Talk:Reflexology/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Good job this statement has been removed, eh? Lottie 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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.
#Who says the body is in a state of imbalance ?
#What are vital energy pathways and is there any medical evidence that they exist?
#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)
#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)
replies: text: Hey Theresa, I'm going to answer the questions even though they're from 2004. It might help, I guess. These I can't exactly cite, but it's what I've picked up as a practitioner. So could well be a load of rubbish, but then so is the above paragraph in wikipedian terms!
#Chinese ideas of meridians etc say that energetic imbalance goes alongside physical illness. Hard to include that though...
#No medical evidence, but it's those meridians again.
#The deposits can be felt by anyone who's looking for them. Crystal/grit textures under the skin, mainly. I imagine a doctor could cut them out, but within the energy-healing-thing this wouldn't help - the imbalance in the body would be reflected in the feet again with the gritty textures. How massage works more effectively I'm not sure...
#I can only guess that they meant cardiovascular and lymphatic circulation. Elimination I think refers to elimination of toxins through the lymph system.
Lottie (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOVing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article could use some TLC. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems to be gone, so there we go. Lottie 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keturah points? (Resolved)

message: "Contrary to some beliefs, reflexology does not seek to diagnose or cure medical conditions - merely imbalances in the life energy or Qi of the body."..."Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the mechanism behind reflexology, although none have been scientifically proven."
Both sentences, though well-refuted with subsequent sentences, seem to assert in and of themselves that there is an actual "mechanism" or effectiveness of the treatment. It may be best to keep sentences free of POV rather than just adding a counter-POV one after it to balance it out. I'm currently working on fixing up Indigo children but I think I might take a crack at fixing this article up too. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent POV sentences? 

message: right im doing this assignment in collage about reflexology i need help please. what do i look at !? are there any good websites ? xx
::xx, here are some pages about reflexology that should help yowu tih your collage report. 
Professional Bodies and Organisations
* Association of Reflexologists
* Federation of Holistic Therapists
* International Council of Reflexologists
* Reflexology in Europe Network
* Reflexology Organisations in Different Countries
Supporting Pages
* Aetna InteliHealth
* Reflexology FAQ
Refuting Pages
* Reflexology: A Close Look by Stephen Barrett MD
* Skeptics Dictionary: Definition of Reflexology - Robert Todd Carroll
Other Resources
* Interactive Reflexology Chart for the feet or hands
* Reflexology Research Project
* Hypotheses on how Reflexology might work
* World Reflexology Week
::These are at the bottom of the main article, where the links are active. Lottie 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: This article is filled to the brim with weasel words and peacock words. Many of the people that have has contributed to this article seem to have no idea of how such words compromise the material. Please click on the links above to weasel words and peacock words for details on why these words and phrases are shunned on Wikipedia. There are so many here that I don't even know where to begin. At this rate, this article will never come close to Good Article status, much less become a Featured Article. ask123 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Weasel and Peacock Words Here 

message: ...and I don't like it. Is there a way I can help? -Unsigned
:Yep, edit the article and reference professional sources that comment on the subject matter. :) God knows it's needed!
:Why don't you like it? Where are you referenced? Lottie (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey I am referenced in this article...

message: Sheesh, did someone go through this article and remove anything negative? This is an appallingly biased article. Adam Cuerden talk 09:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried and tried to find references for studies/statements for and against, mostly in my book collection - it's hard. No one does anything concrete in favour or against this subject, and I'm coming to the conclusion that unless this article is very tiny, it's always going to be mostly outlandish statements. Doom. Lottie 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This section was added to the main page as well, which I reverted for containing buckets of WP:OR and unsourced statements.  I'm refactoring it for easier reading.  WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition by Cynthia B Hill

message: Cynthia B Hill 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflexology Association of America 

message: Reflexology was introduced into the United States in 1913 by William H. Fitzgerald, M.D. (1872-1942), an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and accompanied by Dr. Edwin Bowers. He found that applying pressure had an anesthetic effect on another area.Broken citation - WLU 
Reflexology was further developed by Eunice D. Ingham (1899-1974), a nurse and physiotherapist, in the 1930s and 1940s. Benjamin. (1989). Eunice D. Ingham and the development of foot reflexology in the U.S. Massage Therapy Journal, Winter.  Ingham found that the feet and hands were especially sensitive, and then mapped the entire body into "reflexes" on the feet. It was at this time that "zone therapy" was renamed reflexology, and the number of conditions it was found to affect.
Modern reflexologists in the United States and the United Kingdom often learn Ingham's method first, although there are other more recently developed methods.Broken citation - WLU
  
=== Criticism ===
==== Potential dangers ====
Reflexology has the potential to be harmful indirectly if:
* The reflexologist tries to diagnose an illness
* The reflexologist relies upon the feet to tell the patient that they don't have an illness, when they do
* If reflexology is used instead of, or delays an effective therapy
Response
Reflexologists do not diagnose, prescribe, or adjust medications.  To do so is completely out of the scope of practice of Reflexology.  The purpose of Reflexology is to relax and balance the recipient giving the body’s natural ability to heal the opportunity to take effect.
==== Reflexology as a pseudoscience ====
There is no evidence for the existence of life energy or Qi in the body. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence for "crystalline structures" or "pathways" in the body that reflexology claims to access.Stephen Barrett, Reflexology: A close look, Quackwatch, 25 September 2004, accessed 24 September 2007 This suggests that the practice is a pseudoscience.  
Response:
REALLY?  as a licensed acupuncturist and MEDICAL professional I HEAL people on a daily basis using QI.  I could not legally claim to heal people if I wasn't really healing people.  I must pass strict national board exams after rigorous training before I can get my medical license.   In states that allow it I can actually use the title "Doctor". So I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than Mr Barrett.
There is a great deal of research on Qi out there.  Dr Becker in the book " The Body Electric" (amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Electromagnetism-Foundation-Life/dp/0688069711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311893087&sr=8-1)details his research into acupuncture meridians and was the first medical doctor to validate that meridians are areas of greater electrical conductivity. Stimulation of acupuncture points allows electron flow along meridians to affect change in the body.There are tons of research out there validating the effects of acupuncture.  Researchers use MRI's Cat Scans, thermal imaging and more to document the effects of stimulating acupuncture points whether it is with needles, electro-therapy or acupressure.  To see this for yourself look at ACUPUNCTURE TODAY, look at the society for acupuncture research (http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/)  look at the American Journal of Acupuncture, the Journal of Chinese Medicine, the Journal of the British Acupuncture society, the International journal of Clinical Acupuncture, or the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine.  Here's an index of acupuncture journals (http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/primjournals.html)  Furthermore you can find reflexology research articles here: (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/reflexology-research.html).  Or put the word reflexology in to a google scholar search or look on Nih.gov for even more research articles.
As an example; here is an article "The effect of reflexology on baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, blood pressure and sinus arrhythmia "  (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229997800039)that shows "The reflexology (n = 10) and FM (foot massage)groups (n = 10) showed significantly greater reductions in BRS compared to the control group (n = 4)" 
SO beware of this quack-watch guy, he does not have the correct facts.  In fact I would say he is the quack.
Reflexology is originally a subset of Tuina Asian Bodywork therapy, more commonly known as acupressure.  It is a micro-system therapy that utilizes the holographic concept that the whole of the body is reflected in the parts. This is very common in Asian medical modalities an acupuncture example would be using ear points to treat addiction. Stimulation of these points does affect change as in the above example.  As an individual mode of therapy it has been taken over by "reflexologists" who may or may not get detailed and thorough medical training about Traditional Chinese Medicine and all of its supporting theories and research.  As the person states below there is at least an attempt to formalize the training (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/index.html) I learned reflexology as part of my specialization in Tuina while getting my degree in acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Patients find it to be an extra treat as part of their treatment.  
Oh and as far as crystaline structures in the body.  Refer to these MEDICAL codes (http://www.icd9data.com/2011/Volume1/710-739/710-719/712/default.ht)m For crystal arthopathies, which in English means crystals in the body causing arthritic pain. 
Redbaronesse (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: End of section added by Cynthia B Hill. Yup, no citations, bizarrely embedded external links, broken references, unsourced information, OR-syntheses, embedded e-mail addresses and horribly apologist tone.  I don't really see anything that should be re-introduced to the main page.  WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: ==== Potential dangers ====
Reflexology has the potential to be harmful indirectly if:
* The reflexologist tries to diagnose an illness
* The reflexologist relies upon the feet to tell the patient that they don't have an illness, when they do
* If reflexology is used instead of, or delays an effective therapy
Response
Reflexologists do not diagnose, prescribe, or adjust medications.  To do so is completely out of the scope of practice of Reflexology.  The purpose of Reflexology is to relax and balance the recipient giving the body’s natural ability to heal the opportunity to take effect.
==== Reflexology as a pseudoscience ====
There is no evidence for the existence of life energy or Qi in the body. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence for "crystalline structures" or "pathways" in the body that reflexology claims to access.Stephen Barrett, Reflexology: A close look, Quackwatch, 25 September 2004, accessed 24 September 2007 This suggests that the practice is a pseudoscience.  
Response:
REALLY?  as a licensed acupuncturist and MEDICAL professional I HEAL people on a daily basis using QI.  I could not legally claim to heal people if I wasn't really healing people.  I must pass strict national board exams after rigorous training before I can get my medical license.   In states that allow it I can actually use the title "Doctor". So I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than Mr Barrett.
There is a great deal of research on Qi out there.  Dr Becker in the book " The Body Electric" (amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Electromagnetism-Foundation-Life/dp/0688069711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311893087&sr=8-1)details his research into acupuncture meridians and was the first medical doctor to validate that meridians are areas of greater electrical conductivity. Stimulation of acupuncture points allows electron flow along meridians to affect change in the body.There are tons of research out there validating the effects of acupuncture.  Researchers use MRI's Cat Scans, thermal imaging and more to document the effects of stimulating acupuncture points whether it is with needles, electro-therapy or acupressure.  To see this for yourself look at ACUPUNCTURE TODAY, look at the society for acupuncture research (http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/)  look at the American Journal of Acupuncture, the Journal of Chinese Medicine, the Journal of the British Acupuncture society, the International journal of Clinical Acupuncture, or the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine.  Here's an index of acupuncture journals (http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/primjournals.html)  Furthermore you can find reflexology research articles here: (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/reflexology-research.html).  Or put the word reflexology in to a google scholar search or look on Nih.gov for even more research articles.
As an example; here is an article "The effect of reflexology on baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, blood pressure and sinus arrhythmia "  (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229997800039)that shows "The reflexology (n = 10) and FM (foot massage)groups (n = 10) showed significantly greater reductions in BRS compared to the control group (n = 4)" 
SO beware of this quack-watch guy, he does not have the correct facts.  In fact I would say he is the quack.
Reflexology is originally a subset of Tuina Asian Bodywork therapy, more commonly known as acupressure.  It is a micro-system therapy that utilizes the holographic concept that the whole of the body is reflected in the parts. This is very common in Asian medical modalities an acupuncture example would be using ear points to treat addiction. Stimulation of these points does affect change as in the above example.  As an individual mode of therapy it has been taken over by "reflexologists" who may or may not get detailed and thorough medical training about Traditional Chinese Medicine and all of its supporting theories and research.  As the person states below there is at least an attempt to formalize the training (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/index.html) I learned reflexology as part of my specialization in Tuina while getting my degree in acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Patients find it to be an extra treat as part of their treatment.  
Oh and as far as crystaline structures in the body.  Refer to these MEDICAL codes (http://www.icd9data.com/2011/Volume1/710-739/710-719/712/default.ht)m For crystal arthopathies, which in English means crystals in the body causing arthritic pain. 
Redbaronesse (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: End of section added by Cynthia B Hill. Yup, no citations, bizarrely embedded external links, broken references, unsourced information, OR-syntheses, embedded e-mail addresses and horribly apologist tone.  I don't really see anything that should be re-introduced to the main page.  WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: There is no evidence for the existence of life energy or Qi in the body. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence for "crystalline structures" or "pathways" in the body that reflexology claims to access.Stephen Barrett, Reflexology: A close look, Quackwatch, 25 September 2004, accessed 24 September 2007 This suggests that the practice is a pseudoscience.  
Response:
REALLY?  as a licensed acupuncturist and MEDICAL professional I HEAL people on a daily basis using QI.  I could not legally claim to heal people if I wasn't really healing people.  I must pass strict national board exams after rigorous training before I can get my medical license.   In states that allow it I can actually use the title "Doctor". So I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than Mr Barrett.
There is a great deal of research on Qi out there.  Dr Becker in the book " The Body Electric" (amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Electromagnetism-Foundation-Life/dp/0688069711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311893087&sr=8-1)details his research into acupuncture meridians and was the first medical doctor to validate that meridians are areas of greater electrical conductivity. Stimulation of acupuncture points allows electron flow along meridians to affect change in the body.There are tons of research out there validating the effects of acupuncture.  Researchers use MRI's Cat Scans, thermal imaging and more to document the effects of stimulating acupuncture points whether it is with needles, electro-therapy or acupressure.  To see this for yourself look at ACUPUNCTURE TODAY, look at the society for acupuncture research (http://www.acupunctureresearch.org/)  look at the American Journal of Acupuncture, the Journal of Chinese Medicine, the Journal of the British Acupuncture society, the International journal of Clinical Acupuncture, or the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine.  Here's an index of acupuncture journals (http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/acu_info/primjournals.html)  Furthermore you can find reflexology research articles here: (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/reflexology-research.html).  Or put the word reflexology in to a google scholar search or look on Nih.gov for even more research articles.
As an example; here is an article "The effect of reflexology on baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, blood pressure and sinus arrhythmia "  (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229997800039)that shows "The reflexology (n = 10) and FM (foot massage)groups (n = 10) showed significantly greater reductions in BRS compared to the control group (n = 4)" 
SO beware of this quack-watch guy, he does not have the correct facts.  In fact I would say he is the quack.
Reflexology is originally a subset of Tuina Asian Bodywork therapy, more commonly known as acupressure.  It is a micro-system therapy that utilizes the holographic concept that the whole of the body is reflected in the parts. This is very common in Asian medical modalities an acupuncture example would be using ear points to treat addiction. Stimulation of these points does affect change as in the above example.  As an individual mode of therapy it has been taken over by "reflexologists" who may or may not get detailed and thorough medical training about Traditional Chinese Medicine and all of its supporting theories and research.  As the person states below there is at least an attempt to formalize the training (http://www.reflexology-usa.org/index.html) I learned reflexology as part of my specialization in Tuina while getting my degree in acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Patients find it to be an extra treat as part of their treatment.  
Oh and as far as crystaline structures in the body.  Refer to these MEDICAL codes (http://www.icd9data.com/2011/Volume1/710-739/710-719/712/default.ht)m For crystal arthopathies, which in English means crystals in the body causing arthritic pain. 
Redbaronesse (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: End of section added by Cynthia B Hill. Yup, no citations, bizarrely embedded external links, broken references, unsourced information, OR-syntheses, embedded e-mail addresses and horribly apologist tone.  I don't really see anything that should be re-introduced to the main page.  WLU 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflexology as a pseudoscience 

message: Comment: first off when considering dangers one MUST considered the training of the practitioner.  If they are merely a "reflexologist" they are not medically licensed and therefore CANNOT make any form of diagnosis.  Read your medical laws.   They can get in deep legal trouble if they do.  If on the other hand the individual performing reflexology is a medically licensed practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine otherwise known as a Licensed Acupuncturist, then they are a fully trained medical professional that can diagnose things within the bounds of their medical training.  AND following medical laws if after a certain period of treatment, there is no relief from the condition being treated, then the licensed acupuncturist is REQUIRED to refer the patient to the pertinent medical professional.  Also realize that depending upon the state, license acupuncturists can be primary care doctors which lends even more medical validity and liability to the case.   Reflexologists may fall under "cosmetology laws" which brings it to a different legal jurisdiction, but they still can not give a medical diagnosis.  It all depends on the licensing or lack of licensing.  Again read your medical laws.  Therefore your discussions of whether or not reflexology is dangerous is a waste of pixellated words because those of you discussing reflexology up to this point are not qualified to discuss this or willing to at least put in a bit of detective work to find out.
Redbaronesse (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your whole reasoning is based on the "unspoken assumption" that it works as claimed and that the common methods of practice are safe. The section is indeed a critical comment based on the fact that it does not work as claimed (it's relaxing and has some placebo effect, but influences no body systems as claimed, and does not effectively treat any serious diseases as commonly claimed by practitioners. The effects it does have are not specific to reflexology.). As a critical comment it is of course a "diss". That what critical comments are for and this one is referenced. This is what keeps the article from being a sales brochure, IOW keeps it NPOV. It's a disclaimer. Reflexologists should not be diagnosing disease at all, and in fact that is illegal in many countries. Even if doing it properly (rather than "wrongly") according to their system, it would carry risk, as the system itself is based on false and unfounded assumptions about anatomy, physiology, and pathology. I'll restore it to the state backed up by the reference. -- Fyslee / talk 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Fyslee! I don't think anything needs to be added here. You said it perfectly.  ₪ ask123  {t} 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not actually true, Fyslee. I have no opinion whatever on whether reflexology is effectual or not. I appreciate (and support) your right to a partisan, committed view on this particular subject - however speaking personally my only interest in editing the section was to remove the unspoken assumption that the technique was ineffectual. If this assumption is clearly stated as a subjective POV I have no issue with it. Organica 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be no unspoken assumption of ineffectuality. It is a very open assumption based on lack of evidence in research. IOW it is not an assumption at all. There is enough research to remove false assumptions of any truth of the claims made by reflexologists. They are not true. The burden of proof is on those who claim it works as claimed. They have failed miserably. The only effects are nonspecific effects of no significance for the treatment of serious illness. It's a nice (well, actually can be quite painful!) foot massage, with time to talk to the therapist who willingly indoctrinates the unsuspecting victim in a lot of nonsense. That's one of the greatest dangers. It is the so-called "innocent" doorway into a world of nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. When claiming the efficacy of a new treatment or therapy, the burden of proof is on the person/people introducing and practicing the treatement or therapy. These types of things are not considered effective until proven so. In other words, nothing is effective until proven so. If I create a new treatment called ABC Therapy that involves watching television to heal sickness, it is not assumed effective until I have proven so. This is not a POV stance; it is the prevailing stance of scholarly and professional communities around the world, which accepts nothing until it is proven via a standardized modus operandi. It is the way the empirical scientific method works.  ₪ ask123  {t} 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential dangers 

message: Reference numbers 1 and 7 are both from Stephen Barrett (operator of Quackwatch and NCAHF). Also, a link to Quackwatch is in the External Links section. This is a short article and per WP:WEIGHT, we should limit Barrett's opinions on the matter to just one link. I think the use of reference number 1 is the strongest. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link one appears to be by William Jarvis, not Stephen Barrett, though the external link is probably superfluous given the reference.  WLU 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jarvis and Barrett are partner/board memebers in the NCAHF (See here for exact correlation). Their views are equivilent. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They may be equivalent, but they are not the same person.  My brief review of the intros and references show overlap of basic stuff in history and sources, but I'd have to read further to see if they're the same reference.  If the references say different things or justify different ideas, I'd say it's appropriate to have two separate ones.  If they duplicate each other or the same info can be justified by a single reference, then I'd say use a single reference.  As is, I'd say the use of two references isn't violating WP:WEIGHT as they're refs rather than links.  Perhaps a better solution would be to expand the 'reflexology positive' aspects of the article if reliable sources can be found.  WLU 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking through the references more closely, the larger problem seems to be the Barrett article does not justify the statement it is appended to.  I'm removing the statement wholesale since I can't find accusations of pseudoscience or anything to justify the crystal stuff.  WLU 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed, though now I'd like to put the quackwatch link back in the EL section - there's five links to reflexology governing bodies, one to skepdic, and one to intellihealth which isn't so much critical as just a review of the evidence.  WLU 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight issue 

message: Removal of the "reflexology as pseudoscience" paragraph seems an improvement: a quick google suggests that the majority of its practitioners present it quite specifically as an "alternative" or "complementary" therapy, not as a science or science-derivative.
However having a "criticism" section at all is problematic here, I think. The article needs both factual information, referenced to supporting evidence, and also the subjective opinion of critics, referenced to a statement of those opinions. But having a specific "criticism" section is tending to blur that distinction - it's unclear whether its contents are being presented as fact, or as the views of the technique's detractors. I think clarity would be greatly aided by distributing any criticisms throughout the article, where they can lend contextual balance to the specifics being criticised.
Also, is there some doubt over the authorhsip of the referenced article (1)? Author is listed as William T. Jarvis, but it contains the sentence "Ferris agreed to conduct a trial of reflexology's theory under Jarvis's direction." Is he one of those folks who refer to themselves in the 3rd person? Organica 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferris and Jarvis are two different persons. -- Fyslee / talk 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the criticism section seems superfluous. The concerns outlined are actually already stated at the end of the introduction, so I think it's safe to remove the entire section. --Skeptic za (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criticism section is appropriate. Since it's not one or two elements of reflexology that are being criticized, but, rather, the entire process that's being debunked, a criticism section is fair. ask123 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: There is nothing wrong with keeping the images here. They are presented with the clear caveat that the whole practice of reflexology may have no benefit and that the theories it is based on are likely false. It is quite clear that what the images represent is not proven. The whole practice of reflexology is not proven. That has been said many times. Now we want to see what the practitioners are claiming it is. ask123 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures are helpful, it'd be nice to have a non-duplicate picture.  How about one of someone getting a foot massage?  WLU (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put images back in