Talk:Reflexology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Feb 2004 - Article was originally written by Chineese students as a school assignment
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Non-sensical energy statements

It doesn't mean anything to balance someone's energy. This is a non-sense statement. You can say 'Practitioners believe that they are balancing the patients energy'. However, I think any casual reference to the balancing, manipulating, or re-directing energy should be removed, because, lacking a scientific meaning, these statements only serve to establish the pro-reflexology viewpoint of the writer.

However, one alternative to removing the energy statements is to include a definition (if there is one), of what reflexologists mean when they refer to energy, and what they mean by balancing it. From that point forward, the word energy can be used and taken to mean whatever it was defined as. 74.99.19.249 08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I intend to sort this out. It's just finding the definition in a place that can be referenced, I think. Lottie 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-doing the whole thing

Right, I am a woman on a mission.

As has been stated several times, mainly on this page, this whole article is completely POV and generally badly backed up. I completely support this statement, it's definitely not a great article for people looking for info. It's biased, it's badly structured and as a result it's basically conflicted and baffling. I think I can change it so that it's objective, NPOV and digestable. You have as long as it takes me to re-write it to object, under this paragraph if you please. But first, please read the following points, explaining what I plan to do:

  • I'm going to take out anything that is far-fetched and uncited. This is a very opinion-based thing, so if you're going to revert it please cite!
  • I'm going to restructure it, because some of the sections can be merged and rebalanced and so on. I think that this will be a lot better afterwards, but if you disagree I won't resent anyone for wiggling it about.
  • I will leave in as much cited material as I can, sometimes moving it to a different section, unless I feel that it is completely irrelevant. I think cited information is a wonderful thing in an article like this, whether to support or refute its validity
  • Where possible, I will find citations for any statements that I feel should stay in.
  • I will remove any inconclusive studies, or summarise. I don't feel they're relevant, as they don't help either way.
  • I will remove any suggestion that reflexology is meant to diagnose or cure any medical problems, as it is a treatment on the energy body
  • I've just found a shocking amount of plagiarism, and I'll be working to remove that.

OK, go. Lottiotta 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now done, let me know if you have any issues with it. Lottiotta 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a lie. I spent a bit more time mending badly coded links (my fault!), but I think it's a lot better now. :) Lottiotta 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no one has objected yet - I guess no one minds. :) Lottie 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I utterly agree. The criticism section is even labelled "Analysis" unlike EVERY other page on pseudoscience subjects. Given that I know little about reflexology, I don't want to change it, but having a solid science background, this page infuriates me. In short, this article is POV tripe right now. mr_happyhour 16.2.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree that it is probably POV in the other direction now, though having no books to refute the theories of reflexology I can't give relevant citations. I took out all statements that were extreme and also unsourced and irrelevant, and unfortunately that was most of the refuting statements!
As for the "Analysis" section, I was reluctant to call it "criticism" as there was supporting evidence as well as refuting evidence. It just seemed the most sensible title, but I feel that "criticism" would be inaccurate unless the section contained only refuting cited comments and studies.
Something that really puzzles me is why do people think that reflexology is trying to be a science? I've never seen it as a science and I'm a practitioner!
Lottie 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[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

75% of illnesses ae stress related. Interesting. We must TELL the world!!! The stress cancers and stress diabetes and stress COPD all will dissapear if we just de-stress! People this is your call to arms! De-stress the world with reflexology. If you don't you will go to hell.

[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)

I agree, the conceptual mistakes are annoying me. I'm going to try to find some decent references for the theory of reflexology and cite them, because paragraphs of analysis and theory are being deleted unfairly, IMO. Lottiotta 19:32, 24 January 2007 (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

The article (as of 1/17/07) contains highly biased reporting and an over-abundance of criticism. The article begins well, by explaining Reflexology as a practice and theory. However, it then continues to make several false statements about the claims of Reflexology as a practice. It is unfair to criticize a theory on an informative site when the purpose of an encyclopedia is to define and explain... not offer criticism. There are theories of Reflexology that claim scientific base, and validity through scientific explanation. However, it is unintelligent to couple the practice of Reflexology with its theories and explanations, to the point of discrediting the field based on a possible explanation of its results.

Furthermore, the "Scientific View" section needs to be separated into two separate sections entitled, "Scientific Studies" (or similar) and "Criticism," as it is obvious that the section has evolved into, or initially was, highly composed of criticism. The section states various facts about the possible hurdles involving the testing of any practitioner-patient therapy which is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted. Similarly, the claim that the effects of Reflexology are untestable and cannot be proven via the scientific method, is entirely closed minded and unscientific. The claim that "reflexology is a “no-fail” system" is false and mis-representative of the practice of Reflexology... it again chains the practice to the theories/explanations of Reflexology to a point that assumes the scientific study and method of drawing conclusions is more akin to a lawyers closing speech rather than the objectiveness of the scientific method. In all honesty, I believe that the last two sections should be entirely removed (except for the sources and links) in order to retain the spirit of sharing knowledge (as opposed to drawing conclusions) that Wikipedia stands for. This is the most biased and negatively written Wikipedia article of the approximately 900 I have read. Reflexology as a practice is a healing art... not a scientific claim. It deserves the respect that is due to any healing art. Science does not have the technology yet to prove or disprove the validity of healing arts just as it does not have the technology to prove or disprove the existence of a God. To have Reflexology listed as a pseudoscience is inaccurate and misleading and I would hope those are two qualities that Wikipedia strives to avoid. --End of this user's contribution, I guess they forgot to sign it.

Thanks for those points, it gives me something to work on. This article really needs a major refurbishment!Lottiotta 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

pseudoscience section only has reference from one book, giving the section an unbalanced point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.132.22 (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Keturah points?

Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating keturah points on the feet, hands and ears, in order to encourage a beneficial effect on some other parts of the body, or to try to improve general health.

This puzzles me - I've never heard of a "keturah" point, the term is unfamiliar to me... There's no citation or anything, and I can only find two pages on something called keturah on wikipedia - a woman from the Bible and a kibbutz. Hmmmmm.

I'd love some clarification, here. :) Thanks! Lottie 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be gone, so there we go. Lottie 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Talk%7EReflexology_7016.html"