Talk:Reflexology

Sceptical slant

I have no problem with the sceptical slant in the article, but aren't there guidelines advising against the use of the word "claim"? "Reflexologists claim..." etc.

Also, there used to be studies cited in the article that supported the therapeutic benefits - I'm not sure why they were removed, as they were reliable sources. I'll try and put them back in at appropriate points; although I object to the scepticism (which is pretty harsh) I don't want to make it POV the other way.

Has this article ever been neutral? Large sections have been cut since last time I was here, and the rest has been made a bit useless. Lottie (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that, overall, this is a rather poor article, I must say that I don't have a problem with there being a skeptical slant. Sure, there could be more historical info about reflexology, better graphic(?), and grammatical/syntax cleanup. But I think its fair, considering the non-scientific approach taken by reflexologists in general. Any article medical claim that is not supported by empirical data MUST have some skeptical viewpoint, in my opinion. Full disclosure: I am not a believer, but I do know the value of a good foot massage :) Messiahxi (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's hard to be encyclopaedic about something like this without dropping "claim" in every so often, not to mention Wikipedia:GEVAL. Stuff like "you can manipulate vital energy by manipulation of specific parts of the body, particularly feet" is just unsupportable - there's no meter that you can use to detect the energy being manipulated. You can test the results of doing it and it might have an effect or it might not but the actual, this-is-how-reflexology-works is without our ken. Everyone is relying on the hunches of other people for why it might work and that needs "Reflexologists claim" --86.167.24.242 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The skeptical slant, as commenters are calling it, needs to stay in this entry. For unproven therapies such as reflexology, it is completely impossible to fully discuss it without the article sounding skeptical, given that reflexology is pure bullshit. Of course, someone could give the article a credulous tone, but that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention the fact you would have to ignore every single scientific study on reflexology.74.138.45.132 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are commenting on a very old discussion. Long story short: WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS both apply here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been a lot of medical research in the years since this article has been debated. I will begin posting the updated information from my textbook. Lindsay Culbert (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this thread dates from 2008-2013 (new posts are at the bottom of this page). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Mostly this skepticism is not based on relevant evidence. Some old research papers where reflexology was performed by untrained staff without reflexologists as consultants named. Based mainly on this religious professor and partially on this "science writer and author" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambros Stravelakis (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the section you are commenting on. You are responding to very old comments saying that the section was very old and new discussion should not be added. You cannot continue a discussion that has been dead for nearly a decade. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Found" vs. "claimed" (v pedantic, I know!)

Not so long ago, Adam changed an edit of mine. I don't mean to be aggressive or anything, I'd hate for there to be an edit war, but this is how it goes and I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks. This is from the History section of the main article.

Reflexology was introduced to the United States in 1913 by William H. Fitzgerald, M.D. (1872-1942), an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and Dr. Edwin Bowers. Fitzgerald claimed that applying pressure had an anesthetic effect on other areas of the body.

I changed the word "claimed" to "found", as he did some studies into it (long ago!) and a citation is provided. Personally I would like to see the study repeated under very unbiased conditions, but I'll never get the funding...

Adam changed it, with the comment: "It's not demonstrated that it does have an effect." I'm puzzled as to why his work was not a demonstration? If it's the citation that's the problem, perhaps it could be removed and a cite tag added.

If people think this is too pedantic then I'm happy to drop it - I'm all for scepticism with this subject but it's easy to go too far in either POV direction and I think it's important to avoid POV words at all costs.

Thanks in advance! Lottie (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (2)

Is Reflexology a confirmed "pseudoscience" in terms of what we require at Wikipedia as mandated by WP:PSCI? IOW, are there strong reliable sources which verify that the scientific community generally considers Reflexology to be a pseudoscience? If not, per my understanding of WP:PSCI, we cannot stick the article in the Pseudoscience category. That being said, if there are reliable sources which support some critic's opinion that Reflexology is a pseudoscience, then that can be included in the article as long as it is stated to be the critic's opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if the medical community sees it as not trying to be scientific, there won't be any material that says it's a pseudoscience. It's tricky. Thanks though - I'm talking to Fyslee and WLU about it. More people should post bits here too. Lottie (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't force people to post unfortunately. Though I've edited the page, it's not one of my central interest areas. The best thing that could possibly happen Lottiotta, is if you could muster every source you have or can find about Reflexology, try to figure out if they're reliable or not, and gut the page, replacing all the unreferenced stuff with valuable, referenced material. However, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and textbooks published by academic press. I don't think reflexology has had much study by these groups. Failing that, you could try for newspaper articles, but not random websites. WP:MEDRS is a good page to look at as well, it details the most esteemed sources that are the only ones appropriate for medical articles. If reflexology is seen and promoted as a valid form of treatment, pseudoscience may be appropriate if it's never been demonstrated as efficacious, if there's no coherent theory, or if it mis-uses or mis-represents actual science in order to justify it's practices. For me it comes down to 'is there any reason to think that rubbing the feet will help any other part of the body, particularly non musculo-skeletal parts?' If reflexologists assert that there is, but they're not backed up by evidence, it's a pseudoscience. Also, the page on pseudoscience might be surprisingly helpful. WLU (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By wikipedia's standards, I'd say that it doesn't meet the threshold for being characterized as pseudoscience. Basically, our standards here are what the sources say, and I don't think there are any from large, reputable scientific or skeptical bodies which characterize it as such. If there are sources from individual critics alleging this, that information could be included if it's notable, but that isn't enough for us to simply say it's pseudoscience. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the only thing scientific compilation of evidence about reflexology says is that more study is needed to confirm the good results of the study. The only people that say that it is confirmed that it is a hoax or a pseudoscience are religion affiliated ("professors" of religious non-universities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambros Stravelakis (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are commenting in a section that has been stale for over a decade. If you have issues with the current content of the article, please discuss it by replying to a recent related discussion or starting a new topic at the bottom of the page.

(Incidentally, your off-hand dismissal of all of the sources as originating from "religious non-universities" is simply not true.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

there are 3 categories of "fringe theories" in wp. Pseudoscience, Questionable Science, and Alternative theoretical formulations. Since the European Parliament and the WTO (among other bodies) study reflexology it cannot be named a pseudoscience. Naming it a "questionable science" is literal, reflexology has a large following and it is referred by many as a pseudoscience and you can see in the links of the previous paragraph there is genuine academic debate. I think though that questionable science in not 100% according to the rules of WP. It should be an "alternative theoretical stimulation". We do not know the mechanism it works - we have only small scale studies with fMRIs etc. And there is a large body of small scale studies with good results in many areas, especially palliative care. 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambros Stravelakis (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The European parliament does not decide what is science and what is not. Neithr does the WHO. The scientific community does.

Reflexology is called a pseudoscience in reliable sources. If you disagree with them, tough luck. If you want your opinion in the article, you need to find a reliable scientific source that agrees with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm still not sure why to are so married to the idea of adding to a very old discussion.

Reflexology is not called a "questionable science", an "alternative theoretical stimulation", a subject of "genuine academic debate" or anything else its believers may want to think it is. Why don't we call it any of these things? Because independent reliable sources don't use these phrases.

Independent reliable sources -- those meeting the criteria outlined at WP:MEDRS -- say that reflexology is based on pseudoscience, and there is no convincing evidence that reflexology is effective for any medical condition.

A systematic review of randomly controlled trials delivered by trained reflexologists to patients with specific medical conditions reviewed by a professor at Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth published in a peer reviewed journal is not from a psudeo-academics from "religious non-universities".[2] (Medical Journal of Australia has a current impact score of 5.332.)

Where you got the idea that William T. Jarvis is a "religious professor" is beyond me. Ph.D in health education, former professor of preventive medicine at Loma Linda University, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud and adviser to the American Council on Science and Health doesn't boil down to "religious professor". Yes, Loma Linda has a religious affiliation. It is, however, fully accredited and well-respected. Further, publication in a well-regarded, peer reviewed journal pretty much defines the gold standard for a reliable source. Your own source found "numerous systematic reviews confirmed that strong evidence of the positive effects of reflexology postintervention are lacking".[3]

Reflexology is a fringe theory making biomedical claims. Systemic reviews are the gold standard. I can see no reasonable argument that reflexology is not a fringe thoery. It is based on pseudoscientific theories and "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been referred to you on the subject of Pseudoscience...

[This section was started by Lottie on my talk page and is now copied here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

... and having read through some of your talk page, I can see why! I was having a bit of a discussion at my (and WLU's) talk page, about whether Reflexology is a pseudoscience. Two options. 1: It's not, because it never claimed to be scientific, or 2: It is, because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. If you don't mind getting involved, what d'you reckon? Thanks. :) Lottie (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what your interest is on the subject? Are you a user, practitioner, skeptic, etc.? It doesn't make any real difference to me, as I can cooperate with people on either side of the "skeptical fence". It's just nice to know people's background. -- Fyslee / talk 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a practitioner, I've been trying to make the article on Reflexology NPOV but it's hard work. I'm trying to be really careful not to edit it into oblivion, and I don't want to make it seem like the article is promoting it as effective or dissing it as bunkum. I think part of that is establishing whether or not it actually is a pseudoscience, and saying so... Lottie (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Lottie. Keep trying for an NPOV article. When it has V & RS that make claims it's effective and make claims it's bunkum, then you may well have arrived! It's a controversial subject and the article should show that controversy. I believe it's a pseudoscience because it makes some claims that are falsifiable, others that aren't, makes wrong anatomical and pathological claims, and fails to adhere to the scientific method. That's my opinion. What is your position on the matter? -- Fyslee / talk 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My position is a little bit wobbly. I've never really been shown proper scientific evidence that it can find illnesses and make people feel better - on the other hand, as a practitioner I've had many people tell me how much better it made them feel (especially with hormonal problems and pain management). I have a few theories as to how it helps, but they're not exactly proven with the scientific method...

When I was being taught the techniques, never was I told that reflexology could diagnose problems, nor was I told that it was medically... erm... correct? I'm not sure of the right word. On the contrary, we were told that our practice was in no way medical or scientific, and that we could not indicate that the imbalances found in the foot correlated to illnesses, nor could we claim to cure people. It was made clear that reflexology was a relaxing therapy that has roots in Chinese meridian theory and that some people believe in that and find it to be helpful.

So I'm of the opinion that as it's not trying to scientific, to cure people or to diagnose anything other than undetectable energy imbalances, it's not pseudoscience. I think my logic here fits with the wikipedia article on pseudoscience - Pseudoscience may be defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but... Well, it doesn't in my experience. I suppose some people try to make it appear scientific to give it credibility, which may be where the problems come in... I think it must basically be down to individual experience and training, which varies a lot.

Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. If it's okay, could I please paste your answer into the talk page subject? I think the more views we have, the better. Another idea that's been put forward is that we can't say it's a pseudoscience unless we have a reliable source to back it up, which makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?

Thanks again! Lottie (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[The content above is from my talk page. We can continue below.]

I suspect that the approach you were taught was an attempt to "fly under the radar" (by refraining from making falsifiable claims that get proven false), since in some countries the practice of reflexology gets dangerously close to practicing medicine without a license. By refraining from making medical and scientific claims, practitioners can get away with performing innocent relaxation therapy. I know that Reflexology can be very relaxing, and that can help some things like tension headaches and stress related matters. It generally does make claims regarding anatomy, pathology, and abilities to heal. There should be plenty of sources on that. We can safely ignore the obligatory disclaimers at the bottom of website pages which state the opposite of what the websites actually do. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are V & RS that claim it is a pseudoscience, and they could be used. -- Fyslee / talk 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where would I find these medically accepted V & RS? And does anyone know of any sources that say reflexology does work as often described? I suppose reputable medical people have better medicine to test than holistic stuff like reflexology... Thanks, Lottie (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given what Lottie has said, I'd say that pseudoscience might be inappropriate, though does it get an alt. med category instead? However, if they can be sourced, Lottie's statements about it not being desinged to diagnose or treat should definitely be given due weight to indicate it's not really a medical practice. Alternative medicine might itself be too strong, since it doesn't portray itself as a medical procedure used to diagnose or treat. Perhaps Category:Massage might be best. As for sources, you can't get much more 'reflexology is pseudoscience and practitioners should be beaten with sticks' than quackwatch, though it's a controversial site regards being used as a source. Overall, given your statements above, it might be best to simply start editing the page to add sources and information; problematic statements can be weeded out, tagged or reworked rather than trying to establish a NPOV from the talk page before any editing. WLU (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lottie, I agree with you. Why should this have to fit into Western science and its parameters about what it will accept and what it won't accept. If people from the East have benefitted from having the meridian points of their feet stimulated for millennia, what business is of it of Western science that has yet to discover, mainly because it hasn't looked, the existence of chi energy? I'm wondering - I haven't checked yet, but I will - whether the kind of negativity reflected on this page is also played out on the acupuncture page, or the ayurvedic page? These are both perfectly respectable health systems that have practised in the East for thousands of years, and long before Western science started drawing its parameters around what it will accept as 'scientific' and what it won't.

5 mins later - OK, have now checked and the acupuncture page is in much better shape in terms of objectivity, and the history section is a great improvement on this one too.

Ishtar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.21.36 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fit into the western science and its parameters? Just because people have been using something for many years, doesn't mean it works, look up the placebo effect. And it has "looked" at the existence of chi energy, and realized its a bunch of bullshit with no evidence behind it. They are NOT respectable health systems, they haven't cured a single serious disease....ever. And the fact that they've been practiced for thousands of years means jack shit, it can't be verified, despite much testing, so it doesn't work. Western science will never discover chi energy, for the same reason it won't discover fairies and unicorns. Keep going to your reflexologist, but the second you get an actual disease, I hope you're at least not stupid enough to think "alternative" medicine will help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.115.142 (talk • contribs)

Reputable/Reliable studies

So, I'm having a look at a couple of websites that WP:MEDRS says is okay - namely BMJ.com and Medscape.com. Although I'm not finding much on the pseudoscience front (see above!) I'm finding the odd study on the efficacy of reflexology, here and there.

I'm just wondering how they fit into the article? I think I might make a new section for them, just to say "this source found that reflexology was/wasn't effective in this area", and bung in some of the articles from the above sites as sources.

Most notable so far: Reflexology made no difference---statistically or clinically---to the experience of pain, altered bowel habit, or abdominal distension (British Journal of General Practice 2002;52:19-23). BMJ.com article Minerva

Another trial, involving 55 women, compared reflexology with rest. Reflexology significantly reduced the symptoms associated with oedema (reduction in symptoms: RR 9.09, 95% CI 1.41 to 58.54). There was no evidence of significant difference in the women's satisfaction and acceptability with either intervention (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 39.11). Medscape.com article Interventions for varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy

Although all patients greatly enjoyed the treatments, there was no discernible difference in outcome between those receiving reflexology and those receiving standard foot massage. The pilot study was small (only 17 patients), but it was clear that large numbers of patients would be required to prove the null hypothesis and we decided not to proceed. BMJ.com article Research in complementary medicine is essential

All the participants in a controlled trial of reflexology for people with asthma felt better during the trial (Respiratory Medicine 2001;95:173-9). Symptoms improved by about the same amount in both groups---treatment with real or simulated reflexology for 10 weeks ... It's likely that patients were more compliant with drug treatment during the trial. BMJ.com article Minerva

A nurse reflexologist taught partners how to perform reflexology on patients with metastatic cancer pain in the hospital, resulting in an immediate decrease in pain intensity and anxiety; minimal changes were seen in the control group, who received usual care plus attention. Medline article Partner-delivered reflexology: effects on cancer pain and anxiety

^Note the above study compares reflexology to "reading sessions", a control only an idiot would use. Comparing reflexology to regular foot massages shows no difference, comparing reflexology to anything else means little. If he compared partners giving foot massages to partners giving reflexology, the results would be pretty predictable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.115.142 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

PMS treatment: The reflexology study applied pressure to actual reflex points on the ears, hands, and feet and compared the response with application to incorrect reflex points as the control. The group receiving the "true" reflexology treatment improved more than the control group. [http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408913_3 Medscape.com article Evaluating and Managing Premenstrual Syndrome]

Lottie (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflexology page needs sraping and starting from scratch

Hi further to the various comments regarding [1] I think it is important to recognise that there is some research out there on reflexology published in respectable journals and throwing some light on the arguements of how reflexology works and what it can work on. I - as you can see by my name - upfront- believe in reflexology and follow research in this area. I will include the references to the articles so you can go and read them yourselves- this is how you should comment on research - not simply by rehashing someone elses comments as in the Minerva quote. The BMJ was never going to be particularly unbiased in reporting CAM research. However, I admit that this particular piece of evidence did show a negative result - but it was not a reasonable test of the treatment - long term, 'having failed all else' IBS patients were unlikely to be treatable in 6 half hour treatments. Its like giving two paracetamol amd expecting long term Migraines to dissapate. ''''A single-blind trial of reflexology for irritable bowel syndrome. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE Tovey, P,2002 VOL 52; JAN; ISSUE 474 , page(s) 19-23 I can provide other studies that have a positive outcome should anyone care to go and read them?''

However, those with a particular interest in the method of action need to be aware of the newly published research in the esteemed journal Neuroscience Letters that not only show a link between the foot and the brain but that link is specific to the area thus labelled by the reflexologist. So if there is stimulation of the left hand foot eye reflexology point, the area of the brain that is responsive to the tactile (touch) stimulation of the eye or neighbouring area responds in the left brain. This speicificity was repeatable with a different reflex point, although further work is required for sure. Somatotopical relationships between cortical activity, reflex areas in reflexology: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study Neuroscience Letters,Tomomi Nakamaru, Naoki Miura, Ai Fukushima and Ryuta Kawashima, Volume 448, Issue 1, 19 December 2008, Pages 6-9

It would suggest that there are links between the feet and specific areas of the brain that are responsible for specific bodily areas. Whomever came up with the idea that reflexology is pleasurable due to the foot being close to the genitals in the brain (in the archive) should be aware that this research was based on Penfields Homunculus and shows activation nowhere near that area. This confirms other work carried out with fMRI on acupuncture.

While I understand the concept of NPOV and not wanting bias, I think that sometimes this can be taken to extremes the other way and while I would not expect a reflexology organisation to be listed I would also not expect a quackbusting organisation either. There are reflexologists that can work form a scientifc perspective, I myself have a BSc and I can provide more evidence published in peer reviewed journals that reflexology has an effect. Much of that that has been put on these pages come from general understanding rather than evidence, and that is both a weakness and a criticism of the reflexology info and the comments about it.(Admittedbeliever (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admittedbeliever (talk • contribs)

Firstly there is somewhat of a problem with this approach "I can provide other studies that have a positive outcome should anyone care to go and read them?" just as there would be a problem with specifically searching for studies with negative outcomes. Studies should be selected based on methodological quality, not outcome. I would suggest only controlled trials including a sham treatment group with at least some attempt at blinding should be included. Even this is problematic, however, as this relies on wikipedians evaluating the quality of the studies. It would be better to find a systematic review of the area and cite that instead if one is available.

I wouldn't really consider Neuroscience Letters a highly esteemed journal. Even they say that they expedite the peer review process by reducing the number of reviewers but that's beside the point really. Anyway, I have a few problems with their data analysis; "Furthermore, to remove false-positive activation in the statistical testing of each subtraction image, we excluded the voxels that did not reach the level of significance using task versus task contrast (e.g., eye − shoulder) from each statistical test of the subtraction image... The statistical threshold of each activation map was set at p < 0.05 [corrected for multiple comparison using family-wise error (FWE) [6] T.E. Nichols and S. Hayasaka, Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review, Stat. Method Med. Res. 12 (2003), pp. 419–446. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (104)[6] by voxel level." It seems they removed any non significant data points and subsequently controlled for the problem of multiple comparisons (see familywise error rate) based on the number of comparisons they had left with all the non significant points removed. If this is correct, then they did it wrong and inflated the type I error rate as a result. The correction for multiple comparisons should be based on the total number of comparisons performed not just the number of significant points.

There results are hardly without reservation too "Therefore, our results indicate that sensory stimulation of the reflex area corresponding to the SI was related to a tactile sensation of the trunk. In addition, its perception was not necessarily limited to visceral sensation and may include cutaneous sensation in the trunk. Furthermore, these activation clusters from the eye-specific and SI-specific contrasts were located in the left hemisphere, generally meaning that tactile information came from the right side of the body." I hardly think that this is proof and I could speculate as to other ways that these results could have occurred eg strong force on the middle of the foot (the activation point for the small intestine) could compress the trunk resulting in the aforementioned pattern of activation whereas pushing firmly on the top edge of the foot would have produced more of a shearing force which could effect the position of the shoulder. At most all the evidence shows is the areas in question received some sort of sensory input at that time.

There is undoubtedly going to be debate about my review of the article which I hope illustrates the need for secondary sources. Please feel free, however, to post any peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of reflexology here. The article does need some better citations. JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reflexology was presented at the National Lymphedema Conference in Boston, US in October of 2019. It was given respect due the recent success and measurable outcomes coming from using Sally Kay's Reflexology Lymphatic Drainage protocols with lymphedema patients. https://www.reflexologylymphdrainage.co.uk/research.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflextherapist (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

External links

Please read our External links guidelines before adding more external links. I just removed a few which don't meet our guidelines, or were added for purposes that aren't in harmony with why we have this encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Body reflexology

There's a one-use account, User:Body reflexology, who keeps trying to create a Body reflexology how-to page, which I changed to a redirect to this page. Please review the information he/she's adding in this diff [4] and see if any of it should be added to this page, or if it should remain a redirect. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New user User:LWD1234 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added the following material. I've reverted and moved it here for further discussion just in case there's a WP:MEDRS in there somewhere. LeadSongDog come howl 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reflexology has shown to impact hundreds of physical weaknesses including (but not limited to) abdominal pain, Acne , Arthritis , Bedwetting , Cancer , Cardiopathy , Cerebal Palsy , Diabetes , Ear Disorders , Gallstones , Headache , Hypertension , Hypothyroidism , Infertility , Lupus , and Urinary Problems .

As far as I know reflexology has never been referred to as "body reflexology" it may be a language issue. But the research is real. And the effects are real. I am a licensed acupuncturist and have studied this so I am familiar with the concepts. Redbaronesse (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Redbaronesse

Definition for reflexology

Definition for reflexology with a citation any objecitons? Reflexology is the physical act of applying pressure to the feet and hand with specific thumb, finger and hand techniques without the use of oil or lotion. it is based on a system of zones and reflex areas that reflect an image of the body on the feet and hands with a premise that such work effects a physical change to the body. (The Complete Guide to Foot Reflexology (Third Edition) by Barbara and Kevin Kunz)02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusella dawn (talk • contribs)

FOR EXAMPLE "According to ...... Reflexology is the application of pressure to any part of the body's periphery (including feet, hands, ears and face) to re-balance the 'energy flow' in a another part of the body. Stimulation is applied using hands or tools, with or without oil and according to specified maps which reflect the entire body. There are many school and types of reflexology and, as a consequence, there is much debate regarding its mechanisms and effectiveness and recognition."

If only we could agree upon a 'RELIABLE SOURCE' apparently my teachers' book, the UK association of Reflexology or USA Association of Reflexologist are insufficient. I'm stumped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

More References Needed?

Since 2007, this article has been tagged because it lacked a good amount of sources and references. However, it has about 15 at the moment, and given the size of the article, I believe that is a decent number. Should we remove the "needs more references" tag? Gadev (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. {{citation needed}} where indicated should suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly this article is horrible and obviously written by someone who knows nothing of TCM theories or medical licensing issues. It is poorly written. You should change the needs more references to needs real references and get rid of the skeptic's comments because it can be easily proven that there IS science and research backing reflexology. refer to any of my comments above to find the research. I will gladly act as a consultant on a re-write. Redbaronesse (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)redbaronesse

If you believe there is substantial evidence contrary to what the article says, please present reliable sources demonstrating such. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Horrible. I would love to contribute. Please get in touch with people who live and work with reflexology... it could be of huge benefit not only to wikipedia but the WORLD. User - Helentblack15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV tag on the article, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for a sentence, and clarify the issue(s) here. This will help address problems. - RoyBoy 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert

Thank you to wikipedia for the honest struggle to represent useful knowledge. I would like to talk about this article. Just to let you know, I am a reflexologist. But I don't subscribe to the energy talk out there. The reflex arc works perfectly fine on its own. Yesterday, I added info about the 30 years of research done by a surgeon in Barcelona, Spain. It was undone possibly because I did not go through the right process. I am glad to see that this is a high importance subject.Mkwalton (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor who reverted your edit said, "changes appear to place too much emphasis to one in universe source". I'm not sure exactly what that means.

I would have reverted the edit as well (maybe we have the same reason?). While you don't "subscribe to the energy talk", most reflexologists apparently do. For fringe topics, such as this, we aim to "(summarize) significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". Basically, we need to summarize the widely held beliefs of those who accept reflexology (that some mysterious "energy" somehow connects individual locations on the feet to various organs and that massage of those spots somehow addresses supposed "blockages" in this energy) and mainstream science's take (no sign that any of this is in anyway true). I don't doubt that there are other takes on reflexology. I know a woman who "feels" that the energy is the "universal energy" supposedly channeled in reiki. I'm sure there are others. However, we do not present minority opinions at all when the minority is small and need to appropriately weight the opinions we do present based on prominence. If you have other sources positing that reflexology works through some other method than the beliefs presented here, please present them here. The one source you presented, however, is not sufficient to up-end the entire article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Claim it is not pseudoscience

This article is a shame, and incredibly biased. Reflexology is not a myth or some kind of pseudoscience. We now know that electricity travels through nerves, so there is your "Qi" or "invisible life force" ... yeah, you can't see the electricity in your body. When you apply pressure you are adding energy which can help the body to heal and repair. The importance of touch for humans and other animals to life and well-being is well-documented and scientifically conclusive. I warn "skeptics" against sabotaging information sources for others simply because the "skeptic" doesn't understand. Are you saying that a foot massage does not feel good? ... Are you saying nerves do not end in the feet? I don't understand the source of the skepticism, I only see a lack of abstract thinking preventing the author(s) from realizing that reflexology pre-dates modern 'Western' medicine, and so it has relic terminology like "invisible life force" when what they are in-fact referring to is the flow of electricity through the nerves and neuro-chemicals flowing through the blood. Today we say "electricity" since we know all about ATP and all these wonderful things that the advent of microscopes and myriad other innovations since the ancient days, but you know what they had back then? Their bodies, and their ability to sense and perceive. I do not understand the skepticism here in the least, and I think it is a dangerous endeavor to run around Wikipedia censoring real information from those who seek it, simply because your mind cannot fathom the simple connection between stimulating nerve endings sending signals back up through the body and into the brain ... all in microseconds... it is amazing! The Reflexology page should be about reflexology, not some pedantic misunderstanding of what it is, steering people away from a simple and natural remedy to gunked-up bodies that are over-stressed and over-sedentary. What point is there in learning all this science if the world is not an amazing place where wonderful things really can be just so simple ... Qi is the electricity your body generates through chemical reactions from the food you eat. It's that plain and simple. There was "something" keeping us alive, and the Chinese gave it a name, and it is literally an invisible life-force: electricity. How many other things in science are non-visible to your naked eye, yet you accept them as scientific gospel ... Next you'll be gutting the page about black holes, because you can't see them, and nobody can tell you exactly what they are. Have a little responsibility when you engage in a community like this. If you're a skeptic of reflexology, there can surely be a section on that, but to steer the entire article towards claiming it's all hokum? I came here to learn more about reflexology, not for the implied insult that I'm dumb for looking up reflexology. I think religion is ridiculous but I don't go to the page about "God" and type about how nobody seems to be able to explain it. I have respect for the fact that there are things that I know I know, and there are things that I know that I don't know, but that there are also things that I don't know that I don't know. This is where the "skeptics" on reflexology are... they don't even know that they don't know, or what it is that they don't know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.90.136 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Qi" is -- after all this time -- electricity traveling through nerves. Good luck with that. In any case, please review WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We do not report fringe claims (such as reflexology or the hundreds of competing claims) as fact. We report what reliable, third-party, published sources say to accurately reflect current medical knowledge. If systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies do not share your view, the best we can offer you is citing those sources saying, essentially, that this is pseudoscience. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This makes me want to laugh and cry... I am a Facial Reflexologist and am disallowed from creating a page about facial reflexology and dien chan - developed over 35 years ago and a well recognised method in the East as one of THE fastest treatments for pain. How can you know? The best way is to just come and try it... How will you know about it? Well certainly not through the 'for the people, by the people' resource I believe wikipedia to be. I don't speak or read Vietnamese, I don't know how to 'reliably source' something that the mainstream has no interest in discussing... I HOPE THIS can be seen and read. Multireflexology is perhaps what somebody else has tried to reference as 'body reflexology' is a therapy that could revolutionise healthcare... i guess you'll just have to read about it some place else. Really , really a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reflexology was presented at the National Lymphedema Conference in Boston, US in October of 2019. It was given respect due the recent success and measurable outcomes coming from using Sally Kay's Reflexology Lymphatic Drainage protocols with lymphedema patients. https://www.reflexologylymphdrainage.co.uk/research.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflextherapist (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Reflextherapist, that's not an independent source. Has any of this been reported in any sources that would pass WP:MEDRS? That's what would be needed to support any sort of claim of success or measurable outcome. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ingham/Norman

"Modern reflexologists use Ingham's methods, or similar techniques developed by the reflexologist Laura Norman."[4]This statement is not true. Dwight Byers, developed the Ingham Method of Reflexology with his Aunt, Eunice Ingham, and has made this his trademark business over the past 70 years, teaching and developing advanced techniques of reflexology. Laura Norman was a student of Dwight Byers, and attended the International Institute of Reflexology, which Dwight Byers is the president. This article does not give a valad explanation of the benefits of Reflexology. (LittleWho3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.117.84 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have RS for this information? We can't include or mention it without such sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch reliability

Quackwatch is RS for quackery and fraud. See WP:RS/N Archive 32 Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery Jim1138 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also currently under discussion in WT:MEDRS#Is Quackwatch a reliable source? Jim1138 (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be making a statement that QW is a blanket RS. Is this a correct representation of your statement?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My read of what Jim1138 said is that it is a reliable source for calling out quackery and fraud. This is clearly supported by the discussions linked. WP:FRINGE applies. The Reflexology Handbook, A Complete Guide is cited as an in-universe source for the idea that the bump on your foot should be rubbed to deal with your ringing ears (as opposed to straightening a curve in your spine, sticking needles in your shoulder or channeling universal energy through hands that are kinda near you). WP:MEDRS sources don't discuss which section of your hand is connected to your spleen. WP:PARITY allows "critiques gleaned...from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed." - SummerPhD (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My own interpretation of what others are saying is that QW should only be used for cases of WP:Parity, its use should be sparing, and the reliability is dependent on context and should be judged on a case-by-case basis.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of article where Quackwatch is suitable for use. It should not "only" be used for WP:PARITY, that is a misinterpretation of what others have said. It can be used for WP:PARITY, and is reliable for discussion of pseudoscientific health claims, especially in articles such as this one. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:SummerPhD Please could you put your edits back into the temporal order in which they were made. Thank you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reflexologist new to Wiki

This is a very shoddy article. I have just spent valuable time contributing to have it deleted. Do you want to know what reflexology is or do you want to use this page to dismiss and discredit it??? I am very disappointed. This should be a place for open minds and for learning. I will no spend hours of my time fighting for this, I have treatments to give and classes to teach. It would be a huge shame for such a wonderful resource to go to waste.Helen —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As a reflexologist you appear to have a Conflict of Interest many of the citations such as the one from The Journal of Complementary Therapies in Medicine are not considered Reliable Sources for making these types of medical claims. The article currently does explain what reflexology is, and current scientific opinion is that it should be dismissed and discredited. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then how come the page for chinese medicine is so full and available??? The current western medical perspective is that that is 'quackery' also. Ridiculous. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION. The fact that I am a reflexologist has not affected the neutrality of my explanation - personally I have my own more developed understanding of the function. Let the 'general definition' be displayed to the public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies on reliable sources, the process is explained, however the medical claims of reflexology have not been verified (unless you have a reliable source - see WP:MEDRS) that is able to show otherwise. As you put it freedom of information - if you want to start a blog or a website that explains what you believe the benefits of reflexology you can go ahead and do so, you still have freedom of information. What people are not able to do is add unsourced, or poorly sourced medical claims in Wikipedia. VViking_TalkEdits 14:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, I utterly respect the need for 'reliability' but behaviour on this page is pedantic... Take the Traditional Chinese Medicine Wiki page for example... a number of sources which do not meet these requirements have been allowed. Shame. I do no have time to find a source which convinces skeptics. This is a loss for the site of an important alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Helenblack15: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think sources in the TCM article don't meet WP:MEDRS, you can discuss and/or remove. You can also post to WT:MED to get other opinions on the sources you're using. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hah! I am not here to delete, I cam here to contribute. What a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenblack15 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been in discussions very similar to this before. Currently, the academic consensus is that this is, essentially, a highly evolved system based on a fundamentally flawed central premise. We report it as such. Please see User:SummerPhDv2.0/Fringe for some approaches you might take here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Canada

in the following, the link is dead and the other sentence is unsourced. moving here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN, please only store with reliable sourcing.

In Canada, reflexology is not regulated in any province and the expenses incurred are not eligible as medical claims for income taxes. RAC, the Reflexology Association of Canada, has reflexology therapists in all provinces, but there are various other associations in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Zone therapy

Zone therapy currently redirects here, but there is no section on this specific type of reflexology. Zone therapy is a simple therapy wherein the body is divided by vertical lines into five zones on the left side and five zones on the right side. The primary areas of treatment are the fingers and toes, with each digit corresponding to a different zone on the body as seen here, here, and more precisely here. 75.145.77.185 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think that the article is deficient, you can propose some new content. If you would like to do that, you can propose edits with relevant sources here on the talk page. Be aware that any assertions relating to biomedical information need to be sources according to WP:MEDRS. Please do take a look at the information about sourcing - the websites hosting the images you linked do not meet WP:RS or WP:MEDRS, and so would not be usable. Girth Summit (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I recognize that these sources won't hold up to scrutiny, and I don't mean to make any claims as to its actual efficacy, as I hold no stake in that race. I just think there should be a description of what Zone therapy is or specifically how it differs from "standard" reflexology. 75.145.77.185 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit of context here: Reflexology ("zone therapy" or otherwise) is a WP:FRINGE topic; it is an "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." This does not mean that we don't summarize it.

Supporters say you can diagnose and/or treat medical conditions throughout the body by looking at/massaging the hands and/or feet. Reliable sources say this is patently absurd, so we say that. If supporters make claims that reliable sources do not discuss, we don't discuss them either. MEDRS sources come in if we are reporting that it does anything at all impacting the body.

With zone therapy, I think we're a bit beyond that. Reliable sources discuss that there are people who believe in reflexology, reiki, faked Moon landings, a flat Earth, etc., so we report on those. Reliable sources have little to nothing to say about people who believe reiki can be used for time travel or that the Moon is populated by lizardmen who secretly rule the world, so we have nothing to say about those things.

If independent reliable sources discuss zone therapy in depth, we should report on it (see WP:WEIGHT though). If coverage of zone therapy is limited to believers, we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Definition, again

In the beginning of the article there is a reference[2] to the book The Complete Guide to Foot Reflexology. I don't have access to the 1993 edition, but it came out in 3 revision in 2010. I took a look at the definition there, and is seems like what is referred in the text here is not accurate. In the article the text is referred without saying it is a definition, it looks more like a general description. But in the book it is expressed as a definition.

A bit further down in the article there is a section labeled "Definition". This section is referring to a Cochrane paper[4], with the main author Caroline A Smith. There are no references to where this definition comes from, in this paper. The author is not a know reflexologist. I have tried to contact her by email to figure out this, but got no response. Not very scientific. Is this good enough for Wikipedia? The Reflexology article thereby have two definitions. Is that a good thing?

Within the reflexology society it seems like most authors and organisations have their own definition, or "definition", of reflexology. Then why is these two definitions used in this article? Pure coincidence?

Would it not be better that the article states that there is a wide variety how reflexology is defined? Maybe this variety should be illustrated. Are there any work on trying to make a more generally accepted definition?

Blindvei (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We must stick to independent sources and avoid using "in-universe" definitions. We are concerned with how the mainstream views reflexology, not without how it views itself. Alexbrn (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Cochrane source seems fine. —PaleoNeonate – 01:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion from what you say Alexbrn, is that the thing that makes you qualified to be referred in Wikipedia is that you are unqualified in the subject you say something about. The reference [2] should be deleted, because that comes from "in-universe". What is wrong with telling that there are no "one definition" for reflexology? The definition from the Cochrane paper says "gentle" and "on certain parts of the foot". Does that mean that people that claim to do reflexology, but do it hard or on other parts of the body, are wrong? Since most people claiming to do reflexology falls into this category, is not this worth mention in this article?

Blindvei (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no proper reflexology qualifications, at least from a medicine standpoint; who would the experts be if not the sources meeting WP:MEDRS? Were your multiple definitions concerns addressed by Alexbrn's recent edits? If you have other sources and definition quotes this is an excellent place to suggest them too. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blindvei: I personally am not a source for a definition of reflexology, but we have sources that are high quality (i.e. reputable & independent). Wikipedia reflects such sources. That's kind of the point of an encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this will be a long discussion. To try to illustrate where to us an internal reference and where to use an external reference I will tell a story. Person A invents a therapy that gets the name Switcholoty. According to A, this therapy only involve manipulating the nose of the client, and there are wires from the nose to the sleep switch in the brain, so that this therapy can improves sleeping quality, this has been tested successfully several times on A's grandmother. One of A's clients is the person B, a medical doctor. During the therapy A manipulates B's nose, but never touch the ears. After the treatment B writes a Wikipedia article about Switchology. Here B states that this therapy only involve manipulating the clients ears, and that there are no scientific studies supporting the the claim of improved sleeping quality. For me it is obvious that B is a reliable source regarding the effect of the therapy, but not at all when it comes to practical execution of the treatment. Who else than A can be in the position to describe what A is doing? For a the hypothesis about mechanics of the therapy, where else than from A can this come? Can you see the problems here? Do we have to lift this up some levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindvei (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Just see WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream, or we'd be endlessly including every crank concept out there from endless dubious sources, from cold fusion to alien abduction. Same for reflexology - I've no doubt its believers have written all kinds of nonsense about it - fortunately we can bypass them and use decent secondary, independent non-fringe sources as we should. Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your points but considering WP:NOTHOWTO and that we only need to minimally describe the topic, this is likely not a concern. We don't need to detail techniques and how the various schools vary, unless it's notable history covered by reliable sources (there is much more to say about energy medicine in general, so the extent of coverage varies with the article). —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Blindvei: To your example, let's add independent, WP:MEDRS source, "C". C says Switcholoty is a cheese sandwich. In your example, we might quote A's definition if it is covered in independent reliable sources as the founder's definition. B is not a reliable source (B's definition would only make the cut here if published in independent reliable sources, per WP:IRS/WP:MEDRS). Instead, Wikipedia would say "Switcholoty is a cheese sandwich" and cite C.

This is both Wikipedia's policy and the best way to avoid a lot of bickering. In another article, a person's supporters insist the person is not a white supremacist, but "merely" a "white nationalist", "white separatist" or similar word game. Independent reliable sources, however, make it clear he is a white supremacist. Similar arguments abound: What do "fruitarians" eat? Was slavery the main cause of the U.S. Civil War? Who invented the electric light bulb? Who was the first president of the United States? In each case, the answer is found by asking What do independent reliable sources say? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn:I understand your good intentions, but in my opinion you misinterpret a small but important thing in WP:FRINGE. The sentence of interest is the first after the heading Independent sources. "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources." There is a significant difference between presenting a theory (being the source of a theory) and to describe a theory. Yes, you need independent sources when something is to be said about the validity of a theory. That is the intension of this paragraph. But when it comes to the describing a theory, reliable sources in this narrowed sense is an impossibility.

In my previous story, A presents a fringe theory, B describes it, even if what he presents differs significant from what A presents.

B have a source, A. A is a reliable source when it comes to the definition of the therapy, in fact, he is the only possible source for that. But A is also unreliable when it comes to the effect of the therapy, and thus unreliable regarding the mechanisms behind the theory. B is in a way reliable regarding effect, but not for the theory.

There are no turtles all the way down. If we assume your interpretation of how sources should be handled is the correct, an awkward situation will occur. If B don't have any "reliable" sources for the theory, it looks like he is the origin of it. Then he, B, per definition, is in "in-universe" source, thus unreliable.

The Wikipedia:Fringe theories should probably be more precise in this concern.

PaleoNeonate:I completely agree with you. But then it is wrong to mention one or two definitions, without mentioning that there is a big dispute and variety within the reflexology community about how to define reflexology. This is important information that must come to expression in the article. As it is now, it is misleading. WP:NOTHOWTO stats that "Articles should begin with a good definition or description ..." Here we are in a situation without any widely accepted definitions. This must be addressed.

You are funny, :SummerPhDv2.0:. Of course, the cheese sandwich might exist, and its medical effect might have been evaluated. Then it is obviously an ambiguous term. Otherwise peer reviews would discover this, and C's reputation would be ruined. After that you would have to correct all his fraud in Wikipedia. :-D— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindvei (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be of the belief that we examine where our sources get their information. We do not. If a source meets the criteria outlined at WP:IRS it is a reliable source (for biomedical claims, we use the more stringent WP:MEDRS). If peer-reviewed journals with high impact scores report that Switcholoty is a cheese sandwich without saying what their sources are (or saying that it came to them in a dream), Switcholoty is verifiably a cheese sandwich and Wikipedia should say it is a cheese sandwich. You may say this obviously isn't true. That's fine. As soon as independent reliable sources report of the revolution in thought, we will continue to say that Switoloty is a cheese sandwich.

A and B are not a reliable sources. Reliable sources are 1) published and 2) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Neither of these is a published source.

We are limited in what we can say about reflexology by the simple fact that independent reliable sources have very little to say about it. If such sources say very little about reflexology other than that it is implausible bunk, Wikipedia will have little to say about it, other than that it is implausible bunk. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, PaleoNeonate states that reference[4] seems fine. Usually, in academic contexts, primary sources are good, secondary are not so good. I have lately been able to read trough this reference. When it comes to description of reflexology it refers two articles, so this article can not be a primary source. The references are

• Wang MY, Tsai PS, Lee PH, Chang WY, Yang CM. The efficacy of reflexology: systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2008;62(5):512–20.
• Ernst E, Koeder K. An overview of reflexology. European Journal of General Practice 1997;3:52–7.

When Wang makes references related to description of reflexology, these are the sources:

• Botting D. (1997) Review of literature on the effectiveness of reflexology. Complementary Therapies in Nursing & Midwifery 3, 123–130.
• Griffiths P. (1996) Reflexology. Complementary Therapies in Nurs- ing & Midwifery 2, 13–16.

When Ernst makes references related to description of reflexology, these are the sources:

• Gravett P. Making sense of English in alternative medicine. Edin- burgh: Chambers, 1993.
• Goodwin H. Reflex zone therapy. In: Rankin-Box D, editor. Com- plementary health therapies. A guide for nurses and the caring pro- fession. London: Chapman Hall, 1988.

We are talking about tertiary references, from mid stone age. And I guess it does not stop there. And this looks fine? No, obviously no examination of sources. But lets forget about that for a while. When a primary source comes in a revision, it is a common opinion that the newest revisions should be used. The author can have changed conclusions in the updates. In this case, both reference 2 and 4 have come in revisions. Looks fine? No, don't think so. But I mentioned Ernst. He is not completely lost. He states "Definition - A uniform definition of reflexology (the term reflex therapy is sometimes used as a synonym) does not seem to exist." This should absolutely be included in the text. Blindvei (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's indeed a secondary source (conforming to WP:RSPRIMARY). —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Usually, in academic contexts, primary sources are good, secondary are not so good." (While it is immaterial here, I would not strictly agree.) This is not an academic context. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Please see WP:PSTS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Blindvei Is there a specific change to the definition that you want to make, and do you have a WP:MEDRS source that supports it? I think that if we were to focus on the change you want to make, rather than get bogged down in a discussion of our sourcing policies and whether or not to use the latest editions etc, it might be possible to come to a consensus here and put this to bed. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Relieve fatigue and to promote sleep

Hmm this is quite strange. So basically the effects of a massage. How does this support that the effects are due to reflexology (or its purported metaphysics), or, asked another way, why did the nursing department call it reflexology? —PaleoNeonate – 11:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Korean, so hyping an Eastern medicine. Per WP:REDFLAG we'd need multiple much better sources to overturn the settled view in RS that reflexology is a load of old tosh. May be useful to ping WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, so I also think it's best to keep it out for now unless we have consensus for inclusion. —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The "journal" in question has a very low impact score: >1 for its first few years, hit 1.08 last year. The idea that "A meta analysis is a meta analysis, you can't contest its result."[5] is, um, let's call it interesting. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the IPs just re-added the article without explanation. I've reverted based on this discussion, warned them and directed them here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Reflexology Lymphatic Drainage Protocols

Reflexology was presented at the National Lymphedema Conference in Boston, US in October of 2019. It was given respect due the recent success and measurable outcomes coming from using Sally Kay's Reflexology Lymphatic Drainage protocols with lymphedema patients. Reflextherapist (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So what? For anything on this to be included in Wikipedia we would need a good (secondary, independent, reliable) secondary source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link, supporting the success and evidence-based reflexology lymphatic drainage protocols on patients with secondary lymphedema. https://www.reflexologylymphdrainage.co.uk/research.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflextherapist (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not a good source (quite the opposite). Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What is a "good source"?

Please share what constitutes a good source? And how could this be improved on to make a good source as the results are measurable to the point where providers/practitioners are able to measure exact fluid lost after a treatment and it being significant. Link below. Thanks so much.

Reflexology was presented at the National Lymphedema Conference in Boston, US in October of 2019. It was given respect due the recent success and measurable outcomes coming from using Sally Kay's Reflexology Lymphatic Drainage protocols with lymphedema patients.  https://www.reflexologylymphdrainage.co.uk/research.html Reflextherapist (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and also WP:FRINGE for guidelines relevant to sourcing for this topic. We'd be looking for something like a systematic review in a top-tier medical journal for health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe it has been published as studies are coming out of the University of Cardiff. I know there are also at least two more from Michigan State University as well. I will see what is available to post. Thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflextherapist (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Individual studies are considered to be primary sources. Per MEDRS, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

Reflexology is a fringe theory. Individual studies purporting to show that massaging feet/hands/ears/whatever impact various organs and systems throughout the body will not overcome that.

A website promoting a fringe theory, based on an undergrad project with 6 subjects is immaterial. That studies are reportedly "coming out of" whatever school is immaterial. Reliable sources for biomedical claims are secondary sources in reliable sources.

If I write an article based on my research, that is considered primary, as I am closely connected to the study. While this is true in general, it is amplified in fringe areas. An author or publication closely associated with e.g., flat Earth theories would be far more likely to accept controversial claims about the shape of the Earth. A systematic review is the goal here.

If a publication is of low quality, its material is often of low quality. Much as we aren't particularly interested in sensationalist tabloids' reports that various world leaders are alien/human hybrids, we don't take their less sensational claims (celebrity X married longtime partner celebrity Y) at face value either. A widely respected, peer-reviewed journal (which will have a high impact score) is the goal here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

POV

I'm currently working in a editorial position that leads me sometimes to ask questions such as "What is 'common knowledge' regarding this topic?" or "If a reader looks up this term on the internet, what information are they likely to arrive at?" Naturally Wikipedia is one of the main sources for seeing how our readers are likely to see a topic explained in an encyclopedic manner. In the case of this article, I must express my disappointment.

Instead of first reading a full description of what reflexology purports to be and how it is practiced, we keep being told that it doesn't work. Well, OK: but first, what is it?

I am not here to argue with the term "pseudoscience" or whether it applies here. I do not care whether an individual "believes in" reflexology. But the article sets out to debunk reflexology without adequately explaining the practice first. This would be like writing an article on Zeus by stating incessantly that Zeus doesn't really exist. Fair enough, but not very informative.

To put it another way, we know that the lady in the box isn't really sawed in half, but saying "the lady isn't really sawed in half" over and over because you want to display skepticism toward magic would not be at all informative or encyclopedic regarding the popularity of the trick, its history and origin, and how it looks when magicians present it.

It is entirely possible to frame the presentation of information here neutrally without validating the truth claims of reflexology. What do practitioners physically do when they practice reflexology? What do they state as their therapeutic goals? The article is unclear and inadequate. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Typically in cases of fringe ideas, Wikipedia has a couple of factors that limit what we can say about the in-universe beliefs.

We can really only discuss the topic based on what reliable sources have to say. There typically (and reflexology is no exception) isn't a unified voice for what reflexology actually is. Various practitioners base their businesses on varying ideologies, making restrictive definitions impossible. Additionally, we have no way of knowing what practices and beliefs are common within the belief system and what are the fringe of the fringe. As an example, in reiki there are some who belief the healing is not limited by space or time, such that healing from the other side of the planet is not a problem and that the healing can be projected into the past. While I've run across that claim in several in-universe sources, none of the reliable sources say anything about it. I don't know whether that is a common belief in reiki or something that many believes find absurd. Crystal healing has a similar problem with varying definitions of a "crystal".

There is no single governing body of reflexologists representing what orthodox reflexology is. While there are plenty of sources that claim authority, they all seem to be self-published sources. It's simple to find independent reliable sources discussing what "the medical community" thinks about cancer, insurance reform in the United States, malpractice insurance, etc., mostly citing various governing bodies (AMA, AAP, BMA, etc.). For fringe ideas, those giving any meaningful detail tend to be self-published sources/vanity press/fringe publishers and/or start-up organizations asserting that they are a governing body.

What we're left with are independent reliable sources who give a brief definition of the practice (" an alternative medicine involving application of pressure to the feet and hands with specific thumb, finger, and hand techniques without the use of oil or lotion. It is based on a pseudoscientific[1] system of zones and reflex areas that purportedly reflect an image of the body on the feet and hands, with the premise that such work effects a physical change to the body") and the limited examination of the practice undertaken by reliable sources, finding that the practice is bunk. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, all of our articles are in a perpetual state of imperfection, so we always welcome improvements, so please help us see things from your perspective by supplying some improved wording(s) here. Then we can collaboratively work on meeting your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

Theartofhealing This is the article's talk page. Your changes have been disputed, you need to propose them below and get consensus before trying to reinstate them. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 05:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Unhelpful article

This article is not about reflexology. It is about why the author thinks reflexology is quackery. Honestly, this article should be renamed to “reflexology is quackery”. That way an actual reflexologist could write a helpful article called “Reflexology”.

I would like to see Wikipedia or the author retitle this article. 98.31.6.130 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Since reflexologists are quacks, it would be a bad idea to have them write articles here. It would go against Wikipedia's goal of summarizing reliable sources.

You can get what you want in other places, so your wish to get it here too is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)