Talk:Cupping therapy

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)