Talk:Reflexology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Feb 2004 - Article was originally written by Chineese students as a school assignment

Contents 1 Picture 2 NPOVing 3 This article could use some TLC. 4 pseudoscience

[edit] Picture

The picture is nice, a few more details about would be useful. Is it a photograph or a drawing ? Where is it from ? What do the hyrogliphics say ? How do you know they are practisin reflexology rather than something else (a beuty treatment for example)That sort of thing. theresa knott 14:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting web sites [1][2]this one is a large pdf file containing tonnes of stuff

[edit] NPOVing

This section :How can reflexology help? The body has the ability to heal itself. Following illness, stress, injury or disease, it is in a state of imbalance, and vital energy pathways are blocked, preventing the body from functioning effectively. Reflexology can be used to restore and maintain the body's natural equilibrium and encourage healing. A reflexologist uses hands only to apply gentle pressure to the reflex zones on the feet, palm of hands or the ears. For each person the application and the effect of the therapy are unique. Sensitive and trained hands can detect tiny deposits and imbalances in the feet. And by working on these points the reflexologist can release blockages and restore the free flow of energy to the whole body. Tensions are eased, and circulation and elimination is improved. This gentle therapy encourages the body to heal itself at its own pace, often counteracting a lifetime of misuse.

Needs to be NPOVed. Unfortunately i don't have enough knowledge to do a good job if it myself. So instead I'll ask some questions to show yo'all some of my concerns.

1. Who says thwe body is in a state of imbalance ?
2. What are vital energy pathways and is there any medical evidence that they exist?
3. what type of deposits and can they be detected by anyone else? ( I mean could a conventional doctor cut out these deposits if they were so inclined or are the deposits not "real" but instead represent something spiritual)
4. circulation of what is improved ? and what does elimination mean?

Hopefully the answers to these questions will go a long way to help me NPOV the paragraph. theresa knott 15:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article could use some TLC.

Overall a rather disappointing article; many spelling, grammatical, and (IMHO) conceptual mistakes; biased, impertinent, and poorly-researched. --192.240.46.100 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry, don't know how to add my own comments into the edit Talk discussion. Reflexology - we don't know how it works, but it works in helping to relieve pain. Having treated a good few people I know this. However, no-one knows that that Egyptian picture is of people giving reflexology treatment - so we cannot say that it is. So I just added 'may be' to the first paragraph. The real work in developing Reflexology as a healing therapy was done by Eunice Ingham, published in her book 'Stories Feet Can Tell'. She deserves the credit, not the Egyptians. Ixobel.

[edit] pseudoscience

It is not POV to accurately describe this practice as pseudoscience. After you have checked the definition and if you still want to revert, please discuss. Mccready 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that most of my edits to this article have been to edit or expand the section regarding the skeptical view. I agree pseudoscience may be an appropriate description, but I disagreee that it is neutral. The wikipedia article on pseudoscience even says in the opening sentences that the term has "negative connotations", and is likely to be rejected by advocates. This page generated a fair amount of activity and argument in the past. Although it's been pretty quiet lately, calling it pseudoscience in the first opening sentence is just bound to stir up trouble. So, I partially reverted your edit, but I included the word in the following sentence referring to skeptics views. So it is still in the intro, but a little more respectful of people with a different opinion. --Michaelfavor 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael, while I understand your sentiments I think we have an obligation to our readers to describe things accurately and concisely. If we had to qualify the word pseudoscience everytime we used it, that would be tedious, wasteful of time and words and teleological - who else would describe a thing as pseudoscience? Encyclopedists I hope. So I have reverted again. You may also like to consider WP:LEAD regarding your comment about putting it at the top. If you think my reasons lack logic I'd be happy to hear your reasons. I'm curious as why you added the link you added? What extra benefit does it give the article? Mccready 13:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that from a strictly logically perspective the word "pseudoscience" implies "Scientists and skeptics believe..." (...Reflexology is a pseudoscience) making those four words redundant, but just four words. From a more diplomatic and aesthetic perspective, without that phrase, the sentence strikes me as somewhat cold and belligerent. WP:LEAD says "some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article". I believe such an unqualified use of the perjorative is more likely to simlply alienate "non-skeptical" readers, rather than creating any interest in reading further. And as a purely practical matter, crafting a more balanced presentation that is less likely to offend "believers", is less likely to be edited, and may require less time and attention in the future in order to keep the skeptical view fairly represented for the benefit of the uninformed. I firmly believe the perjorative with the qualifying phrase is less offensive, but if you still disagree, I will not revert. I will leave it up to you and other editors.

The link I added was based on a broken link on the talk page, which I was in the process of archiving. I found the correct link and added it to the article as a "reference" for the statements about the contradictory "theories", lacking anything more definitive. I also thought it was a fairly interesting and informative reference, in the sense that the web page was written by Reflexology practicioners, yet also tends to support the pseudoscience characterization. --Michaelfavor 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion Michael. I hope encyclopedias emphasise logic and concision over the more nebulous and perhaps controversial "aesthetic perspective". I also think it dangerous to change articles to suit the POV or beliefs of readers. So I'll revert as invited by you to do. Thanks again for your input. Mccready 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)