:::::I see discussion in the Acupuncture article about 3 or 4 scientists characterizing Acupuncture as a pseudoscience; however, I also see discussion about it being endorsed by organizations such as WHO. What I am looking for is something like the authors of Phrenology have done... and outright statement: Phrenology is a pseudoscience. No one is arguing that it isn't. Phrenology is clearly generally considered to be a pseudoscience. I am not see this de facto statement on Acupuncture but rather statements such as "so-and-so has characterized acupuncture as pseudoscience." If it is just a characterization then it belongs on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience but not on a de facto list of pseudosciences.