New text #1: ''Claims about heath benefits of qigong practice include improving cardiovascular function, decreasing falls, improving immune response, and decreasing pain. For example, two separate systematic meta-analysis (Cite: Yeh, Wang, Wayne, Phillips, Preventative Cardiology, 2008 and Ospina, et all, 2007 Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research, AHRQ) found positive impact for qigong on cardiovascular systems in a few well-designed studies, and no adverse impacts. A meta-analysis of randomized studies indicated that tai chi and qigong practiced for 3 to 4 months is effective in improving balance, flexibility, muscle strength, activities of daily living, and fear of falling. (Cite: Park, Song, in Journal of Korean Academic Nursing, June 2013 J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013 Jun;43(3):341-51. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.3.341.) But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials. Ospina, et al, notes: "The results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be more rigorous in design, execution, and analysis, and in the reporting of the results." (Cite Ospina, pg 210) According to Lee “It would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage.” (cite Lee)'' :[[User:CJ]] Yes. :[[User:Yobol]]? :[[User:Jytdog]]? No way. This overstates what the best sources say (even the sources provided say only things in the subjunctive). Conflates tai chi and qigong and we do not want to open that can of worms. Makes concerns about quality of evidence seem just fussy when they are essential. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Roxy the dog]]? :[[User:TheProfessor]]? No [[User:TheProfessor|TheProfessor]] ([[User talk:TheProfessor|talk]]) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Ottawakungfu]]? No. [[User:Ottawakungfu|ottawakungfu]] ([[User talk:Ottawakungfu|talk]]) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:NatHealth1]]? Yes :[[User:So1308]]? :[[User:SequimTao]]? :[[User:Kleinpj]]? :[[User:DharmaWarrior]]? :[[KathyL226]] Yes. I agree with the new text. I prefer #1 :[[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]]: No, I think it should state that there is strong evidence for certain conditions see NIH's page on Qigong. [[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]] ([[User talk:Developmentalist|talk]]) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :Anyone else? New text #2 ''Medical research on qigong is increasing, and relates to a wide range of conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, effectiveness is based on what is considered to be poor quality data, with the conclusion that “it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage” and that "this area merits further rigorous research”.'' :[[User:CJ]] Yes. :[[User:Yobol]]? :[[User:Jytdog]]? This is OK... would need to qualify "increasing" relative to something. and the weasel-words "what is considered to be" must go. Health-related content in Wikipedia is science-based and you cannot keep downplaying the science. and need to tie 1st clause and subsequent clause more closely together. Like, "While many of the clinical studies report positive effects, those claims are based on poor quality data."[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) :[[User:Roxy the dog]]? :[[User:TheProfessor]]? Yes (see alternative wording below). [[User:TheProfessor|TheProfessor]] ([[User talk:TheProfessor|talk]]) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Ottawakungfu]]? OK [[User:Ottawakungfu|ottawakungfu]] ([[User talk:Ottawakungfu|talk]]) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:NatHealth1]]? Yes :[[User:So1308]]? :[[User:SequimTao]]? :[[User:Kleinpj]]? :[[User:DharmaWarrior]]? :[[User:TheProfessor]]? :[[User:KathyL226|KathyL226]] Yes. I prefer #1 but would accept #2. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:KathyL226|KathyL226]] ([[User talk:KathyL226|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/KathyL226|contribs]]) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]]: No, many quality trials have shown positive results. Janhke et. al's review included 66 RCT's. [[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]] ([[User talk:Developmentalist|talk]]) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :Anyone else? New Text #3 ''Scientific interest in qigong is growing, and published medical research relates to a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor, typically due to small sample size and lack of proper control group. Thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage" and "this area merits further rigorous research".'' :[[User:TheProfessor]] Yes. Note that wording and substance come directly from the published overview of systematic reviews. [[User:TheProfessor|TheProfessor]] ([[User talk:TheProfessor|talk]]) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:CJ]]? Yes. This would be acceptable. :[[User:Yobol]]? :[[User:Jytdog]]? I could almost live with this. But again the "growing" needs to be made relative to something or better just left out (what is the purpose of it?) making a proposal below :[[User:Roxy the dog]]? :[[User:Ottawakungfu]]? ok [[User:Ottawakungfu|ottawakungfu]] ([[User talk:Ottawakungfu|talk]]) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:NatHealth1]]? Yes :[[User:So1308]]? :[[User:SequimTao]]? :[[User:Kleinpj]]? :[[User:DharmaWarrior]]? :[[KathyL226]]? :[[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]]:Yes :Anyone else? '''Please add alternative wording suggestions here:''' ---------------------------------------- New Text #4 ''Clinical trials have been conducted in a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, pain, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, well-being, and general chronic conditions. While many individual clinical studies report positive effects, the quality of most research is poor and thus "it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage". ----------------------------------------- :[[User:TheProfessor]]? Yes for lead, with proper references. [[User:TheProfessor|TheProfessor]] ([[User talk:TheProfessor|talk]]) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:CJ]]? :[[User:Yobol]]? :[[User:Jytdog]]? This is OK with me (not sure what sources we would use for everything in that list - would need to be checked if we actually use this) This removes promotional language from the beginning and the very broad claim about more research being "merited". Not sure what indications that recommendation was for and in any case, there are many many interventions that merit further research and Wikipedia generally doesn't speak to that. not voting at this time.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Not OK for the lead of the article. Unclear why the specific indications listed are included and not others, and this will not fly with Yobol with any laundry list. Suggest taking out the list. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:Roxy the dog]]? :[[User:Ottawakungfu]]? OK replace "clinical studies with research" as per previous suggestion.[[User:Ottawakungfu|ottawakungfu]] ([[User talk:Ottawakungfu|talk]]) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :[[User:NatHealth1]]? Yes with Developmentalist's suggested inclusion :[[User:So1308]]? :[[User:SequimTao]]? :[[User:Kleinpj]]? :[[User:DharmaWarrior]]? :[[User:KathyL226]]? :[[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]]:Yes, If we could include "NIH has suggested that there is strong evidence that Qigong (and Taiji) can have positive effects for bone health, cardiopulmonary fitness, balance, and quality of life" :[[User:Developmentalist|Developmentalist]] ([[User talk:Developmentalist|talk]]) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) :Anyone else? Can we reach a consensus on one of these? Please say yes or no for each one. Add a ''quick short'' reason if you feel you must, but we don't want discussion above. Discussion in other sections only, please. Please add alternative wording in the section designated for that. [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC) (Moved to new section by [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC))