Scientific Method and the Assessment of Chinese Medical Theory and Techniques sections I think both the Views of proponents and the Views of critics subsections ie the whole section should be removed The sections are almost entirely unreferenced and perhpas unreferenceable and there are major POV concerns as a lot of opinion is being presented as fact eg Clinical trials are still a valuable exercise but they are not sufficient to determine conclusively whether either the individual constituents of the medical theory eg acupuncture points or the medical theory as a whole are valid is just an opinion that has not been attributed to anyone Also some strange things have been done with these sections This is in the criticism of acupuncture section Tonelli a prominent critic of EBM argues that complementary and alternative medicine CAM cannot be EBMbased unless the definition of evidence is changed That reads more like a criticism of EBM to me What is referenced in this section is either not directly relevant to accupuncture eg the information about CAM in general or is repeated below in the Scientific research into efficacy section This reference acupuncture is usually more effective than no treatment or a placebo in pill form and that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of acupuncture and sham acupuncture which is often used as a control  is also problematic as we have admitted a primary source where all the other scientific evaluations are metaanalyses secondary sources This is the only referenced statement that warrants keeping The vast majority of research on acupuncture is conducted by researchers in China and Ernst et al argue that there exist major flaws in the design of the experiments as well as selective reporting of results and conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from them and it may be moved elsewhere This whole section is a violation of WPRS which is inexcusable due to the sheer number of RS available on this topic