Talk:Acupuncture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34: 20 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to complementary and alternative medicine, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. See also community discussion on COI for alt-med practitioners.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

China Top‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Acupuncture as pseudoscience

Hello!

I'm a bit interested in this topic because, I don't see acupuncture being widely recognized as pseudoscience, while Wikipedia is characterizing it as so.

I won't be asking for changes by now, just some places so I can understand where this came from. I imagine this inclusion was probably controversial. Are there big talk threads where people discussed this in detail?

Also, is there a Wikipedia guideline explaining when things should be classified as pseudoscience versus not?

Thanks 2804:214:8743:43C8:78F3:4ED9:67F1:8946 (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the cited sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide me with any of the 2 things I asked for and nor any reasons not to.

To be clearer, I've been lurking in Wikipedia talk pages and policies for a while, but, I'm a newcomer, and I don't know where to search for this exact thing. I'm not interested only in the sources, but in the discussion around those sources. 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to get caught up on that information will take a bit of time on your part, but that's just the way it is. If you look up at the top of this talk page, there are numerous numbered links to archives of this talk page. Pretty much everything that you want to find out about has already been discussed here before, often multiple times, and can be found in those archives. I'd suggest that you work your way through them one-by-one, and read the sections that look interesting to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :) 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To describe acupuncture, a practice of over 2,000 years, as a pseudoscience without the qualification that such a judgement is a matter of opinion appears quite defamatory or even slander. The NICE in the UK recommends acupuncture as a treatment for several conditions such as chronic back pain. 88.97.31.226 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodletting is another practice that has been going on for 2000 years and is also a pseudoscientific practise. Age does not excuse nonsense from being nonsense. Roxy the dog 15:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But see Hirudo medicinalis Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A recognised medical therapy. If it works it's medicine. Roxy the dog 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a tongue-in-cheek comment. But this is where the term "pseudoscience" falls down, because acupuncture is not science-based; I don't think practitioners have ever claimed it was - it is an alternative therapy (that works for some, but that doesn't make it medicine). Anyway, the discussion will run and run, I expect! Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do that. Every year, new Chinese studies come out pretending to find scientific evidence for it. You need to read more than the introductory sentence of our article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read the whole article. While I am not an advocate for acupuncture, I do dislike the label "pseudoscience", because it is likely to put researchers off studying the phenomenon. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are here to report what researchers find, but not to influence them to study or not study something. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a question of defamation or slander (against whom, you have to ask). Nor is the NICE recommendation (which has been discussed in the BMJ) included in the article, which possibly it should be. However, the consensus is (and I am not in agreement with it, but that is not the point) that acupuncture is a pseudoscience, and arrived at after a considerable amount of discussion. That's where we (Wikipedia) stand at the moment. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost count of the number of things that work for chronic back pain. Roxy the dog 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO intangible cultural treasure

I'm mainly active on the talk page for Qi, on the topic of pseudoscience, so it's probably best to engage there. I think it would be worth noting the presence of acupuncture and moxibustion on UNESCO's list of Intangible Cultural Heritage. ~~Editors may wonder why UNESCO makes these decisions, but it is a fact.~~ see https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/acupuncture-and-moxibustion-of-traditional-chinese-medicine-00425 Wikid (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO judges it as part of the local culture, it makes no claims of medical effectiveness. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Wikid (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "not a real thing" meaning of intangible, is it? - Roxy the dog 07:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in contrast to UNESCO's other list that includes built objects and natural environments. Wikid (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw that line about editors' thoughts, I will do better. Thanks for bearing with me. Wikid (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the line concerned. I think that's the best way to handle it. -Roxy the dog 08:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]