This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acupuncture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 20 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to complementary and alternative medicine.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent. See also community discussion on COI for alt-med practitioners.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant noticeboards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

A number of new peer-reviewed articles by reputable medical journals have come out since the matter of whether acupuncture was a pseudoscience was last reviewed. May I ask that we reopen this topic? Adlewis (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:CITE WP:RS. I don't believe it could get undone, but let's see what you have read. NCCIH is completely bunk in this respect.

Also mind WP:ECREE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As explained in WP:DABLINK, any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article. Although "Acupuncture" has a clear primary topic, the title is still ambiguous. What is the best way to guide a reader seeking Acupuncture (album) to that article? I added the customary hatnote but was reverted. In case it helps, there was recent discussion on a similar topic at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Quantum supremacy. Certes (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support adding link. Certes is correct. Some readers will indeed be looking for Acupuncture (album) and should be served up a link to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I support that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay: ojection withdrawn. (An ancillary question might be whether this band and its albums are notable enough for Wikipedia, which from the sourcing used seems questionable anyway). Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wow. The crawly things you find when you turn over a rock...

It looks like we should not only AfD Acupuncture (album), but also Doldrums (band) and all the songs listed, and then start crawling through the list of pages and redirects created by indeffed user Soul Crusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (many of which have already been deleted).

It's bedtime here "where the TMZ intersects with the Orange Curtain" so I will look into this further tomorrow or the next day. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The band look just about notable enough to me. The albums don't, though. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, everyone. Let's leave the hatnote off for now, but reinstate it later if the album survives AfD or doesn't go there reasonably soon. Certes (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

https://larrysanger.org/wikicritic/dossier-acupuncture.html. For the interested, there could be something good in there. Some is AI, but there are human comments too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Starting reading the first comment as saw it was by an acupuncturist.[1] Quelle surprise. Stopped reading then. What does one expect from this kind of exercise? Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's been suggested to me that the human comments could be AI too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

WikiCritic is bogus, see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Larry Sanger made a new thing. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply