in knowing why cupping is considered Chinese Medicine when it is practiced all over the Middle East, was recommneded by Prophet Muhammad and was likely brought to the East by Muslims. It is wrong to make this a chinese medicine category.

END —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signpostmaker (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"likely" is original research which we do not allow on Wikipedia. I added the Islamic medicine category though. There's no limit to the number of categories in which a page can be listed. However, I advise you to stop introducing original research, removing illustrative images, and restoring typos. Unconstructive edits will be reverted. - ∅ (∅), 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The site is being vandalized by a person and changes are being deleted with honoreable and reliable refrences. Cupping is an oral tradition that lacks much "scientific data" it is a Prophetic tradition handed down from one authorized healer to another. I have been taught and authorized by such an individual and have attended hundreds of cupping proceedures. The refrences I have are from people trained in the same manner for hundreds of years. The fact they are not published should not discount their valuable teaching nor make them original research. How then do you suggest refrencing these types of experts? In confining work to scientifically published material you miss out on so much of healing that is spiritually based. Certification is not the proceedure for authorizing a cupper. Athorization can only be handed down by someone who was authorized in a like manner back to the actual Prophetic tradition. Thus, certification is simply pointing people to the master you studied under. If there is any doubt, people are free to contact them and verify the authorization. Certificates can be bought and paid for from anumber of questionable sources. You are taking an ancient practice and trying to place it into the confines of a scientific method. In doing so you seek to make cupping a union like the AMA who imposes certification as a means of cheating people with higher and higher "professional" fees for healing that should not be associated with money. Doctors live in multi-million dollar homes while babies die from lack of proper medical treatment - locked out of the expensive medical system. Much of cupping is in the area of spirtuality, something that can not and will never be quantified by a scientific approach. Masaru Emoto is now proving this scientificly in his work with water crystals - but it does not begin to scratch the surface.

You need to provide people with an alternative to the data verification system that you try to empose on real healing. You also need to block this person "I do not exist" who has his own agenda and is vandalizing this site. At the very least the cupping section should have an area that discusses these important concerns. Real healing is not a business controled by scientists, professional organizations, or the medical mafia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signpostmaker (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"I Do Not Exist" seems to have some issues with spirituality which I think reflects the bias towards the vandalism on these pages.

"Homosexuality in Voodoo is religiously acceptable and homosexuals are allowed to participate in all religious activities. However, in countries with large Voodoo populations (such as Benin or Haiti) Christian influence has given homosexuality a social stigma (see homosexuality and Christianity), at least on some levels of society. The Voodoo religion itself has remained open to people of all sexual orientations."

Just one example of pages he/she participates in. Is it possible to ban this person from continued vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signpostmaker (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please go to the Administrators' noticeboard if you want to report my continued vandalism. Thanks! - ∅ (∅), 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the right place though; I was thinking of WP:AIV but that's only for vandals who are active now and have vandalized after a recent last warning. I'm not sure what the right place would be, since to me this looks like a dispute about Wikipedia's core policy; maybe if you want to see a change in our policy on verifiability, you could go to WT:V and campaign for a change there. However, if you insist on seeing this as a user conduct issue, then WP:RFCC is probably the right place. Hope this helps. :-) - ∅ (∅), 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice from the person who is vandalizing this site. I think I will investigate this myself. Your bias is clear and I would ask that you either refrain from contributing to this site or ask that it be taken over by another more impartial administrator - you are an administrator, yes? You are actively removing refrences fro these pages tat support cupping and ignore misquoted and superfulous refrences that degrade cupping. The Yiddish folk lore text is just one such example with a refrence to a site that requires registration and a misquote for the other refrence. Why not taking issue with this. I have viewed your other posts and I have no idea how someone with such an axe to grind can become an impartial administrator. I will seek to have you removed and encourage others to do so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.10.219 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. - ∅ (∅), 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do not exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removing citations and then reporting that citations are needed.216.226.10.219 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User, I Do Not Exist, should stop existing, be blocked. First he/she moves the citations, then disputes the citation as not being relevant. Nice trick. This is clearly vandalism and this person has been warned. If you care about these cupping pages please report this user. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.10.219 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of user "I Do Not Exist" clear bias and vandalism, he/she has removed the hijama link in the SEE ALSO section of this page. It's amazing this person is allowed to continue.

I moved it to a section hatnote. There's no need for a duplicate link. - ∅ (∅), 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative Film on Cupping

After viewing this page for some time it is clear to me that there is not much being done to improve the quality of the fire cupping page with the lassts edits in 2007. I tried and became discouraged because I think people not qualified are steering this subject off a cliff, perhaps with bad motives, perhaps not.

I have found a project that hopefully will do much to provided documented evidence, research and information about cupping. It is a film from a non=profit organizations called Sufi Films that is inviting people to contribute research, information, and suggest experts to interview on the subject of cupping from all cultures. They intend to provide a comprehensive overview of the industry. I think we should include something about this and work to support it in an effrot to improve the avaialble information about cupping.

Let me known if you think the offering is good or can be improved.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.22.161 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That addition is just spam. The film is not yet made, it's still seeking funding, and it's not the job of Wikipedia to support the film by directing readers to the film site. something lame from CBW 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Really now?

In the section regarding cellulite...

"Cups are extremely effective in the treatment of cellulite and many other modern day ailments."

Unsourced and likely original research and also quite likely false. :-/ What's the deal?--Hawkian (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

ah well, it needed de-weaselling which I've done among other faux padding cutting etc (see edit summary) - didn't realise article was the target of older hot discussion but should be far enough along by now to sit in its own juices. Manytexts (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Benefits --> Practice

I know what you mean - not sure of the right word, though this is a start. Manytexts (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Fire cupping → Cupping therapy – Sources given in the article call it cupping and not fire cupping. Some cupping therapies use mechanical suction rather than cooling air[1]. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC) JBrown23 (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I was suspicious of the present title on anecdotal grounds, so I checked with a cupping practitioner who reports that it is rarely called "fire cupping". Googlebook evidence supports this conclusion:

intitle:"alternative medicine" cupping: 60 hits

intitle:"alternative medicine" cupping "fire cupping": 3 hits

Interpretation: Of 60 books with "alternative medicine" in the title and "cupping" in the text, only 3 had the term "fire cupping" in the text. Confirming the higher frequency of the natural and accurately delimited term "cupping therapy" are these searches:

"cupping therapy is": 29 hits

"fire cupping is": 9 hits

Noetica^Tea? 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The move/retitle makes perfect sense. Centerone (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Effectiveness section

Wouldn't a section on its proven effectiveness help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.98.37.34 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find research that gives details on it's 'proven effectiveness' feel free to edit the article and contribute this information and the references.Centerone (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This section requires a reference, I agree with the other talk comment, in part, in that more is needed that a statement simply saying it doesn't work. A reference or examples or part of the study that is quoted is needed.Acuhealth (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A reference did exist until it was removed without explanation less than an hour before you read the article! Reverted now, claim fully referenced.

Thank you for the feedback. Someone should have explained why they removed the reference. It seems inappropriate to delete items without signing and commenting on the Talk page. I am familiar with that reference to the book Trick or Treatment, which was removed by a prior user. This book is largely a specific attack on homeopathy and chiropractic care. It is highly politically charged. One author of the book, for example, was dismissed from Exeter University over the Smallwood incident. It seems that the author took exception to Prince Charles' private secretary citing the cost-effectiveness of CAM therapies. Politically charged books such as this are not exactly purely scientific investigations, the Smallwood incident is no exception. I suggest that this reference be struck. Granted the lawsuit from the British Chiropractic Association against the other author for material in this book, Singh, was dropped. Nonetheless, the controversy of this book surrounded other elements such as the dedication of the book to the Prince of Wales. Perhaps this was a tongue in cheek retort given the politically charged incident with his personal secretary. Please remove the reference and replace with a better one that includes a randomized, placebo controlled trial. These types of investigations are scientific and are preferred to books such as Trick or Treatment, which are specifically designed to attack CAM therapies.Acuhealth (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I vote that it stays. Whether or not its author was embroiled in a political row with royalty or not does not seem relevant to the statement that no effective trials have been conducted. This page did not seem very balanced and lacked much (any) scientific analysis. A lot of people will argue that the book Trick or Treatment is a very good book as it collates the scientific evidence regarding those treatments and analyses how well the scientific method was stuck to in those instances. I believe this statement is not only valid but also vital to give balance to an article which seems to favour the treatment without what (from my point of view) is rigorous scientific proof to back it up. I don't know of any randomised placebo controlled trials on this, but you are welcome to add them yourself. As it says, no positive trials exist. I don't think any trials that turn up should REPLACE the statement, merely supplement it. The statement is valid, and they have searched through all the valid and available research to come to this conclusion.Rayman60 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Method

There seems to be some duplication in the method section. Also, it seems that some topics are covered under each sub-section of the method section that could be said to be true for all forms of cupping. Perhaps a rewrite/reorganization is in order where it spells out the common things with cupping and then separates out the different methodologies. Centerone (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Origins

The introduction describes cupping as a Chinese remedy. But the text makes it clear that cupping was much more widespread, including ancient Egypt. So to describe cupping as purely Chinese is probably wrong. I suggest that the word "Chines" be deleted.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I reverted {{Unreliable medical source}} tags placed by User:97.77.53.110 on two citations to the NLM. Please explain how or why this is an unreliable source.

In addition, please also explain why the other citation, The American Journal of Chinese Medicine is an unreliable source.
SBaker43 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

صلى الله عليه وسلم (Peace Be Upon Him)

Somebody has been adding the sentence صلى الله عليه وسلم after every mention of the name of the Prophet Muhammad in this article. Although I understand the religious sensibilities behind the use of this format, it is not commonplace in Wikipedia. In fact, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Islamic_honorifics, PBUH should not be used in article text, and thus I will be removing it. Chelos (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How the seal is created

This line appears in the context of how the vacuum is created for Fire Cupping: "By adding fire to the inside of the cup, oxygen is removed and a small amount of suction is created." I'm not familiar with the practice, so I won't make the change myself, but it seems like this is probably more likely caused by having warm air cool down after the seal has been formed. Something I am sure of, however, is that oxygen is not a factor at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.253.145 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What is specifically missing is the idea of a vacuum. Fire needs three things (the fire triangle), fuel, oxygen, and heat. When the lit cotton ball is placed in the cup it uses the oxygen in the cup. This lack of oxygen creates a vacuum which raises the skin when the cup is places on a person's back. Using fire to create a vacuum is a common technique and is also directly shown with the use of ear candles. Nathealth123 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)nathealth123

Actually it's definitely not shown with the use of ear candles.

Ear candling is a practice in which a hollow candle is inserted into the external auditory canal and lit, with the patient lying on the opposite ear. In theory, the combination of heat and suction is supposed to remove earwax. However, in one trial, ear candles neither created suction nor removed wax and actually led to occlusion with candle wax in persons who previously had clean ear canals. Primary care physicians may see complications from ear candling including candle wax occlusion, local burns, and tympanic membrane perforation."

The Spokane Ear, Nose, and Throat Clinic conducted a research study in 1996 which concluded that ear candling does not produce negative pressure and was ineffective in removing wax from the ear canal. Several studies have shown that ear candles produce the same residue when burnt without ear insertion and that the residue is simply candle wax and soot.

The only reason the vacuum holds in cupping, is because they stick it against the skin before the pressure inside of the cup can equalize - and the actual vacuum pressure on the body is marginal hence why it can't actually "draw" anything out of your body - again much like ear candling. CleverTitania (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Possible improvements

The article is poorly sourced, which I think is the major problem here. Most of the content seems fine.

I removed a sentence of (possible) translations into other languages and moved the only sourced one into the history section. The history section itself is suspect. I couldn't find anything in the Ebers papyrus about cupping, whether the German translation or the English sections. What I've found so far online for evidence is the same general phrase on many advocacy websites, but none give anything more. The dating of the papyrus also seems to be the rationale for the 3000 years of use comment, so if the papyrus bit is excised, so should this phrase. The dating of the Chinese usage also needs to be supported, but I didn't get to look into that. From what I saw, Hippocrates did indeed suggest cupping, but I haven't verified that yet. I know that cupping was a normal practice in 19th century Europe and I will add that later. The spread of cupping seems to be Egypt->Greece->Middle East and Europe->everywhere else, but this also needs to be confirmed.

If somebody would like to, and I might do this later, we can add the removed translations "Meyboom, badkesh(بادکش), banki, bahnkes, bekam, buhang, bentusa, kyukaku, giác hơi, kavaa (ކަވާ), singhi" to that infobox.

The article needs either major sourcing, major pruning, or both. I'll try to work on it more if I have time. Gormadoc (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And is it considered okay to edit others' comments if they add a reference to the talk page and it shows up at the bottom of the last section? Gormadoc (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The "English" in this article is awful, but I will stop with the 2 corrections I made because I don't want to get into the middle of a big old brouhaha with other editors. Sh33na 01:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

Shouldn't it be "Cupping Therapy" instead of "Cupping therapy?" Sh33na 06:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

@Sh33na: An old question, but the answer is that article titles are "sentence case", see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

More improper edits

I haven't had much time to look over the article some more, but the information 1928Whippet added was both unsourced and anecdotal, although interesting. If they happen to come back and look here to see what happened, I would suggest that it was the Polish word bańka with an English plural attached. Gormadoc (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recently removed

Just a few moments ago, the following text was removed from the "Practice" section:

There is a description of cupping in George Orwell's essay "How the Poor Die", where he was surprised to find it practiced in a Paris hospital.

It was removed as unsourced, which is totally fine. However the statement is accurate, and can be sourced. That's not why I'm posting here. Rather, I'd like to hear what someone else things about where in the article this belongs. I am leaning towards the end of the "History" section. I am also open to leaving it out, depending on what (if anything) is said here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

The way you've constructed this {{reflist-talk}}, it's slipping out of the the section and dropping to the bottom of the page. Is there another way to do it that works better?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I un-collapsed it (with just one ref, it doesn't really need collapsing), maybe that'll help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

British Cupping Society as source

The first sentence of the lead refers to the British Cupping Society website, but after much reworking, the sentence no longer resembles nor can be fully supported by anything found on the BCS website. Furthermore, despite adopting the colors of a professional society, the BCS website is not a satisfactory source. It engages in advocacy rather than balanced treatment of the subject. The "evidence" sections of the website are underdeveloped or empty.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this article has been so dynamic while not much has been happening on this Talk page. Someone mentioned "recentism" and it is true that the average daily pageviews for this article have jumped by a factor of 10 more over the course of the last couple of days (as has the frequency of edits).

It seems that there is no consensus among the current set of editors of how this page should be. I'll state my current position, others can chime in:

Cupping is a traditional practice with an ancient history across many different cultures. It continues to be practiced in modern times in places around the world. As a medical practice, if falls into the category of either traditional or alternative treatment. The best evidence available says that any benefits from cupping are not distinguishable from Placebo and there are minor to significant risks associated with the practice.

The BCS site has a FAQ page where they (somewhat repetitively) give practice guidelines to avoid certain risk factors.

They display a quote from Dr. Ahmed Younis, president of BCS: Cupping Therapy is an ancient medical treatment that relies on creating a local suction to mobilize blood flow in order to promote healing. My guess is that this is the sentence that was the germ of the article's lead.

Anyone want to find a better source?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

"Cupping is a pseudoscience,[4] lacking good evidence it has any beneficial health effects, with some risk that it may be harmful.[3][5]"

Opinion, not fact.

Everyone has an opinion. They're like a**holes. ---Dagme (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In Wikipedia per WP:ASSERT a fact is something not seriously disputed (i.e. in RS). If there are good sources which consider the type-of-science categorization of cupping and come up with something other than pseudoscience, then produce them! Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether a practice is pseudoscience is not a matter of opinion, no matter how much one would like it to be. There is a clear definition of pseudoscience, and cupping falls squarely within it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The reference for no beneficial health effects and risk of harm is the highly cited Cao et al. 2012 PLOSONE paper that states "Finally, our meta-analysis revealed that cupping therapy combined with other treatments, such as acupuncture or medications, showed significant benefit over other treatments alone in effecting a cure for herpes zoster, acne, facial paralysis, and cervical spondylosis." I proposed not labeling it as a Psuedoscience in the second sentence and adding the tentative positive evidence to the effectiveness section. SiFTW (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't use PLoS One, it's not the most solid journal - an ins't that study Chinese (and so unreliable for TCM therapies)? Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's borderline racist to imply that just because a study is Chinese means it can't be a source of evidence for alternative medicines. Why don't we place the same restrictions on "Western" medicines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.152.144 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we don't allow homeopathic publications to be used to support claims for Homeopathy, nor Reichian publications for Reichian therapy, nor osteopathic publications for Osteopathy, nor radionic publications for Radionics... (all of those are Western, by the way). And the main thing that identifies TCM is that it's from China -- whether it's cupping or or concoctions made from human feces, genitalia, or pubic hair. It's kinda like questioning studies from India regarding the effectiveness of Ayurveda -- publications from the homeland of a style of traditional medicine are more likely to have skewed or sloppy results for the sake of national pride (especially when the government is more interested in export revenues than the actual science). Now, I would agree that does not automatically make it unreliable, but if it contradicts what all science-based publications have to say then we should question it's reliability. And Wikipedia doesn't favor "Western" medicine over others -- it favors Evidence-based medicine over others. Otherwise, we wouldn't say that homeopathy, Reichian therapy, Radionics, Humorism (which is probably the best Western medicine to compare TCM with), and so on are just plain wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse us of being racist because we won't use unreliable sources? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm not getting into the cupping debate, but yes it is racist to assume articles in Chinese journals are unreliable on traditional Chinese therapies. Its like saying articles by people with German last names can't be objective about homeopathy because homeopathy is from Germany.Herbxue (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Herbxue: Who the fuck said they were unreliable because they were Chinese? Nobody but you! I'm telling you right now, if this continues it's going to ANI. Calling someone racist is a huge personal attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Presumably Herbxue is referring to "...an ins't that study Chinese (and so unreliable for TCM therapies)?" --tronvillain (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That quote, even devoid of context is highly specific. Hence "...(and so unreliable for TCM therapies)?" The issue, as explained by Ian.thomson and as hinted at in that quote is not the race of the authors, but the political agenda of the publishers. It's well documented that Chinese publishers aren't as reliable as non-chinese publishers, because the Chinese government's push to make China a power in the world encourages them to publish anything that can make China look good internationally ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] & [11] were all found with a 3 minute google search). WP:AGF doesn't make exceptions for cases where ignoring most of what some editor says allows one to interpret the rest as racist. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite. This has been discussed ad nauseum before (alongside e.g. the reliability of Russian psychology sources). The problems are well-documented in RS. I seem to remember another editor tried to pull the "wow! racist!" stunt on that occasion and almost got site banned for it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just pointing out what they were presumably referring to with "to assume articles in Chinese journals are unreliable on traditional Chinese therapies." Of course, PLOS ONE is neither a Chinese journal nor a Chinese publisher, but since the 133 of the 135 studies included in the review were published in Chinese journals, the above criticisms would apply. As the review itself says immediately after the above quote by SiFTW: However, the main limitation of our analysis was that nearly all included trials were evaluated as high risk of bias. As such, it is necessary to conduct further RCTs that are of high quality and larger sample sizes in order to draw a definitive conclusion. Earlier in their discussion section they point out:The potential asymmetry of the overall funnel plot test (Figure 5) of 39 RCTs that examined the outcome of the number of cured patients for 4 diseases (herpes zoster, facial paralysis, acne, and cervical spondylosis) may be caused by, small study effects, or even heterogeneity in intervention effects. Furthermore, as we did not include unpublished studies, there is high potential that our review may have publication bias. And of the effects they did find, almost all of them were for wet cupping - it wouldn't be too surprising if bloodletting had a fairly large placebo effect. --tronvillain (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying a particular publication has a history of publishing poor-quality research, and therefore is likely to publish results skewed by bias, of course that's fine. The problem is WP editors often don't bother to actually look at a Chinese publication until they've already rejected it for BEING CHINESE and have been called out for doing so. I have not accused an individual of being a racist, I am pointing out that assuming all Chinese researchers or publications are unreliable is lazy at best, racist at worst. Despite what Alexbrn says, there is not consensus in the academic community that Chinese research is unreliable. Ironically, Ernst's article on the subject relies on a review of Chinese acupuncture studies from the 90's published IN A CHINESE JOURNAL, BY CHINESE AUTHORS. So, unless you want to really get your hands dirty and talk about why a specific publication is unreliable, I suggest you not make generalizations about the scientific community of a very large and developed country. Oh and by the way, don't swear at me again please.Herbxue (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

...yes it is racist to assume articles in Chinese journals are unreliable on traditional Chinese therapies. I don't see "lazy at best, racist at worst." in that quote. I see "yes, it is racist" though. I also see a large number of sources (both lay and academic) discussing the unreliability of Chinese publications in my post above, in direct contradiction to your assertion that there is "not consensus in the academic community that Chinese research is unreliable." Furthermore, as Tronvillain pointed out, the review of such studies found that (at least) the majority of Chinese studies reviewed were "...evaluated as high risk of bias." Finally, I curse when I'm trying to put a great deal of emphasis on something. Part of collaborative editing is working with others, even when they use words you don't like. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources you cite above are largely echo-chamber blogs. The Nature one is high quality obviously, although it mostly deals with China's inability to become a world leader in science in general, not specifically about the issues with bias in acupuncture or other traditional therapies. To be clear - I am not arguing that these problems don't exist in Chinese research, I've seen it unfold right in front of me at two teaching hospitals in China. It was not, however, ubiquitous. So, to conclude that certain trials or reviews of trials are unreliable because they have been evaluated for bias, fine, good use of checks and balances. But to assume a study on cupping or acupuncture is invalid simply because it comes from Chinese sources is not appropriate. Heck, one WP editor tried to reject a paper authored by US-based researchers published in BMJ because the authors' names were Chinese!Herbxue (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that all Chinese published science on TCM is bad, and no-one has suggested that. The problem is that we don't know what Chinese published science on TCM is bad. There aren't specific Chinese journals which are the only outlet for bad science. This is the very heart of verifiability: If a certain group of sources contains a number which are false or misleading, and you cannot identify a pattern among them, then you cannot assume that any given source from that group is valid, unless you have known valid sources which agree with it. Furthermore, even if I assume that the incredibly widely documented (again, those results were from the first page of a simple google search, and more specificity would, I guarantee, produce WP:RS sources saying the same thing) phenomenon is simply untrue, and due to some cultural bias, it does not follow that anyone who refers to this phenomenon is racist. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that the review that started all of this was in PLOS ONE, and is itself good support for the statement that cupping is "lacking good evidence it has any beneficial health effects." See the above quotes from the review. People could publish some quality double blinded trials of cupping and establish that it works... but they won't, because it's clearly a pseudoscience. --tronvillain (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget the other study published by scientists with Chinese names that directly addresses the question of cupping's effectiveness and which states right there in the abstract; "It indicates that cupping therapy can be applied to extensive curable disease, but has poor clinical evidence." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

source "draxe.com"

I looked into some of the things found on the History section that currently have as a supposed reference this "draxe.com" website. None of them are supported by the source, so I'm removing both references.

I would also like to point out that I'm not sure if this source is reliable at all. It makes unsupported claims, and on its history section, it quotes this very wikipedia article. So maybe this source should be removed altogether? VdSV9•♫ 02:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There were two instances of this reference left, one of them was on the Limited bruising cupping section, and there was nothing on the draxe.com page about it. Reference removed. The last one is on the TCM cupping section, and it follows "to treat respiratory diseases such as the common cold, pneumonia and bronchitis." Now, this is vaguely supported by the draxe page, however, the source that the draxe.com page cites as a source does not support its claims. I am removing this reference altogether as it is just completely unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 12:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DrAxe is gone, but then there is this which was used in the TCM cupping section.

References

This paper has nothing in it about TCM, I removed the citation but it does have something to do with cupping and it is published on an actual journal (albeit a very low impact one), so I'm saving it here for future reference in case anyone is interested. This is the reference DrAxe cites for his claims on respiratory diseases, by the way, which, as I said above, it doesn't really say anything about. VdSV9•♫ 12:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't believe DrAxe is a reliable source for anything that we could use here. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

Cupping was recommended by the Jewish scholar Maimonides in the thirteenth century. The practice of cupping was so integral to Eastern European Jewish tradition, there was even a Yiddish proverb about it: “Es vet helfn vi a toytn bankes.” That means, “It will be as helpful as cupping a corpse.” 

reference: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/210759/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-cupping-and-some-stuff-you-probably-didnt

80.5.212.68 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: There was no request here, but I took parts of this quote and inserted it into the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

A sentence

"There is reason to believe the practice dates from as early as 3000 BC."
Shouldn't it be a reason and dates to respectively?--Adûnâi (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, neither. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Hijama with Cupping therapy.

---

• DO NOT SUPPORT. Cupping and Hijama are differentiated by a requirement to have an ijaaza to practice. If there is no ijaaza, there is no hijama, See the book by James McConnell, Hijama vs Cupping for more information available at Amazon. This article needs an explanation for ijaaza and I will try to get to it soon. The ijaaza page is continuously sabotaged by people who know nothing about the subject but nonetheless find obscure references that seem to pass for real references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.129.20 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been only one comment on merging Hijama to Cupping therapy. There has been only common (against), but I'd be slight in favor of a merge on the grounds that the former is a subset of the latter; and the cupping page already has a section on Hijama (Cupping therapy#Wet cupping). Any other thoughts welcome. Klbrain (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is an obvious merge. Most of the content on the Hijama page is about cupping in general anyway.--tronvillain (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I've extracted everything relevant from hijama article, except for possibly: AlBedah, Abdullah (2011). "Hijama (cupping): a review of the evidence". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. 16 (1): 12–16. doi:10.1111/j.2042-7166.2010.01060.x. With the conclusion having "the low quality of RCTs investigating wet cupping, attributed to inadequate randomisation and blinding, and the lack of ethical review, affects the credibility of such studies", it really doesn't add much to existing analyses of cupping other than being specifically about wet cupping. --tronvillain (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• merge I am definitely in favor of combining these two as they cover much of the same content.Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a merge. As Tronvillain notes, there's very little on there that isn't on here, and most of the sources there are just about wet-cupping. A section could be included here on Hijama and how it is different from 'vanilla' wet-cupping, but there doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article.Girth Summit (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, no meaningful difference that can't be explained in one or two sentences. Blackguard 18:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, Same thing. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General restructuring and return to objectivity

This page is rampant with heavily biased statements. It needs to be re-organized so that the Effectiveness section contains actual studies which show what it is and isn't effective in treating, and a Criticism section can contain all the criticisms by the critics. Sentences like "Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence." are not sufficiently objective to lead the text. There are many studies which comment on what cupping is and is not effective for treating, and this is what should go in this section! Criticisms cannot impregnate the entirety of this article. There are problems with almost every single line in this entry.

"Cupping has been characterized as pseudoscience." It has been characterized by SOME as a pseudoscience and supported by others, again this is not objective enough to lead a text and needs to be contextualized.

"...however, the efficacy of this is unproven." There are studies which support this, so why claim it is unproven? Perhaps you think it has not sufficiently been substantiated by western studies, in which case THAT is what you should write.

"Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence." The citation for this remark is a page which references SIXTY-FOUR studies on cupping from a five year period—I do not understand this statement in relation to this citation it appears to be disingenuous and false.

"In their 2008 book Trick or Treatment, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst write that no evidence exists of any beneficial effects of cupping for any medical condition." This can go in the criticisms section.

"A 2011 review found tentative evidence for pain but nothing else." The second part of this sentence should state exactly what it was not effective in treating, or exclude it.

"Any reported benefits are likely due to the placebo effect." This is another disingenuous and biased statement, the actual text in the reference states: "There is some evidence suggesting that any therapeutic benefit from cupping may be the result of a placebo effect, but a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis in the journal PLoS One concluded that cupping could be effective in treating the pain and disability associated with chronic neck pain and chronic low-back pain in the short term."

"Research suggests that cupping is harmful, especially in people who are thin or obese: According to Jack Raso (1997), cupping results in capillary expansion, excessive fluid accumulation in tissues, and the rupture of blood vessels." This is again disingenuous. The sentence describes the appearance of bruising, which is a side effect of cupping, not a harm.

"and may lead to hospitalization and may even require skin grafting to repair the injury" This is extremely extrapolative and does not appear in any cited text.

Traditional Chinese medicine cupping should be moved under the Methods section with other variants.

The practice is so widely used by celebrity athletes that I recommend starting an "In Popular Culture" heading which could include the George Orwell reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenkween (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. Wikipedia content is driven by reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. For content about health, like the main content in this page, sourcing criteria are described in WP:MEDRS. For fringey/alt-med things like this, we sometimes reach for sources per WP:PARITY. We give WEIGHT to what reliable sources say, per WP:NPOV. Your comments above don't reflect this approach to Wikipedia, so it is difficult to respond. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my edit included far more scientific studies and reliable sources than the current version which mostly points to a)sources which have a strong anti-alternative health agenda with a political charge, and whose neutrality and credibility are contested (I see numerous complaints above this in earlier discussions) and b)sources which do not support the statements made. I think we should keep the criticisms, but I think it is important that they are a) contextualized b)not impregnating objective discussion of the subject at hand. As it is, this page as is not at all neutral and I have clearly explained why. I think you are willfully avoiding an earnest reading of my edits and comments and using your superior knowledge of wikipedia protocol to undermine the rectification of this page. Greenkween (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence" is an accurate summary of the available evidence. The review in the citation attached to it says "Randomized controlled trial is designed in the clinical research of cupping therapy in these years. Because of the unreasonable design and poor research quality, the clinical evidence of cupping therapy is very low." --tronvillain (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit quoted this line because it functions differently verbatim. Saying clinical evidence of cupping is low (due to lack of studies) is very different than saying it is poorly supported (implying studies show that it is ineffective). In the context of the greater bias problem of this article, this difference is extremely amplified. Greenkween (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A lack of supporting evidence is accurately described as "poorly supported by the evidence": support for it being effective is poor.--tronvillain (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL of course I shouldn't expect people who have an agenda against alternative health to understand the holism of biased language?? You guys are really gonna go hard to protect this sad excuse for a wikipedia page huh? Have you read it?? Its pretty trash according to all your own standards. Greenkween (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any valid rebuttals to my comments. Can someone communicate what the problem with my edit was? I did not remove any information, I simply cleaned up the article so that it is more neutral. I think if no one can communicate what is problematic about my edit then it should be allowed to go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenkween (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that you cited a bunch of primary research, which fails MEDRS. And cherry picking a quote that says cupping is effective for many conditions when the evidence for efficacy is essentially nonexistent is highly misleading.--tronvillain (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition, adding statements about popularity and antiquity to the lede is clearly unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Also, there's the unexplained removal of relevant images. --tronvillain (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback I will make my edits with these points in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenkween (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, what is wrong with the edits I made? I took your feedback. I have followed all guidelines and improved the page. This line is incorrect "There is no evidence it has any benefit" because the article itself provides SOME evidence it has benefit. It is empirically untrue. Also the line "may even require skin grafting to repair the injury." is not supoprted by any citation. These are glaring problems which need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenkween (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked that to "no good evidence", because as you point out, there is certainly low quality evidence (as with almost every other pseudoscientific treatment).--tronvillain (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating Article

Hi everyone, I am trying to add new content to this article. I have my draft in my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bchen1100/sandbox#Lead_Section. There are still many grammer mistakes, but I want to know if the ideas presented in my draft are good. Bchen1100 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The quality of English is not high and there is too much reliance on (and description of) poor sources which are not referenced fully - e.g. a piece in PLOS ONE which looks questionable. If you want to make changes I suggest making edits with descriptive edit summaries to help editors arrive at consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bchen1100 - it looks like you are drafting a complete rewrite of the article in your sandbox. I would advise you not to spend any more time working on that - you won't be able to come along and completely replace an article like that. If there is particular material you want adding, and it is well-sourced, I'd suggest that you do it one bit at a time - that way other editors can evaluate each of the individual edits. If you replace the article wholesale, it's likely to get reverted immediately, and any good stuff you've brought will be lost along with everything else. Girth Summit (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone, the advice on the course page: Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Nor/ENGW_3307_Advanced_Writing_in_the_Sciences_B_(S) is to:

• NEVER copy and paste your draft of an article over the entire article. Instead, edit small sections at a time.
• Copy your edits into the article. Make many small edits, saving each time, and leaving an edit summary. Never replace more than one to two sentences without saving!
• Be sure to copy text from your sandbox while the sandbox page is in 'Edit' mode. This ensures that the formatting is transferred correctly.

Bchen1100 you might want to respond to the concerns raised here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel. Hi everyone, it was required for my class to write a draft in my mailbox. I didn't have the intention to copy my entire article over the current article. Furthermore, this post was recommended by my professor as a means of digital courtesy, so look forward in few days for my updates, good or not ;) Bchen1100 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijama unmerge

This is an improper application of WP:FRINGE Hijama incorporates Islamic cultural concepts this is historic academic and cultural. This is clearly notable for a stand alone with hundreds of thousand texts dating over 1000 years. AfD if desired this requires broad participation in discussion, not a merge with 3 participants. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge seems good & proper. Reverted to reflect consensus (and support a sensible merge!). Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The person who closed the discussion participated. It is racist to says Islamic culture is not notable. This is not medical concept it is a cultural one. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Better get consensus for your edit. Apart from anything else, reinstating content en bloc which had already been selectively woven into this Article is problematic/disruptive in many ways. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not at all, the merge was improperly closed and had minor participation if you are acting in good faith, I recommend an AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want the close reviewed, initiate a review. You can't just decide your view trumps all. FWIW, I support the merge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Who even brought up fringe in the context of the merger? I mean, cupping clearly is, but the actual issue was that the Hijama page was almost entirely duplication of material in here... except for what was moved to the wet cupping section here. --tronvillain (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Hijama page is about 3 paragraphs longer, also it can be massively expanded. We are an encyclopedia here, Hijama dates back to the 7th century with hundreds of thousands of texts documenting it. This is cultural concept and the information on Hijama was not merged. This argument has not been refuted there is no explaining as to why merge is better. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to overturn the consensus to merge you need to follow due process - but doing so this soon could be seen as disruptive - the merge discussion was open for years and you did not contribute at all. It's a pretty obvious merge if you ask me. It might strengthen your case if you added to the Hijama section here so some case for a split was apparent. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I supported the merge, and still do. No justification has been presented to justify an unmerge. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "the information on Hijama was not merged"? As far as I could tell I pulled out everything even vaguely reliable that wasn't duplicated here. Can you provide an example? --tronvillain (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I too continue to support the merge (both the reason for it, and Tronvillain's implementation), for the reasons given in the original discussion. Girth Summit (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Western Cultural Bias

From the stance of any practitioner, patient satisfaction and customer service are core factors aside from just "objective" scientific practice. The article needs to have psychosocial considerations as well as with any therapy to address it factors. The article needs to cite data regarding patient feedback and provide more depth in cultural varieties and approaches to the therapy. The article needs to also address core epistemological differences between Western medicine and not confuse or skew or muttle the topics. Ideally for this article there should be a well developed section for "Western Medical criticism".

Writers should also cross-reference this article in both it's Japanese, Chinese, Korean and other substantial translations as those nations and cultures all have their own respective and different literature and institutions that will argue otherwise. QABradford (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Science is science, idiocy is idiocy. It's global. Trying to say any particular race has a lower bar is a kind of "racism of low expecations". Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

e/c To answer this question, I would suggest you look at my user page. Please remember though that it may appear harsh and abrupt, it represents what some people think is one of our core principles, the way wikipedia sees things. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Empirical Errors

Hello, I am not very experience with wikipedia, but I am unclear why my edits were undone. I pointed out that the statement "..may lead to hospitalization and may even require skin grafting to repair the injury." was not actually substantiated by the reference. I'm no expert but it seems obvious to me that either the statement has to be substantiated, or it needs to be removed? This seems to be the premise of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Also this statement "There is no solid evidence that it has any health benefits, and there are severe concerns it may be harmful to the epidermal, circulation and nervous system." does not have citation. And the word "solid" strikes me as.. a bit inappropriate, as does the "severe concern." It does not seem to match the actual content of the studies, which are better represented under the Effectiveness section.

Finally, I do not understand why there is a criticism repeated inside the Society and Culture section. This seems misplaced and inappropriate.

It seems to me there is sort of an ideological battle over this page, with the those opposed to cupping being the gatekeepers. I have never tried cupping myself but was curious about it and was a little bit surprised by what seemed to me to be obvious bias in this page? I think these simple edits on these elements that obviously do not follow wikipedia guidelines would help to make the page more objective, while retaining both sides of this... ideological battle (lol). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeesabusamar (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That third degree burns are treated with skin grafts is blue sky territory. While the lede doesn't require citations as it's supposed to summarize the body, I'm not sure exactly where the wording came from - it seems a little exaggerated (not the lack of efficacy, but the risk of harm). --tronvillain (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to mention skin grafts when its not in the reference link, even if that seems "blue sky" to you. This seems like a no brainer when the objective is neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeesabusamar (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious (seen the photos?) We should say "potentially deadly" I think. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that that full thickness burns wouldn't treated with skin grafts isn't accurately described as "neutral", but we don't necessarily have to make that extrapolation for the reader. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There are no "full thickness burns" in any of the pictures currently shown (and I was unable to find any elsewhere); so it's not clear where the skin grafting idea could come from. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious - start here for some evidence if you doubt the obvious.[12] Alexbrn (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is suggested that . . .

"Fire cupping can sometimes result in minor to severe burns at the cupping site, and may lead to hospitalization and may even require skin grafting to repair the injury. Other burns can also occur due to carelessness with the flammable substances being used, such as spills and over application."

under the "Safety" section be replaced with . . .

"Mishaps related to fire cupping can result in minor to severe burns due to the inherent hazard associated with the use of flammable substances: Hospitalization, and even skin grafting may be necessary."

to improve precision. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When fuel (alcohol) and an ignition source (flame) are present, there is the possibility that a mishap can occur. Mishaps occur even in medical association approved and government approved procedures and facilities, so it may seem overzealous to mention it here. But, so long as the article is clear that it is not the cupping per se that can cause full thickness burns, it's good to promote an awareness that playing with fire and fuel can have disastrous consequences; especially when we consider that amateurs do this stuff. I've made a change that should clarify that the fire hazard is caused by the presence of fuel and fire, and hopefully reads better. - NewageEd (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources don't confine burn incidence just to "mishaps". I have added one such with a quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay for now, but it might make one wonder how burning a paitent would not be considered to be a mishap. - NewageEd (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Consumer fraud

Consumer fraud requires intent to deceive. Presumably, most people selling the service are unaware that cupping therapy is pseudoscience. Therefore there is no intent to deceive. Removing the category does not imply that cupping therapy works. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That is your wp:or presumably. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: That makes absolutely no sense. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is consumer fraud. Fraud requires intent to decieve. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have sources to support it? --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does it make no sense? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It makes no sense to accuse me of original research when there is no burden of proof on my side. If you want to apply the consumer fraud tag, it is up to you to show that cupping therapy is fraud. Adding this category without such a source is original research. Quackery and fraud are different: in fraud there is intent. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What does "presumably" mean? It means you don't know and that you are partaking in WP:OR. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, quackery is practising useless health modalities like this, and fraud is charging for practising useless health modalities like this! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not original research under WP:OR. Please read burden of proof and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now show me a source or I revert. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have restored that category, which was removed without a consensus. That edit warring was a disgrace. -BullRangifer (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Consensus is not popular vote. As discussed above, show a source or the material must go. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories are not governed by the same sourcing rules as article content. They are navigational aids where common sense rules, and cupping is one of the most nonsensical forms of quackery around. All such quackery is fraud, regardless of motives. You edit warred to remove that category. That's not the proper way to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

1) I did not edit war. I obeyed 3RR and left comments for each of my reverts stating the relevant justification. The same cannot be said for all editors involved. If there was an edit war, I was not the edit warrior. 2) By reverting, you have participated in any edit war that may have occurred. 3) Categories Do have to be sourced. Now show me a source of I revert. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, what sources are we using here? Is there some strong consensus on how to use this category?--Ronz (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the thing. I can't find any sources which describe cupping therapy as consumer fraud. Per WP:CATV, in the absence of such sources we cannot apply the category. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea Consensus is not a popular vote. In the absence of proper sourcing the category must go, regardless of how many people want to keep it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Science-Based Medicine categorize cupping as "Health fraud", which would in fact be a slightly better category I think.[13] Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: I don't see that in the article you cited. Could you show me the quote? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  See "Categories" on the right hand side of the page. Oh - I see it's a menu not a category list. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC); amended 13:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

However, Health fraud is synonymous with quackery, and there's no doubt that cupping is quackery, so this is the category we need. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The article health fraud states that health fraud is often synonymous with quackery. If we look at the source, we find that the FDA defines quackery as fraud, while in the courts and common usage fraud requires intent. So most of the time the two terms are not used as synonyms. That makes this conclusion synthesis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't know whether cupping quacks have intent or not. If you want to start an even more precise category, "Quackery" then go ahead, but what we've got is good and in accord with sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: As I pointed out in my last comment, your conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Sourcing is still inadequate to justify the category. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Please tell me why. Do you want to take this to dispute resolution? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See my response above. Dispute resolution might be necessary in time, but I'd like to hear what other editors have to say first. So your position is that the article should have neither the "consumer fraud" or "health fraud" categories. Right? Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Yes. Guidelines make it clear that categories must be sourced. Fraud and quackery are not typically used as synonyms, so sources calling cupping therapy quackery are not good enough to justify a label of fraud. No reliable source has called cupping therapy "fraud", probably due to lack of intent. This article already bears the title of psuedoscience, so this is not about if cupping therapy works or not. This is about sourcing and the absence of intent. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Fraud and quackery are not typically used as synonyms" ← except by mega-strength sources like the FDA, you mean. What is your source for "probably due to lack of intent" on the part of the cupping scammers? Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the source. Fraud and quackery are not synonyms outside the United States, in the US court system, in common usage within the United States, or really to anyone but the FDA. Declaring the two terms to be synonyms based on that source is clearly syntheses. Again, no sources are needed to exclude unverifiable statements or syntheses from an article. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Something that's well sourced is not "synthesis". But even taking your point that we don't know if quackery/health fraud has to have intent-to-deceive, we also do not know whether cuppers have intent-to-deceive, so the fit is absolutely perfect. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well sourced? That's not even what the source says. I think we both know how this will go down in dispute resolution. If you intend to keep pushing the issue, I will request a resolution. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The source is the FDA. About as strong as it gets. What is this mysterious other source you keep invoking which apparently undercuts the FDA? It would have to be ultra-strength to do that! Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I've been following this unfold from a distance, and as much as I tend to agree that fraud implies intent, these pseudoscientific practices are often described as "fraudulent", even though all the evidence points to practitioners being convinced that these things work and have no intent to deceive. So, yes, there is an argument to be made that believers in miracle cures who practice and sell them in spite of all the evidence against their belief could also be charged with consumer/health fraud.

Think of those Hologram bracelets, it's safe to assume that a good portion of the people who sell those actually believe they work, even though they have been shown to not do anything and the manufacturers have been convicted of consumer fraud. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the sellers of those bracelets actually believe they work. Would this now mean that we can no longer claim holo bracelets to be consumer fraud? I don't think so.

OTOH, I took a look at what else is in the Consumer fraud category, and right next to the holo bracelets, there is Homeopathy. So, I figured, this discussion must have been had in the homeopathy talk page and I found this Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ, see Q11 and the answer.

Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.)
A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.

I'm going to remove the category from the homeopathy page based on this and see what happens. VdSV9•♫ 14:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@VdSV9: Thanks for the input. I hope you stick around to add some moderation to this discussion. However, I see one issue with your argument: Homeopathy may be fraud. Homeopathic remedies are sold by major companies like CVS that either know or should know that it doesn't work. According to this source, CVS has been sued for fraud for this reason. There are also sources calling homeopathy fraud, which justifies the category. In the case of cupping therapy there are no equivalent sources and it is not clear that the major peddlers of the therapy know that it is ineffective. I would suggest that you don't remove the category from the homeopathy page because it is likely to be immediately returned with a source shown. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points, but being sued over something isn't the same as being guilty of it. I'm a bit of a fan of the Center for Inquiry and am well aware of the legal case, but an accusation isn't evidence. And the FAQ answer I quoted earlier does take into account the fact that there are sources making the claim. Maybe it was decided that the addition of the Category doesn't amount to "characterizing" it as such? IDK.
BTW, I did remove it as I said I would, and it got reverted right away, which was expected, but I hoped they would argue better, maybe point me to where it had been discussed, but the edit summary only said Return established cat. I'll see if I can find something else that helps with settling this. VdSV9•♫ 23:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of a properly sourced discussion of cupping as "health fraud", I fail to understand how it can be in the named category. Either put in a section calling it health fraud, or the cat has to go. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

it’s explained very well in the thread above. It involves charging people for a fraudulent therapy. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So demonstrate this in the article; otherwise, the category has as much value in this article as a drive-by NPOV tag. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: That source you just presented an FDA source. Nothing new. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's simple:

• Cupping is quackery per RS
• Therefore we apply the "Quackery" category
• However, on Wikipedia the "Quackery" category is called "Health fraud", since the two are synonyms per RS (the FDA, MEDLINE).

Job done. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Only the FDA considers uses fraud and quackery as synonyms. No one else does. That argument is clearly synthesis. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

One super-authoritative source is enough; that MEDLINE mirrors it, is a cherry on top. You have nothing comparable to counter this strong consensus in on-point RS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Read the "medline source". At the bottom it says food and drug administration. It is an FDA PSA that medline published. As you well know, the FDA does not have supreme power on Wikipedia. If the FDA says one thing and EVERYBODY ELSE disagrees, we do not cite the FDA's claim as fact. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MEDLINE Plus agrees. I cited it. Your argument is devoid of citations. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not even going to respond to the lack of citations argument. I have already shown you a citation that you acknowledged, and I don't like it when you misrepresent me. And your MEDLINE Plus source does not agree. On the page you will find a note on the side that says:

"MedlinePlus links to health information from the National Institutes of Health and other federal government agencies. MedlinePlus also links to health information from non-government Web sites. See our disclaimer about external links and our quality guidelines." If you click the link to the disclaimer, it states "nor does NLM endorse, warrant or guarantee the products, services or information described or offered at these other Internet sites." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You have now descended into nonsense. MEDLINEPlus is not "linking" to any "other Internet sites" on this matter; it is adopting their content. The only source you have (though you have been extremely coy about citing it here, so readers here will be in the dark about what you mean) is an essay from 2009 which is irrelevant in the face of this strong FDA/MEDLINE sourcing. In lieu of further sources I shall not respond here further. Do not mistake my lack of response for concession to your nonsensical arguments. Time for you to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that you were aware of my source, but chose to say I had none anyway. Not that I need one, as the burden of proof is on you to source the category. Any sources I might show are just icing on the cake.My source was initially brought into discussion here (see last two comments at bottom of page), where you relied on it (via the health fraud article) to back up your health fraud claim. However, I quickly pointed out that it does not back up your claim and actually supports mine, as it states that only the FDA uses the term in this "confusing" way. Apparently, the source is now "irrelevant".

WP:CATV states: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". This claim clearly fails WP:CATV. Also, refusal to communicate or cooperate is literally the definition of stonewalling. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• So in summary, we have two sources. This source, from Quackwatch, was originally presented by user:Alexbrn as evidence that fraud and quackery are synonymous. However, further examination revealed that the source actually exists to clarify the FDA's "confusing" use of these terms, because nobody in the world but them uses the terms in this way. From then on, I was ridiculed for using this source as evidence for my case, because Quackwatch is too low quality a source. The second source is an FDA PSA published by medline that says nothing about fraud or quackery in the main text. In other words, there are still no sources to support the equivalence of fraud and quackery. Not that it matters, because this is a synth argument anyway.

This may all seem very trivial, but it is not at all trivial to me. If I don't stand up to this tag team here, they will keep following me around the encyclopedia and preventing me from making constructive edits as they have been doing for some time now. I can not put up with these repeated demands that I show sources when removing unsourced content, and attempts to force false consensus such as this one. I am not so naive as to believe that two 10+ year editors actually think this is how discussion is supposed to work. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Time to drop the WP:STICK, and lay off the WP:PAs unless you're wanting to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to drop the stick. If this is not the most obvious sealioning I have ever seen, then take me before ANI for making personal attacks. You won't, because you know you'll get boomeranged. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Better to WP:FOC (like on some FDA sources pertinent to the question!). Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to focus on content from now on. I just thought a little background info might be needed to explain why anyone should read through all that text over something so trivial as a category. The editors on this page must be very passionate about categories indeed, otherwise why else would the carry on this long? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

See Also links

As I understand it, "See Also" links are intended for concepts that are somewhat related, but have not been linked in the article because it is not a complete article on the topic. But if a concept is central enough that it is already discussed in the article, it should be linked there, and not repeated in a "see Also" link. Walk me through the logic (and the policy) that says we should not link a term in the article, but rather link it in a "see also" section.

relevant excerpts from the Manual of Style: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic...As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body...The Manual of Style for medicine-related articles advises against such a section." Here come the Suns (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit removing a "Hijama" link from "See also" and linking it in the article body looks fine. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you two respected editors please click on Hijama. Where does it go? I dont mind which of you reverts. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 03:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What was the point of having it as a "see Also" link, then? You could have simply removed the link. Here come the Suns (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Effectiveness section II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm curious to know why the effectiveness section only mentions that the practice has not been extensively tested by people in the West and that there is "no evidence" that it works. Do European and American scientists have to approve of everything before it's considered "effective"? Because I should think this section either shouldn't be here or it should contain information on how the people who practice it determine its effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.52.41 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange anyone should need to explain this, but people who practice what they claim is a medical treatment, do not get to "determine its effectiveness" by their own standards. They have to have observable and reproducable data, which supports that the treatment is having the desired effect on the patient, and which can be studied and confirmed by others in their field. It's called the scientific method. When you get people trying to decide for themselves, without peer review of their results, what is and isn't effective, is when you get pseudo-science and 'holistic medicine'. CleverTitania (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the gold standard test for any medical treatment is the double blind trial, i.e. demonstration that any observed effect is not merely due to placebo effect. True medical treatments are not approved without evidence from double blind trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine studies never follow double blind trial protocols using a placebo control group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeBoutin (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Here is an illustrative example of a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial for a vaccine in development. [14]. Please be careful before spreading misinformation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

He was right, it's not the norm. You are wrong. Most studies are not designed that way, especially when there is a pressing public interest. Gnostc (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that isn't what he said. He said vaccine studies never follow double blind trial protocols using a placebo group. It's not never true, it has happened, but it's true that it's not the norm. And with good reason, it's generally acknowledged to be unethical to do so, particularly in trials for vaccines meant for a pediatric population. Also, please be sure to sign your comments. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It just goes to show that double-blind studies are not used at all times in all circumstances, so if something is proven to be effective without a double-blind randomized study done on it, one can still draw some conclusions from it. Anyway I came to this page because I saw that lots of high level MMA fighters had cupping marks all over them, so if high level athletes are doing it, there might be something to it. Of course I come here and see that the high priests of the internet have deemed it "quackery", so I guess no further research is necessary? Gnostc (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's very flawed reasoning. Just because elite athletes do it doesn't mean there's something to it. On the contrary, lots of elite athletes, celebrities, political leaders, etc. use all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense. Scientific inquiry (shown by the sources that are cited in the article) show this is nonsense. Also, it's always important to remember that the burden of proof is on those who claim it works, not the other way around. The proponents of cupping therapy have not been able to show any effectiveness for any medical condition by using high-quality evidence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. High-level athletics is pseudoscience central. L-shaped cranks anybody? Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the first thing about cupping therapy but it's not flawed reasoning to see that athletes looking to get the last bit of performance out of their bodies would notice differences between using a certain therapy and not using one. Monolithic -~science-~ is not the final arbiter for human knowledge because it is constantly changing, science is only as good as its investigative and measurement methods which are changing all the time. As well as conscious and unconscious biases which easily find their way into most "scientific" studies of any stripe. It seems like this article needs a little bit of attention towards those who actually use the therapy. You "atheist skeptic" shut-in people basically have Wikipedia as your last refuge on the internet, but that is irresponsible because Wikipedia is supposed to be for the mass audience, and not a place to push worldview. Finally, generally people who think a therapy works don't spend their time trying to prove it works to shut-ins, they just do the therapy. Wikipedia is a place to document and explain phenomenon, not to editorialize by sentence 5. MMA and Cupping 1 MMA and cupping 2"One problem is that it’s tough to perform a high-quality study on cupping. "Read that last link at least. 07:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs)

Science is the final arbiter for science, and if you don't agree then you're not going to like Wikipedia I can assure you. Basically per the sources cupping is a load of BS, and Wikipedia must reflect that to be neutral. Core policy, and not negotiable. If you want to big up cupping maybe start a blog or something? Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Science is not the final arbiter for science, science is never settled, it is constantly evolving. You thought you were being cute but showed you fundamentally misunderstand science. The rest is not the opinions of a respectable person either. My points stand. Gnostc (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your point is fundamentally claptrap. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 08:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That it is difficult to do a high quality study on cupping, that science is constantly evolving, and that more attention in the article needs to be paid to the current practitioners of the therapy? Sure, OK. Any more brilliant insights from any other high priests? 08:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs)

A very good editor once said to me that you need three things to succeed on wikipedia. Sources, sources and sources. Best I could come up with at short notice. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 08:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A harvard medical school article saying that it is safe and to withhold judgement on cupping until high level studies become possible (the exact opposite of the tack taken by this wiki page) didn't mean anything to you? Was on the first page of google incidentally. Gnostc (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a blog, and though it doesn't make any exceptional claims is below the threshold of usefulness. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This all just seems very convenient for those who see Eastern medicine as "quackery". No source could satisfy you. I already made that argument actually, when i said that double blind randomized trials are not possible with cupping therapy. I would not even dream of getting in an edit war with the anointed administrator high priests, I am content to have the "talk page" record reflect my misgivings. Nice veiled threat on my talk page by the way. I deleted it, your adopted authority means nothing to me. Gnostc (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.