Talk:Acupuncture#Summarize

{{archive top|Asked and answered. Bon courage (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I’d like to propose a revision to the lead section of the article to better align with Wikipedia’s core content policies — particularly:

WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View)

WP:WEIGHT (due weight to majority and minority views)

WP:MEDRS (high-quality medical sourcing)

And the Arbitration Committee's ruling on pseudoscience (2006), which outlines how to appropriately present contentious or fringe claims.

Current phrasing:

“Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.”

This statement violates neutrality and gives undue weight to critical opinions as if they are settled consensus — especially problematic given that the statement appears in the first paragraph and not in a section devoted to criticism.

Proposed replacement:

“Acupuncture is a practice originating in traditional Chinese medicine in which thin needles are inserted into the body at specific points. It is used in various contexts, including traditional frameworks and integrative healthcare systems.”

Rationale:

Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, lead sections must summarize the most widely held and well-sourced views, not elevate minority criticisms as fact.

Per the 2006 Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience, topics with substantial clinical, academic, and public presence —such as acupuncture — should not be labeled pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice, even if some critics believe it to be so. That language belongs in an attributed Criticism or Scientific evaluation section, not in the lead.

The sources cited for the original statement are not WP:MEDRS-compliant or neutral:

One is a blog post on Science-Based Medicine.

One is an NIH page defining quackery but not labeling acupuncture as such.

Others do not specifically support the claim or are about unrelated topics (e.g., ketogenic diets).

Acupuncture is recognized and researched globally:

The World Health Organization (WHO) lists it in its ICD-11.

It is practiced in integrative medical centers across the U.S., U.K., and EU.

Multiple Cochrane Reviews, JAMA, and BMJ articles evaluate acupuncture’s effects on pain, nausea and insomnia.

Proposed next steps:

Replace the current sentence with the more neutral summary above.

Move critiques (pseudoscience, quackery, evidence debates) into a new or expanded “Scientific evaluation” or “Criticism” section where they can be properly attributed and contextualized.

Ensure that both supportive and critical views are sourced to high-quality, secondary sources, and presented with due balance.

Open to feedback and collaborative edits. Thank you for your time and consideration! Haharris9 (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}} Please read the previous (dozens) of discussions on the same subject and the overwhelming consensus that pseudoscience is properly sourced and correct. --McSly (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@McSly: Thanks for your reply. I did review prior discussions, and while I acknowledge that some editors support the use of the term “pseudoscience,” I also noted that many objections have been raised — including valid policy concerns related to WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS.

::Consensus can evolve, especially when sources, article structure, and policy application are re-examined in light of newer guidance and evidence. My proposal: Does not dispute the existence of scientific criticism;Does not seek to remove such criticism from the article; It simply proposes that it be relocated to a more appropriate section (e.g., “Scientific Evaluation” or “Criticism”) and that the lead focus on a neutral, descriptive summary, in line with how other debated practices are handled (e.g., psychoanalysis, chiropractic).

::The current lead makes assertive claims without attribution, violates WP:NPOV, and fails to reflect MEDRS-compliant balance. I’m happy to continue this conversation in good faith and welcome input from other editors. Haharris9 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See WP:LEAD, WP:FRINGE and previous discussions again as you don't seem to have understood them. You are completely wrong, current summary is neutral, sourced and correct. --McSly (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@McSly: I’m familiar with WP:LEAD and WP:FRINGE, and I understand their relevance here. That said, these policies do not justify presenting contentious claims as universally accepted fact in the lead. WP:LEAD requires a summary of the article balanced in proportion to the prominence of views in reliable sources.

::::While some critics label acupuncture a pseudoscience, there are:

::::A significant number of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and policy statements (e.g., from NIH, WHO, and national health bodies) that recognize acupuncture’s clinical use and efficacy for specific conditions;

::::Ongoing research and peer-reviewed publications that place it within evidence-informed integrative medicine, even when mechanisms remain debated;

::::Academic frameworks (like Cochrane, NCCIH) that evaluate acupuncture on a condition-by-condition basis, rather than dismissing the entire practice as pseudoscience.

::::WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI (Pseudoscience) distinguish between obvious pseudoscience (e.g., Time Cube) and subjects with a following in medical literature or clinical practice, even if debated. Acupuncture falls into the latter category.

::::I’m not arguing against including criticism — only that it be presented with attribution and in context, not stated as fact in the lead. If this discussion doesn’t move toward a productive resolution, I’d be open to initiating an RFC for broader community input. Haharris9 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We don't over-attribute the mainstream view (what you are calling 'criticism' here) as though it is just a competing opinion. That is WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is explicitly not how to write a NPOV article as Wikipedia policy defines it. MrOllie (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@MrOllie: I appreciate the reference to WP:FALSEBALANCE. That policy cautions against giving fringe views equal weight to mainstream science. However, it does not mean that all critical or differing perspectives should be presented as undisputed fact — especially in the lead of a medical article.

::::::In this case, the mainstream view is not that “acupuncture is a pseudoscience” across the board — it is that: Some mechanisms remain unclear or are not aligned with biomedical models;

::::::Evidence varies by condition, with some systematic reviews supporting efficacy;

::::::Acupuncture is widely practiced in integrative settings, and endorsed for certain uses by national and international health organizations (e.g., WHO, NIH, NICE).

::::::Mislabeling this multidimensional landscape as simply "pseudoscience" is not neutrality — it's editorializing.

::::::This is where WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS intersect: WP:NPOV requires attributing significant views in proportion to their weight in reliable sources — not omitting attribution for controversial characterizations.

::::::WP:MEDRS requires high-quality secondary sources for biomedical claims — not single-opinion advocacy sites or blogs.

::::::Labeling acupuncture as a pseudoscience in the lead — without attribution or balance — amounts to an unqualified judgment, not a neutral summary. That violates core policy.

::::::If there is still disagreement about how to proceed, I’m happy to initiate an RFC so the broader community can weigh in based on policy. Haharris9 (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Starting an RFC sounds like a waste of community time - your views are pretty plainly arguing counter to policies such as WP:FRINGE, and the Wikipedia community in general is not receptive to this sort of argument. I would suggest you do everyone a favor and read over the archives - more thoroughly this time - and note how proposals like yours always end up. I'll also note that Astrology and Homeopathy are also 'widely practiced', but they remain just as much pseudoscience as Acupuncture is. MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I appreciate your perspective, MrOllie. My aim with this proposal is not to promote acupuncture uncritically, but to better align this high-visibility article with Wikipedia’s core content policies, particularly:

::::::::WP:NPOV, which cautions against presenting majority views as absolute without appropriate attribution;

::::::::WP:FRINGE, which outlines how to represent marginal views without overstating or understating mainstream positions;

::::::::WP:LEAD, which says the lead must summarize the body without introducing undue weight, bias, or unsourced assertions;

::::::::And WP:MEDRS, which outlines sourcing standards for biomedical content — standards not currently met by Quackwatch or blog-based editorial critiques.

::::::::I'm not contesting that skepticism exists — I'm advocating for better attribution and placement of such views, in line with how Wikipedia treats other controversial topics in medicine. This isn't about whitewashing or advocacy — it's about editorial integrity and source quality.

::::::::Whether or not there’s been a longstanding consensus, consensus is not policy. If past decisions conflict with Wikipedia’s core sourcing and neutrality guidelines, they can and should be re-evaluated. Haharris9 (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You have misunderstood these policies and their application - the article complies with all of them already. Your proposals would take the article away from WP:NPOV and into WP:FALSEBALANCE / Pro-fringe territory. 'Editorial integrity' requires us to reject attempts to 'balance' articles on pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for your input, MrOllie. I believe we have a fundamental difference in how we interpret WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in practice.

::::::::::WP:NPOV requires presenting views proportionally to their weight in reliable sources, not simply echoing dominant opinions without attribution or nuanced sourcing.

::::::::::WP:FALSEBALANCE warns against giving undue weight to fringe views — but here, acupuncture is a widely practiced therapy with a substantial body of peer-reviewed research supporting certain clinical effects, which deserves proper recognition in the article.

::::::::::WP:FRINGE calls for careful treatment of minority or marginal scientific views, but the current lead conflates all scientific critique under the label “quackery” without appropriate attribution or clear separation, which arguably overstates the consensus and misrepresents the scientific debate.

::::::::::My proposal is not to “balance” pseudoscience with fringe claims, but to ensure that the article accurately reflects the current state of scientific understanding, including the evidence supporting acupuncture's efficacy in some contexts, and clearly frames critiques within their appropriate scientific and cultural context.

::::::::::If we omit this, we risk presenting a skewed, editorialized lead that does not align with Wikipedia’s mission to provide a neutral, well-sourced summary.

::::::::::I welcome further discussion grounded explicitly in Wikipedia policies and reliable sources. Haharris9 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now - just repeating your points ad naseum won't convince anyone. Since we're now repeating ourselves, I'll take a step back from this talk page for a while. Do not interpret any silence from me as support for your position. MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thank you for your contributions, MrOllie. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to engage on this topic.

::::::::::::I understand that repeated discussions can become frustrating. My intention is simply to ensure that the article reflects Wikipedia’s core content policies as accurately and neutrally as possible. If you choose to step back for now, I respect that, and I remain open to continuing the dialogue whenever you or others are ready.

::::::::::::My goal is to collaborate toward the best possible representation of acupuncture on Wikipedia for all readers. Haharris9 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::And you got all the answers you needed. I also suggest that you read WP:SEALION. And at this point an uninvolved editor should feel free to close this discussion as not productive since the OP is just beating a dead horse. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I appreciate your perspective, McSly.

::::::::::::::My intention here is not to antagonize or persist for the sake of argument, but to advocate for a balanced, policy-compliant lead in line with WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and especially WP:MEDRS, given the health-related nature of the article.

::::::::::::::I acknowledge that these issues have been discussed before, but policies evolve and consensus is not static. Revisiting content in light of ongoing academic developments and policy standards is a key part of Wikipedia's strength.

::::::::::::::I'm happy to step back for now and allow space for other editors to weigh in or close the discussion if appropriate. I do appreciate everyone’s engagement so far. Haharris9 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I'd like to propose removing (or at least attributing) the use of Quackwatch as a source for the claim that “the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge.”

While I respect Quackwatch as an opinion resource, it does not meet the criteria of WP:MEDRS, which governs biomedical sourcing. It is a privately run advocacy site, not a peer-reviewed or editorially independent publication. This makes it unsuitable for an unattributed claim of this weight in the lead section of a medical article.

Per WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV:

Biomedical claims must be supported by high-quality secondary sources — e.g., systematic reviews, academic summaries, or statements from recognized medical bodies.

Controversial or value-laden judgments like “not based on scientific knowledge” require strong, balanced attribution to reliable, neutral sources.

If Quackwatch is to be cited at all, it should be clearly attributed (e.g., “According to Quackwatch...”) and relocated to a properly labeled criticism or skepticism section — not presented as consensus in the lead. Haharris9 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}}. Already discussed and consensus is clear. --McSly (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@mcsly I appreciate your reply. However, to ensure clarity and transparency, I respectfully request a link to the specific discussion(s) where this consensus was established, particularly regarding the use of Quackwatch to support a biomedical claim in the lead section of a medical article.

::As it stands, Quackwatch is a self-published advocacy website and does not meet the sourcing standards required by WP:MEDRS. If consensus was formed prior to this policy’s current application or in another context, it may be due for reevaluation in light of current sourcing guidelines.

::If you believe this has been resolved definitively, please help me find where this was discussed. Otherwise, let’s clarify this in good faith with proper sourcing and policy-based consensus-building. Haharris9 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't understand. You said you reviewed the previous discussions. How could you miss the ones about Quackwatch ? Also, you take a look at all the previous discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --McSly (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the reply. I did review the previous discussions, and I’m aware Quackwatch has come up before. However, none of the archived threads I’ve read demonstrate a clear and current consensus that Quackwatch meets WP:MEDRS, especially when used to support definitional claims in the lead of a medical article.

::::As a reminder, WP:MEDRS is explicit about the kinds of sources that are appropriate for biomedical content — and self-published advocacy sites do not qualify, even if written by professionals. The lead should summarize content based on secondary, peer-reviewed sources, not opinion or editorial commentary.

::::If a specific discussion at RSN concluded that Quackwatch is an acceptable MEDRS source for lead medical claims, I’d appreciate a direct link. If no such conclusion exists, I believe it’s appropriate to reopen the issue for review with fresh eyes and updated sourcing standards. Haharris9 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Quackwatch is used in the article as a WP:FRIND source. It doesn't need to meet the MEDRS standard for the uses it is put to in the article, such pointing out the scientific problems with Acupuncture's underlying theories. MrOllie (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for the clarification, MrOllie. If Quackwatch is being used solely as a representation of mainstream scientific views on acupuncture’s theoretical underpinnings, then attribution becomes even more critical under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.

::::::However:

::::::Quackwatch is not a peer-reviewed or institutional source. Its content reflects the opinions of a small number of individuals in the skeptical community, not necessarily the scientific consensus as defined by secondary scientific sources.

::::::Using Quackwatch in the lead section, without clear attribution, creates the appearance that the article is stating those views in Wikipedia’s voice — which runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

::::::If the article is not using MEDRS sources for biomedical claims, but is still portraying acupuncture as definitively pseudoscientific without qualification or attribution, that is not consistent with the spirit of WP:FRINGE — which requires careful framing when labeling widely practiced systems of care.

::::::I propose again that if the aim is to reflect the mainstream scientific critique, this should be done with proper attribution and with stronger, more institutionally grounded sources — especially in the lead. Haharris9 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It doesn't need to be a peer-reviewed or institutional source. You're inventing new criteria rather than sticking to what Wikipedia's policies actually require. We ought to stick with those rather than your personal standards. MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you for your response, MrOllie. I’m not proposing “personal standards,” but referencing Wikipedia’s own guidelines on reliable sources, especially WP:MEDRS, which is the gold standard for medical and health-related content.

::::::::While Quackwatch may be acceptable for some non-medical content under WP:FRINGE or WP:FRIND, it does not meet the criteria for reliable medical sourcing when discussing the efficacy or scientific basis of treatments.

::::::::My concern is that using Quackwatch as a primary reference in the lead, particularly without proper attribution, risks presenting a non-peer-reviewed, advocacy-based source as authoritative, which conflicts with Wikipedia’s policy for medical content.

::::::::I encourage the use of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and statements from major health organizations to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing in medicine. Haharris9 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Efficacy{{snd}}especially affirmation of effect{{snd}}requires WP:MEDRS; discussion of scientific prior-plausibility does not. You don't need a MEDRS source to tell you (e.g.) that squirting coffee up your bum will not cure your brain cancer. Similarly for sticking in needles to channel qi, and any other forms of quackery. Quackwatch is a good source for quackery, and so precisely on-point here. Attribution is not required, and would in fact be problematic as it could make reality seem like just an opinion. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for your input. I’d like to respectfully note that while I understand the skepticism expressed, the language used (“squirting coffee up your bum,” “quackery”) undermines Wikipedia’s tone and neutrality standards, particularly on a subject that remains both widely practiced and institutionally endorsed in multiple global contexts.

::::::::::Regarding sourcing, the distinction between WP:MEDRS for efficacy and other standards for theoretical plausibility is understood. However, when scientific prior plausibility is used to justify strong categorical claims (such as “not based on scientific knowledge”), we must be especially cautious about sourcing from editorial websites like Quackwatch. Attribution to the source is a minimal standard to preserve WP:NPOV, especially given that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed and is often debated in reliable source discussions.

::::::::::Finally, avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE is essential, but that does not mean we eliminate all nuance or reduce complex practices with diverse global usage to one reductive frame. Neutrality requires that even strong criticisms be clearly sourced and appropriately attributed. Haharris9 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We have a whole article on coffee enemas. Like acupuncture, they have their apologists too. Anyway, that's enough AI slop; the question has been asked and answered. Time to close. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::While comparisons like coffee enemas may seem rhetorically satisfying, they don't substitute for policy-based reasoning. Wikipedia is not the place for editorial snark or sweeping generalizations like “AI slop” when serious policy questions—such as the appropriateness of sourcing and NPOV balance—are under discussion.

::::::::::::This thread concerns whether Quackwatch meets the appropriate sourcing standards for specific claims in the article, particularly those touching on theoretical underpinnings rather than efficacy (which falls under WP:MEDRS). The request is neither novel nor unreasonable and deserves proper discussion, not premature closure.

::::::::::::Rather than dismiss the matter, let’s keep the focus on content policy:

::::::::::::Does Quackwatch meet the standard of a reliable secondary source for theoretical claims?

::::::::::::Does its inclusion align with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE—without veering into WP:FRINGE overreach or attribution issues?

::::::::::::If there are clear policy grounds for rejecting the concern, let’s address them constructively. If not, WP:CONSENSUS should guide how the community proceeds, not rhetorical exhaustion. Haharris9 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Could you please stop using an LLM. It's exhausting wading through the verbiage to try to find some meaning. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|I'm shutting this down before we waste any more of the community's time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the lead sentence be changed to {{tq|Acupuncture is a practice originating in traditional Chinese medicine in which thin needles are inserted into the body at specific points. It is used in various contexts, including traditional frameworks and integrative healthcare systems.}} Haharris9 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, that's two sentences, not one. I assume this is really about changing the second sentence of the article. For reference, here is the current opening paragraph: {{Tq|Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine and a component of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in which thin needles are inserted into the body. Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.}} Wikipedia is appropriately summarizing the mainstream view of the relevant sources here - that Acupuncture and modern applications of TCM are pseudoscientific. This proposal should be rejected as an obvious attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE and profringe POV pushing. - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for your feedback. To clarify, this proposal is not an attempt to insert false balance or promote a fringe view, but rather to bring the lead in line with WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, and WP:FRINGE itself, which advises proportional representation and due weight without asserting contested claims in Wikipedia’s voice.
• :The current second sentence states unequivocally that “Acupuncture is a pseudoscience,” which reflects a particular interpretation. Yet, the body of the article acknowledges a diversity of perspectives, including the growing inclusion of acupuncture within integrative medicine programs at academic institutions and hospitals. This range of views should be signaled in the lead per WP:LEAD guidelines.
• :The proposed revision avoids asserting scientific validation—it simply introduces the practice descriptively and neutrally, deferring judgments on efficacy or scientific status to the appropriate sections of the article, where claims can be supported with specific sources under the correct sourcing standards (e.g., WP:MEDRS).
• :In short, this is not a pro-fringe argument; it is a policy-aligned effort to ensure Wikipedia remains descriptive, not prescriptive, especially in the opening sentence (sorry, "statement" is a better word choice) where neutrality is most essential. Haharris9 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:PROFRINGE proposal which violates core WP:PSCI policy, by which pseudosciences must be prominently identified. This is a disruptive waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Appreciate your participation. To clarify, this proposal does not deny the scientific consensus or seek to remove mention of pseudoscience from the article. Rather, it aims to move evaluative statements out of the first sentence and into their proper place within the article’s body or later in the lead, consistent with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and even WP:PSCI, which emphasizes that minority views should not be excluded, but properly contextualized.
• :"Prominently identified" does not mean “asserted in Wikipedia’s voice in the opening sentence.” The proposal reflects that Wikipedia is not a platform for scientific editorializing, even when there is strong consensus. A descriptive, neutral introduction followed by clearly sourced mainstream scientific critiques allows readers to engage with content fairly and fulfills our responsibility to summarize—not editorialize—source material.
• :There is no intent to subvert or diminish Wikipedia’s scientific rigor. Rather, this is an attempt to better embody Wikipedia's core mission: a neutral summary of reliable sources. Haharris9 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Also see WP:BLUD. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:QUACKS and [https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/ Jimbo Wales]. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Acupuncture is pseudoscience and trying to frame it as having usages in legitimate health care is WP:PROFRINGE. This WP:FRINGE POV pushing has no place in Wikipedia articles per WP:WEIGHT. TarnishedPath^talk 14:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change for all reasons above, plus the proposed new material is clear as mud and makes the article worse. The second sentence is meaningless and redundant. It uses the words "traditional" a second time and the marketing term "integrative". The current second sentence is appropriate because it is well-sourced, informative, and clear. The proposed material also uses the phrase "specific body points" but this does not represent the article body, which states "there is no defined standard for acupuncture points." ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Funnily enough if you ask ChatGTP to generate an opening for this article, it offers "Acupuncture is a form of traditional medicine that involves inserting thin needles into specific points on the body". Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I took from the original Wikipedia opening that uses the term "thin needles are inserted into the body". Remarkable that a glorified search engine would find things on the internet. Haharris9 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::LLMs are [https://thebullshitmachines.com/ BS-generating machines]. To be fair, deep in the article does say "Over time, the focus shifted from blood to the concept of puncturing specific points on the body," but it's just not a good summary of the article for the lead. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I agree, actually. I could have done better. Haharris9 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm glad you pointed that out! There actually is a very well defined standard for acupuncture points. I'll have to look into that. Haharris9 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My impression is that even if there are 100 different, mutually exclusive "standards", that each person/tradition/system/whatever really is trying to put the needle in "specific" points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've looked into the existence of a standard for acupuncture points and found a document published by WHO titled "WHO Standard Acupuncture Point Locations in the Western Pacific Region" that outlines standardized locations for 361 acupuncture points and is intended for use in teaching, research, clinical practice, and academic exchanges. So, there is an established standard for acupuncture point locations. [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9290611057 WHO Standard Acupuncture Point Locations] Haharris9 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons noted above. -Roxy the dog 15:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|result=Closing this section so as not to waste any more editor's time on LLM-generated "content". If Haharris9 wishes to start another discussion below this, except this time writing in their own words, that will be fine; but this is not. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The proposed language is more neutral and factually descriptive, avoiding terminology that implies a judgment of scientific validity in the lead. This change would allow criticism, including the mainstream scientific consensus and sourcing standards such as WP:MEDRS, to be appropriately discussed in a separate "Scientific Evaluation" or "Criticism" section, rather than being frontloaded into the summary.

This aligns with Wikipedia’s policy that the lead should summarize the topic in a balanced and neutral tone, particularly for articles involving controversial or contested subjects. It also avoids WP:FALSEBALANCE by not attributing critique or endorsement prematurely, while leaving room for in-depth discussion in the body of the article.

Comments are welcome. Haharris9 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is just rubbish. RS identifies this as pseudoscience, no good sources demurs. So Wikipedia follows RS as it must. End of discussion. Frankly, this is just another PROFRINGE WP:SPA filling this page with AI-generated crap and wasting editor time. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's sad that you perceive proper grammar and a logical cohesive argument as AI generated. Wikipedia's policies apply to everyone, regardless of who proposes a revision. Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks such as calling someone's contributions "AI-generated crap" or labeling them a "WP:SPA" in a dismissive way. That’s not constructive and discourages open, respectful discussion.

::As for the content: Wikipedia follows reliable sources, yes—but it also follows WP:NPOV, which requires that we present pseudoscience claims as pseudoscience, but do so in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. This proposal doesn’t challenge the view of acupuncture as pseudoscience—it proposes placing such claims appropriately within the article, instead of asserting them in Wikipedia’s voice in the opening sentence. That distinction matters.

::This RFC is a legitimate good-faith effort to improve neutrality and alignment with policy. Further input is welcome, but let’s keep the conversation focused and respectful. Haharris9 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The lead sentence of Chiropractic, which has undergone rigorous discussion on its talk page, refers to it as an alternative medicine due to the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that describe it as such. The same should apply to this article. -- Reconrabbit 14:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Good point! Thank you, @Reconrabbit, for raising this comparison. The Chiropractic article lead demonstrates that Wikipedia can appropriately frame alternative medical practices in a neutral, encyclopedic tone that reflects the views of reliable sources without editorializing. Haharris9 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is not to say that any proposed change here is an improvement. It does not help a reader to know that "it is used in various contexts", as this could lead them to draw conclusions not directly stated by the body of the article. -- Reconrabbit 14:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Also a good point. Haharris9 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Could somebody snow close, and reprimand the OP for the use of LLMs. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 15:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I apologize for using too many words. This has been address in the thread and on my page. thank you. Haharris9 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the current and proposed sentences, I see three basic sets of facts that we want to communicate:

:* inserting thin needles

:* altmed and TCM

:* pseudoscience and quackery

:I wonder if we should re-write that to three short sentences. Also, as a minor point, I wonder if it ought to be "TCM and altmed", instead of "altmed and TCM". The current order might represent editors' own experiences/Western bias.

:(Also, the "quackery" sources are old, and PubMed finds no sources in the last 10 years using that language. The closest is a paper saying that a regulation in India that allows people without medical training to practice acupuncture could lead to an increase in quackery, but the implication is that the untrained person would provide quackery in addition to acupuncture.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for adding some clarity! WhatamIdoing I agree, those three are the core elements to cover in a balanced lead. Splitting them into shorter sentences Would help with clarity and tone and, I didn't even think about switching altmed and TCM around, thank you for catching that. Also, good call on the “quackery” sources being kind of dated. Haharris9 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• I do not think it is a good use of editor's time arguing with ChatGPT or whichever LLM is generating it (the opening statement flags as 100% AI-generated in all detectors). I will be closing it shortly unless any human editor can give a reason why it is useful. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Haharris9 has now been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acupuncture#c-Bon_courage-20250515134800-Haharris9-20250515125400 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haharris9#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250515132800-Haharris9-20250515124100 warned] against WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, yet they continue to do so. There are 28 comments in this RfC so far; 12 of them are from them. (In fact, their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haharris9#c-Haharris9-20250515140000-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250515132800 reply] suggests that not have they not reviewed that advice, but that they completely misunderstood the problem; it's not only about concision, but the sheer number of replies that becomes disruptive. Indeed, they preferred to respond with aspersions. This is not positive for the future.) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :One of the increasingly depressing features of Wikipedia is how editors who are so obviously taking the piss, get cut just so much slack. Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ab}}

{{cbot}}