Talk:Acupuncture#Popularity in Europe

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)

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

::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)

:::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)

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

: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)

::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)

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

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

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

::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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

::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)