Talk:Reflexology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reflexology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Unhelpful article
This article is not about reflexology. It is about why the author thinks reflexology is quackery. Honestly, this article should be renamed to “reflexology is quackery”. That way an actual reflexologist could write a helpful article called “Reflexology”.
I would like to see Wikipedia or the author retitle this article. 98.31.6.130 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Since reflexologists are quacks, it would be a bad idea to have them write articles here. It would go against Wikipedia's goal of summarizing reliable sources.
- You can get what you want in other places, so your wish to get it here too is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
I suggest we remove the "pseudoscience" claims here. They are quite aggressive and honestly not even scientifically accurate. Just pop open pubmed and read some research. There are over 19,000 results in my last search: pubmed search. It has, indeed, been scientifically shown to treat a number of issues, including pain, e.g. Foot Reflexology: An Intervention for Pain and Nausea Among Inpatients With Cancer and this literature review [Reflexology in patient rehabilitation with postoperative pain. (Literature review)]. This study is also quite interesting: Effects of reflexology on child health: A systematic review. Let us reiterate that Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions. Claims about science are supposed to be based on actual scientific research, and if the research says X then we say "the research says X."
Also the citations claiming it is pseudoscience are very old, from before 2010. A general rule of thumb regarding research is that it should be within the past five years [1]. DivineReality (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience is not defined by the number of studies being below a certain value.
- The "inpatients with cancer" paper is WP:PRIMARY. The second is from a journal called "Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult" which does not seem to be well-known. The third is from a complementary-medicine journal. Please consult WP:MEDRS to find better criteria for sources to suggest.
- If the sources from 2010 are outdated, you can find newer sources of similar quality that contradict them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)