" 

 :The in-text commented-out passage you quote above was part of the old text. I myself commented it out while quickly editing the beginning of that section because, besides the content, an encyclopedic article cannot pose rhetoric questions like that. Since this page was highly problematic, I left it for a while, and apparently nobody bothered to delete this inappropriate comment in the meantime. Be my guest. 

 :Just a comment for the record... A number of pseudoscientists I've heard about have a double standard when it comes to entities such as chakras. For the believers they speak as if these things were already true, real entities, and they even write books or give conferences on their properties and so on, going into great detail; for the non-believers and questioners, they become vague and elusive, they state general non-falsifiable truths, they don't clearly define anything, etc., precisely to avoid scientific (or common sense!) scrutiny. It seems to me that, under the provisions you stated above, science will always be on the losing side. But NPOV goes both ways — Wikipedia does not necessarily have to respect the scientific method to discuss a controversial issue, though it of course must state where it's coming from.   "