There a number of errors/distributions on this page - I know it has been discussed but it appears the work and views of some authors have been misrepresented here.

“Quackery”: five references provided. Two links to “Science-Based Medicine” A website/blog maintained by the NE Skeptics Society. Neither article is peer reviewed.

Of the remaining three peer-reviewed articles, none are suggesting acupuncture is "quackery" – quite the opposite.

Wang SM, Harris RE, Lin YC, Gan TJ (June 2013).

“Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of science view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.” It seems somewhat naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions”

“In conclusion, clinical trials support the efficacy of acupuncture in reducing PONV and postoperative pain; however, evidence supporting acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain conditions is mixed. It should be noted that acupuncture trials in chronic pain have concluded that acupuncture treatment is often superior to standard of care or wait list controls and that acupuncture has minimal side effects and is cost effective.”

Naudet, Florian; Falissard, Bruno; Boussageon, Rémy; Healy, David (2015)

“The success of complementary or alternative medicines in managing pain, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and indeed many physical complaints, irritates many healthcare professionals.

The authors of the page chose to edit the first part and only include this:

“Treatments such as relaxation techniques, chiropractic, therapeutic massage, special diets, megavitamins, acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, hypnosis and psychoanalysis are often considered as “pseudoscience” or “quackery” with no credible or respectable place in medicine, because in evaluation they have not been shown to “work”

This is dishonest.

Finally,

Jarvis, W.T. (August 1992) The author does believe that acupuncture is quackery but the paper conducts policy analysis (ie. health care dollars should not go to alternative treatments like acupuncture), and does not provide a meta-analysis of the clinical studies that existed prior to 1992 (most research has come since).

Pseudoscience: Two references provide broad definitions of the term. A key tenet of pseudoscience is the lack of rigorous testing - clinical study/hypothesis testing. But the page actually shows this to be untrue when applied to acupuncture; the page provides a largely one-sided critique of clinical studies of acupuncture, many involving RCT. Of the 10 peer-reviewed published articles I found 8 are RCT and 2 are meta studies of RCT studies. 8 of 10 found significant treatment effects from acupuncture Chanoah (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SBM is a fine source for quackeries. Many quackeries are subject to oodles of research; Homeopathy for example (even had its own journal once). Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article provides references to support, in this case, "quackery", the references should support the assertion; the peer-reviewed clinical studies referenced actually argue the opposite, as most studies in the field do. Chanoah (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Our article says "it has been characterized as quackery". Is there a source which verifiably contradicts this? Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At least two of the articles provided as references supporting "quackery" actually argue the opposite (it isn't quackery). From Wang et al. (2013),

"Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of science view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.” It seems somewhat naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions”

“In conclusion, clinical trials support the efficacy of acupuncture in reducing PONV and postoperative pain; however, evidence supporting acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain conditions is mixed. It should be noted that acupuncture trials in chronic pain have concluded that acupuncture treatment is often superior to standard of care or wait list controls and that acupuncture has minimal side effects and is cost effective.

There are many peer-reviewed RCT studies that demonstrate acupuncture is not "quackery". A balanced exploration of the topic would include references that demonstrate the ongoing study and debate in the area. Chanoah (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are arguing against the mainstream position, but even they acknowledge what the mainstream position is - and it is that mainstream position that the Wikipedia article must follow. Wikipedia specifically rejects the concept of 'A balanced exploration', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. If we tried to balance our articles, topics like Homeopathy or Astrology would read very, very differently. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They acknowledge that some scientists believe it is "pseudoscience" and "quackery" before arguing, by referencing peer reviewed trials (many RCT and meta analysis of RCT), that there is a lot of evidence showing efficacy in many treatment environments. Wang et al. (2013) who are referenced for "quackery" argue quite the opposite - the authors note that >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment. In the case of Florian et al. (2015) the authors of the page actually edited out the first part of the paragraph changing the authors' meaning entirely. This is dishonest. When I hear references to "mainstream" I am included to inquire as to how that is defined. In this case, is the WHO not mainstream? Chanoah (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They acknowledge that some scientists believe it is "pseudoscience" and "quackery" In other words, they support the wording of the Wikipedia article. Suggesting that these sources don't support the article is the only dishonest thing I see going on here. No single organization (especially a political one like the WHO) defines the mainstream.

That you apparently personally disagree with the mainstream view or can cherry pick a few studies that fail to meet WP:MEDRS requirements isn't a reason for us to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page includes decontextualized snippets from a paper that are inconsistent with the authors' position - I provided evidence of this in my previous post. Cherry picking a passage and presenting a snippet of text that makes it appear the authors' agree that acupuncture is quackery when they are actually arguing the opposite is dishonest. As for the mainstream, you argue the WHO is not mainstream and the organization's statements around the efficacy of acupuncture are fiction? Okay, so who/what defines the "mainstream"? Some of the papers provided in the reference find significant positive effects from acupuncture, some don't agree as each employs slightly different methods with different samples. As with much of science, there is no consensus but rather a growing body of literature that, on average, finds significant effects of acupuncture on different ailments. The results are mixed, but the page presents this as if it is all bunkum and all studies agree which is not even remotely true.

The page can of course include voices that are critical of acupuncture. But as it is, these are the only voices/perspectives offered. This presents the reader with a biased view. Some of the papers referenced on the page actually note positive efficacy of acupuncture in different clinical settings, are these references included on the acupuncture page not mainstream? Is it only mainstream when it supports the position that acupuncture has no sig effect on any ailment? The nuanced discussions found in many of the papers cited are not found in the page. The page could be made more factual by including the different perspectives and study outcomes found in many studies - including those referenced on the acupuncture page. 72.45.125.182 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking a Straw man isn't going to get anyone to agree with you. I know what my position is, and it is not what you are attributing to me here. Anyone else can scroll up a few inches and see what was actually said. MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go around in circles either. But you said the studies that find efficacy in acupuncture treatment are not mainstream and am asking what then is "mainstream". When someone appeals to the "mainstream" I typically ask how that is defined. As I said, some of the papers referenced on the page do note sig effects from acupuncture in certain clinical situations. These findings are not included on the page, but they would be mainstream I guess as the page references them. The page as written asserts that acupuncture is pseudoscience and quackery and the narrative is supported by references. However, upon reading the references I find some which do not support this narrative and actually argue the opposite, but these facts are not provided on the page. Chanoah (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the "proven" effects of acupuncture: today it heals pain in the hands, two years later, it does not heal pain in the hands, but pain in the feet, another two years later, it heals neither pain in the hands nor pain in the feet, but pain in the face. And that gets repeated ad nauseam for a plethora of other conditions.

There is no epistemic warrant to believe that energy (esotericism) is real. There is no epistemic warrant to believe that vitalism is true. There is no consensus among different traditions about where the acupoints are located. It does not matter where you insert the needles. It does not matter if the needles get inserted at all. We know from history that Mao sent acupuncture skeptics to the labor camp. Scientists from mainland China agreed that acupuncture was both effective and scientific, because they feared prosecution as enemies of the people, if they said otherwise. Skeptics of acupuncture were to the CCP what witches were to the Inquisition. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are opinions, and there is some evidence to support some of this. Some practitioners/researchers have experimented with new ideas, others have revived some very ancient techniques. As far as I am aware the points are agreed among TCM practitioners of acupuncture, but there may be some disagreement too. Mao may have sent some skeptics to the camps, with the millions of others that were sent for various reasons. But that aside, the bulk of modern clinical studies do show significant positive effects from acupuncture. Of course, specific findings - as with all academic inquiry - is affected by the specific questions asked (which conditions are studied - eg. pain, nausea...), the methods used, the sample consulted...etc. I am happy to provide lists of peer reviewed work that support the efficacy of acupuncture for various ailments. Indeed, some of these papers are included in the page reference list, but the findings/conclusions are not included in page.

As a first step, I am really hoping to bring some balance to the page and to fix the mis-attributions (misinformation) that are present. I have outlined previously (see above) how published work has been manipulated to make it appear the authors agree with the assertions found on the page (ie. acupuncture is nothing more than pseudoscience and quackery) when they don't. As well, it is disingenuous to argue that the "mainstream" does not find any efficacy for acupuncture treatment when the WHO notes its effectiveness against more than 40 conditions - and this is found in the first paragraph of a clinical study used to support the assertion that acupuncture is quackery (this may be because the authors did not read the papers they cite in support of their argument. It is possible an LLM was tasked with finding papers with keywords: acupuncture, pseudoscience, quackery and the authors simply copied the results in without actually reviewing the studies). The peer reviewed clinical studies the page uses as references to support the argument that acupuncture is quackery actually argue the opposite. It is fine to have views critical of acupuncture, but manipulating other people's work to make it appear they support the same view is dishonest, and this should be addressed. Chanoah (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments aren't very convincing when they're wrong. The sources we have support what is written in the article. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have provided clear evidence that in one instance the authors full statement was edited down to make it appear they are in agreement with the page authors, when they aren't. This is clear if one actually reads the whole paper which it seems few have. In another instance a clinical study is used to support the page authors contention that acupuncture is quackery, when the words of the paper's authors actually argue the opposite - I have provided examples (direct quotes) earlier in the thread. I have been told that clinical studies that do not support the assertions made by the page authors are not mainstream. Yet, many of the clinical studies included in the page reference list actually conclude the opposite, and show efficacy in acupuncture treatment. Are these also not mainstream? If not, why are they referenced to support the page author's position? The WHO notes that acupuncture is effective for more than 40 conditions, this is cited in a paper provided as a reference for "quackery". I ma told the WHO is not the only "mainstream" but surely they are part of the mainstream? It is fine to be critical, but peer-reviewed, published work has been manipulated and presented out of context (as I show above) and this needs to be addressed if the page is to have any credibility. Chanoah (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our requirement is that the citations support the content. The authors of those citations are fully aware that others characterize this topic as pseudoscience and quackery and accurately report that. You are trying to establish a new requirement here (that the authors must also agree with the information they are reporting on), but no one is going to agree to shift the goal posts down the field like that. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to relearn how to read scientific papers, and perhaps learn to recognise those that do not meet our standards, if you want to establish any credibility with other wikipedians here. For the record, our sourcing standards are WP:RS and perhaps more importantly WP:MEDRS. Where does the WHO say that ACU is effective for more than 40 conditions? This is fantastic new news for the medical community, featuring perhaps huge cost savings, particularly if all you need to do is stick a few sterile needles into people to cure them Roxy the dog 17:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm citing sources found on this wiki acupuncture page...these aren't my sources. One source is misquoted, as in their words were taken out of context. I provided direct quotes from the paper previously, but here it is again (bear in mind, this reference is from this wiki page):

Naudet, Florian; Falissard, Bruno; Boussageon, Rémy; Healy, David (2015)

“The success of complementary or alternative medicines in managing pain, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and indeed many physical complaints, irritates many healthcare professionals. Treatments such as relaxation techniques, chiropractic, therapeutic massage, special diets, megavitamins, acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, hypnosis and psychoanalysis are often considered as “pseudoscience” or “quackery” with no credible or respectable place in medicine, because in evaluation they have not been shown to “work”"

This wiki page edited out the first part and included only:

"Treatments such as relaxation techniques, chiropractic, therapeutic massage, special diets, megavitamins, acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, hypnosis and psychoanalysis are often considered as “pseudoscience” or “quackery” with no credible or respectable place in medicine, because in evaluation they have not been shown to “work”"

The authors are actually saying that the "success of alternative medicine" "irritates" many health care providers because it is not supposed to work, but it does. You certainly can't say the authors are arguing that acupuncture is "quackery". Yet this is provided as a supporting reference for that assertion.

The second clinical study cited and provided as a reference supporting the assertion that acupuncture is "quackery" is the following - again, these are sources found on the acupuncture wiki page. These are not my sources.

Wang SM, Harris RE, Lin YC, Gan TJ (June 2013).

“Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the World Health Organization as conditions that can benefit from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of science view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,” and its effect as “theatrical placebo.” It seems somewhat naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture, while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions”

Again, the authors are saying that despite its proven effectiveness and that the WHO noted that people with more than 40 different conditions can benefit from acupuncture (this comes from the paper cited on the page. I have not searched for the reference), some scientists dispute it's efficacy (note: not necessarily medical scientists/clinicians from any discipline, but "scientists" which is very broad), and this is "naive" the authors argue. So, they are clearly not arguing that acupuncture is quackery. Indeed, they provide evidence it is not (from the same article):

“In conclusion, clinical trials support the efficacy of acupuncture in reducing PONV and postoperative pain; however, evidence supporting acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain conditions is mixed. It should be noted that acupuncture trials in chronic pain have concluded that acupuncture treatment is often superior to standard of care or wait list controls and that acupuncture has minimal side effects and is cost effective.”

I wonder if anyone bothered to read the papers that have been collected in support of the page authors' views that this is all "quackery?

Here is the largest evidence mapping of SR of in acupuncture I am aware of - from the BMJ:

The paper finds large treatment effects and high/moderate CoE in a minority of studies - in my view this is at least partially due to study design and the paucity of large scale clinical studies. All studies surveyed occurred since 2016 - effectiveness studies are very new in this area.

The survey finds large/moderate treatment effects and high/moderate CoE for:

- fybromyalgia

- musculoskeletal pain

- vascular dementia symptoms

- post stroke aphasia

table:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/6/e056803/F4.large.jpg

"The areas in which high or moderate certainty evidence demonstrates the large or moderate-sized effects of acupuncture therapy mandate its widespread use. Patients, clinicians, guideline developers, health policy-makers and payers can use the digitalised repository on Epistemonikos to support point-of-care decision-making, to produce additional evidence summaries (eg, develop clinical practice guidelines or policy briefs), or to make decisions at the health system level (eg, recommendations, implementation decisions and reimbursement decisions)."

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e056803

Obviously, there is much to critique and discuss about acupuncture and its efficacy in treating different ailments. But to cast it off as this page does as nothing more than "quackery" when there is so much evidence that shows this is not true seems dishonest and agenda driven. It appears the page authors have a view that may not be altered by facts or evidence. Chanoah (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you read the refs I gave you, to WP:RS and WP:MEDRS? - Roxy the dog 04:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable source for exceptional/fringe claims about acupuncture; we have excellent WP:MEDRS sources about the (lack of) efficacy which we cite. They are however useful for relaying how mainstream science sees acupuncture, a perspective which policy requires we include. Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The British Medical Journal is not a reliable source (?) Meanwhile, the page includes references to opinion pieces and blob entries, and these are "reliable" I suppose?

I have only introduced one new source from BMJ (above). The rest of my comments refer to articles that are found on this wiki page. So, if these are not "reliable" then why are they included as references?

This is very strange.

It is clear to me what is going on here: a group (likely from the NE Skeptics Society) set out to push their narrative that acupuncture is "quackery" by cherry picking data and misquoting/manipulating citations, to make work appear to support the page narrative when it doesn't. I have provided evidence of this drawing from direct quotes in the page and in the articles it references (though I notice you ignore this). At the same time, the authors work to avoid including any information that challenges their narrative - this is counter to the scientific method of trying to disprove one's hypothesis to test its validity.

Universities that take scholarship and inquiry seriously do not consider wiki pages to be reliable/credible resources. Students are generally not permitted to use wiki as reference for any written work. This conservation in which the individuals gate-keeping the page refuse to engage with honest discussion/critique of what is on the page demonstrates why wiki can not be considered a credible/reliable source of information. Chanoah (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source from The BMJ. WP:MEDRS sources from the BMJ would be of high quality, but BMJ Group publishes some dire journals too. Chinese primary research in a weak journal is the opposite of reliable for medical knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ Open is a Q1 journal (SJR)...still not reliable enough? Not on par with someones thoughts on their own blog I guess (lol).

My critique of this page has been based on reading what the referenced sources actually say, and comparing it to how the page has cherry-picked/manipulated snippets from these articles in a bid to make it appear they support the authors' view when they don't (I am contacting the authors now to make them aware their work is being misused/misquoted on this page).

As I said, wiki is not considered a credible/reliable source for information among academics and pages like this really show why. Chanoah (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19800188003&tip=sid Chanoah (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Wikipedia has quite a good reputation for health context, particularly misinformation and quackery.[1] Acupuncturists of course don't like it but we are obliged to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES (which will never be dodgy Chinese primary research). Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for what acupuncturist like or not. But I react when I see obviously biased, agenda driven material that misuses published works in an effort to mislead and misinform.

Again, a great demonstration of why students are taught not to trust wiki. Chanoah (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Students should mistrust the prose of Wikipedia, and consult the reported sources themselves. This way, Wikipedia is a great way of finding sources for the beginning of one's research. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point: the scientists who disagreed with the effectiveness of acupuncture faced the "criticism of the masses" (which was violent and sometimes deadly) specifically because of their disagreement. That's how Mao forged the Chinese "scientific consensus" that acupuncture is effective. It is a "scientific consensus" based upon totalitarian ruthlessness (mass insanity or pathocracy). I.e. Chinese scientists under Mao did not perform real research about acupuncture, but they were only a mouthpiece for totalitarian propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are arguing that Mao's actions from +80 years ago are the reason clinicians/researchers today are finding significant benefits from acupuncture in treating a number of ailments. Really?

I'm not doubting that Mao's terror was real - it was directed at any group he felt was intellectual and a potential challenge to his power and authority. But the assertion that this time in history has any bearing on what is being researched and discovered regarding acupuncture today is simply not logical. Chanoah (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the PRC, if a scientist makes one party boss angry, that means jail time. They don't have to be all party bosses, nor many party bosses, one is enough. And one party boss might get angry because they see acupuncture as a cash cow. So, attacking the cash cow of the state might be regarded as a crime against the state. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...this sounds very conspiratorial.

You should provide some references supporting your contention that PRC party bosses are forcing positive reviews of acupuncture in China. Chanoah (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conspiratorial when you realize that the Constitution of the PRC says it is the task of the PRC to defend/promote TCM.

And mainland Chinese medical science is famous for never finding a single therapy or medicine to be ineffective. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that's conspiratorial, but suggesting that the NE Skeptics Society is secretly controlling this article is fine? MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While articles from the BMJ Open (Q1) are rubbished for not being reliable - opinion pieces and blog entries from the NE Skeptics Society members are offered as reliable references (lol) despite being little more than the 'thoughts' of the author without review (peer). It's clear what's going on here...and it further undermines wiki, a platform that is no longer considered credible/reliable by academics due to the sort of agenda driven bias (misinformation/half-truths) we see on this page and others. Chanoah (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an illusion to think that the article stands or falls by the postings of skeptics' societies. As you have been told, there are many WP:MEDRS which show that acupuncture is ineffective.

About acupuncture studies from the PRC, see https://web.archive.org/web/20170113192105/https://health.spectator.co.uk/fakery-massive-scale-means-just-cant-trust-studies-china/ And, if you wonder, this is not racism, since the population of the PRC is the primary victim of such fakery, so it is in their best interest to expose it and get rid of it. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins with, "which almost 100 per cent of all the published studies conclude is effective..." which is laughable. The BMJ article I link above shows clearly that many studies do not find good evidentiary support for acupuncture, and there are many reasons (outside quackery) for why that is the case. In the field I work in it is common for researchers to come to different conclusions while researching the same topic due to study design-the methods/methodologies (models) used, samples consulted, time periods covered, other variables included/excluded. Is their some fraud in clinical studies of acupuncture. I'm sure there is. Is this also the case with, for example, western medicine? Yes. Demonstrably so. Are all acupuncture studies that show positive effects fraudulent - of course not. And to suggest so is to slander the academics and clinicians involved. Chanoah (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for homeopathy and any other numbers of woos. Lots of research and it's all fraudulent (or just wrong or badly done). This is covered in our article. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you are mistaken to believe that skeptics' societies seek to spread health disinformation. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a bit and then adding the WP:FALSEBALANCE stuff anyway obviously isn't going to work. People need to actually agree with your edits on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this page is not impervious to research that is inconsistent with the page authors views? As I said previously, this article (for example) used to support the contention that acupuncture is quackery actually argues the opposite! Check for yourself: https://doi.org/10.1213%2FANE.0b013e31828f5efa

Here’s another from BMJ Open (a SRC Q1 journal): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e056803

I ma not arguing that some argue acupuncture is quackery. I am just trying to show that there is a lot of scholarship in very well respected journals that provides strong contrary evidence. Chanoah (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked about the presently used sources and how they are accurately cited already. All that matters is that they report the facts, even if the authors in question wish they were different - but you know this, we've been over it already. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't a way to restart a discussion. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the actual referencesays:

"Although >40 disorders have been recognized by the

World Health Organization8 as conditions that can benefit

from acupuncture treatment, many within the field of sci-

ence view acupuncture as “quackery” and “pseudoscience,”

and its effect as “theatrical placebo.”4,9–14 It seems some-

what naive to totally condemn the practice of acupuncture,

while accepting orthodox medicine as the basis for treating all medical conditions."

They go on to say:

"In conclusion, clinical trials support the efficacy of acu-

puncture in reducing PONV and postoperative pain; how-

ever, evidence supporting acupuncture as a treatment for

chronic pain conditions is mixed. It should be noted that

acupuncture trials in chronic pain have concluded that acu-

puncture treatment is often superior to standard of care or

wait list controls and that acupuncture has minimal side

effects and is cost effective."

I don't see how it can be argued that the paper supports the notion that acupuncture is quackery, when they say the opposite? There is a glaring difference between what the authors have said (as I show) and the contention that this paper supports the assertion that acupuncture is quackery. Chanoah (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to scroll up a bit and read the discussion again, I'm not inclined to repeat myself here. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is balanced and meets WP:MEDRS Chanoah (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanoah: You should know that some POVs are not acceptable to Wikipedia, as a matter of policies and guidelines. You are wasting your time. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to insert some balance by providing references to research in high quality journals. Are the references and suggested edits I am making flawed/faulty in some way? Chanoah (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're fighting against WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS, WP:CHOPSY and WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM.

And yup, systematic reviews will find that acupuncture is effective in some conditions. But the conditions for which acupuncture is found effective change every two or three years, which is perfectly consistent with false positives due to random noise.

As a rule of thumb, studies performed by true believers will find that it always works, and studies performed by skeptics will find that it never works. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate the policy reminders, and I want to make clear I am not trying to insert WP:FALSEBALANCE or to replace the mainstream view outlined in WP:PSCI. My concern is that two of the current inline citations for the “quackery” statement are being used in a way that does not accurately reflect the source authors’ conclusions, which could raise a WP:V/WP:RS/WP:UNDUE issue even without touching the broader POV question. For example, Wang et al. (2013) is cited to support “quackery,” but in context the authors explicitly describe WHO-recognized conditions benefiting from acupuncture, critique the idea of “totally condemning” acupuncture as naive, and then summarize RCT evidence showing significant effects for PONV and postoperative pain and mixed but sometimes positive results for chronic pain — language that is not a blanket dismissal. This is not about whether Wikipedia should call acupuncture “quackery,” but about whether this particular paper is being presented in line with WP:V and WP:CONTEXT. Similarly, Naudet et al. (2015) is quoted here only in part, omitting preceding text that frames the “pseudoscience/quackery” language as a view held by some and juxtaposes it with evidence of patient-reported success. Again, this raises a sourcing/representation issue rather than a MEDRS scope issue — both are secondary sources in high-quality journals, but their conclusions are being reduced to the part that supports one side of the debate, which may breach WP:DUE in the narrow sense of faithfully summarizing the cited source. My proposed next step would be: Option A: Replace these two specific citations for “quackery” with secondary sources that directly assert acupuncture is quackery or pseudoscience without qualification (plenty exist that meet WP:MEDRS). This resolves the representation issue without altering the article’s position per WP:PSCI. Option B: Keep these citations but adjust the inline text to reflect that the sources report “quackery” as a view held by some scientists, while also noting their summary of positive RCT findings — in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CONTEXT. This would still preserve the mainstream positioning but make the source use more accurate. This is not an attempt to argue acupuncture is not fringe under WP:PSCI; it’s a request to ensure the current citations are used in a way that is compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. If consensus is for Option A, I’m happy to help identify stronger, unambiguous MEDRS sources to support the existing “quackery” text.

Chanoah (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The POV of Naudet et. al. can be rendered through an example: people could get cured through using celery juice. But it is not the celery juice itself which healed them, but paying attention to eating healthy, attention which is related to that worldview. And that irritates EBM practitioners. So, yes, some patients report successes based upon shoddy therapies. That should not get construed as endorsing shoddy therapies. Reporting success after the therapy X should not get conflated with healed due to therapy X. Morals: I don't see how Naudet et. al. would support acupuncture, other than "random persons who had acupuncture have claimed to be healed". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand your celery juice analogy and I do agree that patient-reported improvement is not the same thing as proving efficacy. My concern is not about using Naudet et al. to argue for acupuncture’s effectiveness; it’s really about making sure our use of the source is represented in line with WP:V and WP:CONTEXT. Naudet et al. explicitly frame “quackery/pseudoscience” as a view held by some and then discuss it in the context of broader observations, including patient experiences. The way the quotation is currently used in the article removes that attribution and context, which could give readers the impression the authors themselves are making the unqualified assertion. This is a representation issue, not an endorsement issue. We can resolve it in two ways that keep the article’s mainstream framing intact per WP:PSCI: Attribute the “quackery” view explicitly (“Naudet et al. note that some scientists describe acupuncture as…”), or Swap in a MEDRS-compliant source that directly asserts acupuncture is quackery without qualification. Either way, we ensure the citation matches the source’s actual use without shifting the article’s overall conclusion. Here is my suggested rewording that keeps the current WP:PSCI-compliant “quackery” language and preserves the mainstream framing, while ensuring our use of Naudet (2015) and Wang (2013) complies with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CONTEXT. Both sources report the “quackery/pseudoscience” characterization as a view within the scientific community, not as their own direct, unqualified conclusion. This wording makes that attribution explicit without altering the article’s position.

Chanoah (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to add the suggested text - here it is:

…and some scientists and commentators have characterized it as quackery or pseudoscience,^[1][2] attributing these terms to views reported within the scientific community rather than presenting them as the authors’ own unqualified conclusions

Chanoah (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be WP:WEASEL wording. The current summary is fine. Bon courage (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can understand the WP:WEASEL concern, but “Naudet et al. note that some scientists describe acupuncture as…” is not weasel wording — it is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Weasel wording is when something is presented vaguely (“some say…”) without a source. In this case, the attribution is precise: it names the authors and the source, and states exactly whose view is being reported. I note that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV specifically recommends this type of wording when a source is reporting, rather than asserting, a claim - which is exactly what Naudet et al. are doing. Presenting their reported view as an unqualified assertion removes the attribution and changes the source’s intent, which risks breaching WP:CONTEXT and WP:V. This is not about changing the article’s overall position per WP:PSCI. It’s about ensuring that the way a source is summarized matches what the source actually says. The following policy-compliant options still remain: Replace Naudet et al. with a MEDRS source that directly asserts “acupuncture is quackery” without qualifiers; or Keep the source but attribute the statement explicitly, as required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Chanoah (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over attributing factual statements to make them appear as just one author's opinion is absolutely a problem and we can't do that.

We also have an option 3 - reject your arguments entirely and make no change since there is actually no problem to fix. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable for the knowledge wrt quackery that they contain. Bon courage (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources are reliable journals, but reliability in itself doesn’t address whether we are representing them in compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

A source can be reliable and still be misapplied if the excerpt used omits framing that changes its meaning. In this case, Wang et al. and Naudet et al. both present “quackery/pseudoscience” as a reported view, and in Wang’s case, the paper goes on to detail WHO-recognized indications and RCT evidence. By citing them in support of the blanket “has been characterized as quackery” statement without attribution, we risk implying these authors are making that claim themselves - which is different from reporting it as a position within the scientific community.

Keeping the WP:PSCI-compliant “quackery” text while either (a) replacing these two with unambiguous MEDRS sources, or (b) attributing the view explicitly, would ensure we preserve the mainstream framing while also meeting WP’s requirement to represent sources in context. Chanoah (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still trying to move the goalposts. If a source were to write 'It is widely agreed that the sky is blue, but I think it is actually green', we could still use it to support the wide agreement on sky color. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this idea we have to be sympathetic to the (primary) thoughts of a source rather than its (secondary) knowledge is actually antithetical to the Project's goals. I think we're done here & suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t moving the goalposts. It’s about applying WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CONTEXT consistently. If a source reports “quackery” as a view held by some scientists, we can cite it for that reported view, but we must attribute it. Presenting it as if the authors themselves assert it unqualifiedly risks misrepresentation under WP:V. The proposal keeps the WP:PSCI-compliant “quackery” statement, but ensures it’s sourced and attributed accurately.

I’d welcome input from uninvolved editors on whether this attribution issue is best resolved by replacing the current citations with unambiguous MEDRS sources or by explicitly attributing the “quackery” characterization in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:V.

For full details and side-by-side comparisons of the current vs proposed wording, please see the RfC here: Talk:Acupuncture#RfC: Balanced lead wording reflecting both mainstream criticism and MEDRS efficacy findings. Chanoah (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC seeks input on whether the lead should be updated to preserve the current WP:PSCI-compliant “quackery” statement while also reflecting proportionate, MEDRS-compliant evidence of efficacy for certain conditions, as found in multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in line with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Key point: This proposal does not remove criticism of acupuncture, it keeps the “quackery” statement intact, but it ensures attribution is accurate and adds proportionate, MEDRS-compliant evidence from multiple systematic reviews, bringing the article into line with WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:DUE. Chanoah (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC. Biased, overlong request hard pushing WP:PROFRINGE and WP:WEASEL-worded text that has already been discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The intent of this RfC is not to “push” a particular viewpoint but to seek broad input on two narrow, policy-based questions:

  Whether sources that present “quackery/pseudoscience” as a reported view should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CONTEXT, or replaced with unambiguous MEDRS sources that assert it directly.

  Whether proportionate, MEDRS-compliant summaries of systematic reviews/meta-analyses should be included in the lead to meet WP:NPOV and WP:DUE while retaining the current WP:PSCI framing.

  I recognise the opening is detailed, but that’s to make the sourcing and policy issues clear and allow uninvolved editors to respond without having to dig through past threads. If there are specific phrases in the statement that seem non-neutral, I welcome suggestions for rewording so we can focus on the sourcing and policy compliance questions rather than whether the RfC is “good” or “bad.”

  My aim here is simply to follow dispute resolution steps and obtain input from uninvolved editors. A premature close would prevent that wider discussion. Chanoah (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. - Roxy the dog 20:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC. Blatantly biased opening statement, doesn't even attempt to acknowledge the misunderstandings of policy previously explained. - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your perspective, but the opening statement is policy-based and directly tied to the specific sourcing and attribution issues I’m raising. If there are areas where you feel it unintentionally reads as biased, I’m open to adjusting the wording — my aim is to get uninvolved editors to comment on the substance of the questions.

  In terms of policy, the two points under discussion are:

  Whether sources that present “quackery/pseudoscience” as a reported view should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CONTEXT, or replaced with sources that assert it directly.

  Whether proportionate, MEDRS-compliant summaries from systematic reviews/meta-analyses should be reflected in the lead in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE while retaining the WP:PSCI-critical framing.

  If there are specific misunderstandings of policy you think need addressing in the RfC text, I would appreciate it if you could point them out so I can adjust the opening to ensure the framing itself is not a barrier to uninvolved participation. Chanoah (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An RFC opening statement is not a place to present your own argument to try to get the result you'd like - and that is very clearly what you tried to do here. Your failures to understand policy have been explained at length above, feel free to read that over again. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Responding to people with WP:AITALK is frightfully rude, you should stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell and I cannot stress this enough, No. Just no. This is a smack in the face of our policies on fringe beliefs and neutrality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No This is a new cloth for the ancient WP:CPP. Ixocactus (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No I came here after reading you post at NPOV noticeboard. Pretty much per the above, especially per Ixocactus. If you had looked through this talk page and the archive you would have seen the answers you are looking for. Knitsey (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]