This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Greetings. I'm glad that there is finally an article for this term! I am trained in tui na, and I've never had to have a course in Western physical therapy or kinesiology. I've worked with many Western therapists over the years, and what they teach is different enough from the tui na that I was taught to make their theories useless to my application of acupressure and acupoint manipulative therapy. My and my colleagues' interactions with that community have almost always involved our educating them as to what we do and why, not the other way around. That is why I edited the article the way I did. Fire Star 14:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) ___________________________
As to the proposal to combine this with acupressure, I would suggest that this is no more appropriate than combining the enty for tiger with the entry of cats. Cross links from one site to another would make much sense. -BZ 09 Jul 2007
Tui na should refer specifically to Chinese acupressure as a branch of traditional Chinese medicine. Other countries have their own, shiatsu, for example, which is also acupressure but not tui na. --Fire Star 火星 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a differentiation made in the acupressure or tui na articles, or even much mention made in either one for the other. The two are largely redundant. I propose they be merged if no one objects. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am mostly concerned with the introduction, which currently assumes that it tui na is an effective treatment (e.g. "to bring the body to balance", not "to attempt to bring..." or "which practitioners claim can bring...") and the objective existence of some mystical concepts like "balance" and chi. I am not personally familiar enough with the topic to feel comfortable making the necessary edits, but I wanted to flag the issues for some more topically-authoritative writer to handle. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)