Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent edits regarding animal parts

An anonymous editor recently correctly removed some sensationalist statement about a supposed "emphasis" in TCM on the use of animal penises. As a TCM practitioner with two graduate degrees in the subject who has studied at 3 TCM hospitals in China I can assure you that penises are not commonly used substances in TCM. They are a fringe delicacy indulged in by eccentric rich assholes. Of course, my experience is not a reliable source, so how about we all get clear on what sources are reflective of current TCM practice?

In English: "Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica" and "Chinese Herbal Medicine: Formulas and Strategies" by Dan Bensky et al are considered standard textbooks for herbal medicine. The former is an encyclopedic work reflecting all substances ever in use over the last 2000 years or so. The latter reflects the substances more commonly used in combination in actual practice. Animal penises are most certainly not "emphasized" in either text. They are also not emphasized in the corresponding texts published by the major TCM universities in CHina (中药学 and 方剂学, titles of books published by the Beijing, Shanghai, and Chengdu Universities of TCM).

Mallexikon, can we agree to appropriately weight this article based on the predominance and relevance of the available sources - rather than keeping questionable statements only because they can be justified by a source that barely passes as "reliable"? Herbxue (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the penis article is about restaurants, not TCM, and no statement made in it was even remotely similar to the one that was correctly removed by the anonymous editor. Many of these supposedly "reliable" sources are sensationalist pop garbage that PPdd inserted as part of a mission he was on to make a mockery out of this article. Lets not be too quick to defend any and every source, many of them are flawed.Herbxue (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the two "sources" related to snake oil have nothing to do with TCM either. In fact, the one journal article from 1989 states that snake oil has been part of Western medicine for 4,000 years! There is no mention of TCM in that article, only that the fatty acids have been evaluated in Chinese water snakes. I do not see a claim being made on the part of TCM there. The other source is a book that I do not own, however, searches for any phrases associated with Udo's book and "TCM" show no relationship and there is no claim anywhere that the author is either an authority on TCM or even commenting on TCM at all! Not only have I removed the unsupported claims, I recommend we remove the completely irrelevant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbxue (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: the news article is a correspondence of the server and the reporter.

Let is establish a few facts:

1. Traditional Chinese Medicine is not an evidence based medicine
2. Traditional Chinese Medicine does not use scientific method and is best categorized and labelled an alternative medicine
3. Per 2. and 3., it is a contemporary medicine

Text in the article states how Chinese culture and and Traditional Chinese Medicine are intertwined: in the correspondence between the reporter and the server, we can conclude:

1. The server is not qualified to call herself a nutritionist.
2. Consumers of penis use Traditional Chinese Medicine as the reason to consume these meats through the Traditional Chinese Medicine model.
3. "No. People just like to order tiger to show off how much money they have." says Nancy and then she continues to state medical claims

TCM itself is not based on scientific proof, and cannot be made to look scientific. Its methods are not lead by evidence through scientific studies and thus the article must be balanced and cannot violate WP:NPOV so I am reinstating the text.Curb Chain (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For the Snake Oil text: The source explains that chinese snake oil is indeed used as liniment (ointment).Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of your claims adequately link either article to the subject of "Traditional Chinese Medicine" -you may claim, via other sources, that TCM is not EBM, but that has nothing to do with penises or any of the sources mentioned.

The text does not, in fact, state anything about Chinese culture and TCM being "intertwined" as you claim.

Do you really want to suggest that anecdotes from waiters are now considered acceptable medical research on WP? If so, I will unleash a storm of anecdotes that you will surely regret.

I see no claims made by TCM representatives regarding these culinary creations. This would be like claiming that "Outback Steakhouse" in the U.S. makes men macho like Australians according to the Western medicine model. Therefore, the FDA supports angus beef as an aphrodisiac and fertility treatment?

You even quote the very point I make by showing that the server admits that this is about money and perception. THis shows, her restaurant is not an official representative of TCM, it is a business that caters to fragile egos. So, what about anything I've said do you actually have a substantive argument against?Herbxue (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of servers quoting food to be beneficial to health through the result of Evidence based medicine. Please make the claim that Traditional Chinese Medicine is evidence based and I will support your argument.Curb Chain (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making a claim, I'm removing a questionably sourced statement.Herbxue (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to cordially invite all interested editors to actually read the sources before reverting good faith edits. For example, I have been repeatedly reverted on good edits that actually are based on the sources already cited in the article. For example, the article cited to describe bear bile states: "Critics, including Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners, have opposed the use of bear bile in their treatments and increasing numbers are turning to herbal and synthetic alternatives." I included such a statement in an edit, and was accused of POV. I added the tag "MIng Dynasty" to a description of the Ming dynasty text Ben Cao Gang Mu and was reverted, accused of pushing POV. Folks, facts are facts and I am just correcting clear errors in the article. Please please please READ the actual sources before reverting my edits and tell me WHY you think my edits are in error.Herbxue (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Herbxue, several users have reverted you, and I explained the reasons for the reinstatmentreinstatement of the text. I'm not sure what argument we need to make if you cannot rebut our arguments.Curb Chain (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the current version of the article: The news article truly does not say that penises are theraputic.Curb Chain (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Herbxue, I reviewed PPdd's sources regarding the tiger penises and both of them don't claim in any way that tiger penis is a TCM drug. The Chinese seem to be mad about tiger penises but that's culture - not TCM's fault. However, TCM sadly did promote tiger parts in the past, especially tiger bone. I included 2 very interesting new sources regarding this, and I'm sure you'll find them both reliable. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks.Herbxue (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced/POV?

Maybe it has been dealt with in the archives, but, even if it has, perhaps a reminder is needed. It seems to me this article is seriously unbalanced, i.e. Where is the 'Criticism' section? Most articles on controversial topics have one (I think most people would expect such sections on topics like treatments involving blood-letting, diagnosis on the basis of the four humors, trepanning etc). Also, there is barely any mention of the devastating effect some of TCM's more bizarre treatments are having on the populations of various species around the world - for instance the penchant for nail clippings (yes, I mean keratin - as found in Rhino horn). Is there a cabal at work here to keep this article whitewashed of such topics? (Apologies if my wording sounds a little strong).1812ahill (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer for the bulk of the article to be mostly descriptive, with a section on the current state of scientific research which would naturally be critical. As it has developed, however, the criticism is laced throughout the relevant sections. Like other CAM subjects, the article is closely watched by many people, mostly skeptics. The only way this article could appear whitewashed is if you are hoping it is nothing but criticism. That would not be appropriate, as the purpose of WP is not to persuade people to have a certain opinion of the subject, it is to faithfully describe the subject based on reliable sources. Herbxue (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chinese traditional medicine is just like the traditional medicine of other pre-modern cultures: It is based on superstition and myth, some effective herbal treatments, and therapeutic massage etc. To say that "Nonetheless, some of its methods, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by modern evidence-based medicine" is a serious under statement. There needs to be a criticism section. Too many people are mislead into thinking that TCM is the equivalent of modern medicine, when it is clearly not so.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is attempting to equate TCM with modern biomedicine, and there is no lack of criticism in this article. However, your POV that it is "based on superstition" is not grounded in an understanding of the assumptions it is truly based on. TCM is based on a set of "systematic correspondences" that allow a practitioner to see certain sets of symptoms and objective signs as related in identified "patterns". Even if basic TCM assumptions such as the nature of Qi or Yin or Yang turn out to be flawed metaphors, it is lazy thinking to assume these metaphors are "superstition" rather than simply a different terminology to describe symptoms or patterns of illness. We are talking about thousands of years of continuous practice with specific core theories manifesting in widely different treatments and diagnoses - any simplistic statement that "TCM is just ..." would only be uttered by someone truly ignorant of the subject - and that goes for proponents as well as skeptics. Herbxue (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYN

I am undoing [1] because in the section, it has been already established that anatomy is science and Traditional Chinese medicine does not use the scientific model to explain physiology. And it is falsely sourced so is also a phrase of synthesis.Curb Chain (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about synthesis, but obviously the paraphrasing could be a little closer here... I tried a new take on it. BTW I don't think it's correct to state that TCM "does not use the scientific model to explain physiology" - physiology is a science and thus permits only the scientific model as an approach. Otherwise it's not physiology but mere stipulation about bodily functions. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the quotation marks are necessary, but your latest wording is also a decent way of describing the zangfu or "organs" in TCM. I also thought the previous statement sounded like original research, and prefer the current version. The word stipulation can create the perception that the accepted concepts are completely arbitrary, whereas the TCM view of body function is based on an elaborate thought structure and careful observation of pathogenesis. Its not incorrect to say that it is stipulation, it just implies that the "concepts" have no basis in reality, which goes a step too far because they are based on real observations.Herbxue (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Glad we have reached a consensus. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The source was never removed. All I argued was writing extra prose for it was poor writing/unnecessary.Curb Chain (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you ok with how it is now? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any outstanding problems, no, but there were reasons behind my removal of the phrase, and my absence of replacing it with something else.Curb Chain (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Traditional Chinese medicine is not presented as scientific, but traditional practice and it does not lacks supporting evidence or plausibility. Hafspajen (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the archiver configuration

User:MiszaBot was archiving threads on top of older archives, mixing old threads with new. Recent threads were being moved to Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/Archive_2, which was created manually in 2004. The highest-numbered archive is Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/Archive_4, which was also created manually and dates back to 2011. I've set the counter to 5. Also the per-page archive size was set to a cumbersome 250K, whereas the MiszaBot example gives 70K. I've changed it to 100K. Vzaak (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the counter again after rearranging all the archives in chronological order (archive 1 now contains the first archived text, etc). I found this mess through this thread on the proposals village pump. For what it's worth, the automated archiving was initially set up correctly but was broken by this edit. Graham87 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Problematic reverts

This revert was done because it is highly inappropriate considering WP:COI for a practicing acupuncturist to be inserting promotional material into this article. Sorry. jps (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude. This is your edit. You have added "Review articles discussing the effectiveness of acupuncture have concluded that its outcomes are due to the placebo effect" and cite 4 sources, the earliest from 2005 and the latest from 2008. The first, Ernst 2006, ends with "Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". Your summary of his conclusion is not even a half-truth and would likely earn you a very dark scowl from Ernst himself. It might be similar to calling the sky green and not blue, and the colors are not as far apart as red and blue, but it's still objectively untrue. The other reviews are similar; your summary contradicts Cochrane review Furlan et al 2005 perhaps most clearly, as it concludes that "For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". It's also sad that you've dragged a couple people who really should know better (IRWolfie- and Alexbrn) into making this flagrantly false edit, the latter of which was a participant of a similar debate at acupuncture not long ago. Misrepresenting scientists who have carefully worded their conclusions is deeply offensive; it's probably most deeply offensive to the researchers themselves but it's also completely unacceptable to our readers and our reputation. As I mentioned when I saw this earlier, it reminds of me an incident that I helped out with. Now, if you want to work on rehabilitation, you should probably self-revert and then take a look at Vickers et al 2012 in JAMA. II | (t - c) 01:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What User:II said, and [2] --Middle 8 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably my mistake. Forgot to transfer the Vickers material from the acupuncture article... --Mallexikon (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oooh... you guys really have gone down hill. Using Vickers? I will working on systematically removing Vickers from this encyclopedia on the basis of this: [3]. Thanks for the heads-up. And please don't POV-push so much! jps (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. And please don't forget to systematically remove these reviews as well:

• Ernst, E.; Pittler, MH; Wider, B; Boddy, K (2007). "Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing". The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 35 (1): 21–5.
• White A, Foster NE, Cummings M, Barlas P (2007). "Acupuncture treatment for chronic knee pain: a systematic review". Rheumatology 46 (3): 384–90.
• Selfe TK, Taylor AG (2008 Jul–Sep). "Acupuncture and osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of randomized, controlled trials". Fam Community Health 31 (3): 247–54.

Because I guess they don't fit your POV as well. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One source at a time. I notice that the Ernst piece is being used in a rather poor way, for example. jps (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to deal with the Vickers piece first, but, just so you are aware, measuring an evidence basis is not the same thing as showing evidence -- and in Ernst's article the point being made is that the evidence basis is being developed, yet we're claiming that the evidence exists. The article is promoting an idea not found in the paper that there is evidence for 7 ailments being treatable by acupuncture, but that's not what the article actually says! jps (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WHO

A ten year old WHO report for the statement: " has compiled a list of disorders for which acupuncture may have an effect" is out of date with respect to WP:MEDRS which looks for the last 5 years. Clearly a ten year statement about what it may be efficacious for is out of date, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS explicitly names WHO as a reliable source. What I can't find there, however, is that WHO recommendations are only valid for 5 years on WP... Could you please show me where I can find that rule? --Mallexikon (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While there is no expiration date, there is also no compulsion to include outdated sources. The WHO report is very outdated especially now that Ernst has completed his well-received studies on the (lack of) evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture. jps (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ernst on Vickers

User:‎Herbxue has removed comments by Ernst on the 2012 Vickers article, on the basis that

1. undue weight given to a letter
2. Give the study author's conclusions here, not a commenters
3. Ernst's findings are very well represented in the article already

I propose the content be reinstated. In answer to the reasons given for removal:

1. the work cited in an article in the Guardian, not a letter
2. we were not citing Ernst instead of the article's conclusions, but in addition to it. Ernst was impressed by the paper and did not contradict it - this is an opportunity to cite an expert representation of the article rather than rely on Wikipedia editors' views of how that should be done
3. Of course! as a foremost independent expert on this topic he should be well-represented in the article

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ernst is not the only significant researcher on acupuncture, you do not have to include his opinion about every other source in the article. For the sake of adequate weight, if you MUST include this letter as a source (which I don't see as a significant source) at least flesh out why Vickers came to that conclusion, and then include the Ernst quote - but to keep it the way you edited it gives more page space to a letter written about the article than it does to the actual MEDRS, which is what we are supposed to emphasize, right?Herbxue (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ernst is not the only significant researcher on acupuncture" --> I beg to differ. WP:FRINGE#Independent sources prioritized those like Ernst who devote their lives to independently evaluating fringe claims. If you have someone else in mind, please show who they are. Make sure they aren't acupuncturists or fellow-travelers, now. jps (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion here and elsewhere (actually it was more like a demand) that Ernst should be the only accepted source for these articles is ludicrous. Other than Quack Guru, nobody would actually take that seriously. Please cool down and try to recommend more reasonable edits.Herbxue (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem "balancing" Vickers with Ernst as long as we don't do it this way: "A peer-reviewed meta-analysis concluded so-and-so, BUT Distinguished Professor X said he disagrees, and here is his exact quote ...(....)."

We all know that in EBM, meta-analysis is at the top tier and expert opinion at the bottom. Just because some expert opinion goes one way, we don't throw out opinions, let alone findings, that go the other way. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We're working on the proper wording over at acupuncture now, and once it's settled there I'll propose wording over here --Middle 8 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Concise summary

The section was tainted with mass OR, MEDRS violations, and a whole host of problems. The section is a concise summary. Please don't use older reviews for the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added some context to the disputed 2012 meta-analysis. It was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine, but Didn't Believe In It

Here's a RS which could be used for certain purposes:

• Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine, but Didn't Believe In It. Why did the U.S. Senate unwittingly endorse 1950s Chinese Communist Party propaganda? By Alan Levinovitz, Slate, Oct. 22, 2013

Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not a RS, its an online blog, and it quotes a lot of from Mao using sources that can't be easily verified. The author claims, without specifically naming his sources, that Mao "invented" TCM by

1) Standardizing "inconsistent texts and idiosyncratic practices"

2) Providing us with "sensational evidence of Chinese medicine’s efficacy".

Where are his sources to back up these claims?

More importantly, you could accuse Mao of promoting and advertising TCM, but you can't say that he invented it. With more important things like the Korean War and its aftermath to worry about, it seems highly dubious that Mao would go on to invent an entire branch of medicine

To be sure, this could be a potentially important historical development, but without multiple reliable sources to back it up, its not much better than a conspiracy theory. -A1candidate (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that article is crap. It is confounding multiple issues to make the dramatic claim that recent naturopathic legislation is a result of actions from communist China. Not a serious look at the development of TCM. Herbxue (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article as currently written is the true "crap". The Slate piece is head-and-shoulders above it in terms of quality. I think that the Slate article covers the subject in a way that Wikipedia could really benefit from incorporating. As pointed out on WP:FTN#Fantastic source, there is a textbook currently used in this article which essentially corroborates the Slate piece. Nevertheless, our article is leaning rather heavily on a translation of a modern text and makes a number of outrageous and nearly pseudoscientific claims about the scientific plausibility of this particular system. I am more than a little concerned that the commentators who are dismissing this source may be doing so in order to preserve the current bias on the page. Hopefully this is not the case. jps (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. The text book referenced is excellent - Unschuld's "Medicine in China" - and it shows how the very long history of Chinese medicine was of course influenced by many cultural and political changes. Also, note that the modern version of Chinese medicine ("TCM") is practiced in a very similar way in Taiwan, Singapore and other counties independent of the influence of Mao. The fact that Mao did a 180 policy flip on TCM is significant for the establishment of the state-run universities that emphasized integration of traditional medicine and scientific biomedicine - but he had nothing to do with the content of TCM's teachings or the fact that traditional medicine was already widely practiced in and outside of China. Even the diminishing presence of some psycho-emotional (or "spiritual") aspects of Chinese medicine has been a gradual process starting in the Han dynasty and accelerated in the 20th century, even though contemporary Chinese medicine practitioners usually blame the communists for this.Herbxue (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor argumentation here because most of your points aren't contradicted by the Slate article. jps (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you missed my point. The Slate article is a sensationalist inflation and conflation of mid-20th century history with the purpose of likening it to a current legislative issue. It is not a sincere attempt to describe the development of Chinese medicine, it is a slam on current U.S. policies that uses a sliver of info about Chinese medicine to do so.Herbxue (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your point, above, was "the article is crap". That's not a very intelligent point. jps (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing the "perfection" of Chinese medicine, in fact the lack of emperical evidence on the efficacy of Chinese medicine is noted in this wikipedia article, albeit lightly. One must remember that medicine in Chinese society has always been wrapped up in the philosophies, politics, and mysticism of its time since its very beginnings. The best that this article can do is to explain the traditional "theories", it's historical development, and perhaps include more studies from modern evidence-based medicine as comparison. The slate article is a good read, but its main point is to critique the whole heart embracing of non-scientific medical practices by the US gov and its similarities to issues in TCM and Mao's endorsement of it. As such, I'm not sure where to cite the Slate article directly. That said, inclusion of specific critiques to TCM from the Slate article should be added including: Wang Qingren's badly needed revisions of TCM, Wang Chong's mocking of the lame 5-element theory, the political and nationalistic propaganda entanglement of TCM in the 20th century, and the misreporting of James Reston's surgery. This and a good critique subsection in each TCM section would make this article feel less like an open endorsement of everything TCM. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm going to start working on cleaning up the more promotional aspects of this and other related articles. Thanks for your support. jps (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. I just came here to suggest a similar process. The article is still very poor and strongly POV.84.152.21.14 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with evidence based medicine

I recently noticed there was a link to this page from List of topics characterized as pseudoscience but much of the information on that page was not duplicated here. In particular, in the current lede of the article we have

"Nonetheless, some of its methods, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by modern evidence-based medicine."

But this is not sufficiently supported by the body of the article, which has only

Attempts to reconcile these concepts with modern science – in terms of identifying a physical correlate of them – have so far failed.

and brief efficacy sections for herbal medicine and acupuncture, neither of which specifically mention that these practice are characterized as pseudoscientific in a range of sources. I welcome suggestions as to how to work this information into the body of the article without duplicating other material. a13ean (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is quite clear about the incompatibility of certain TCM concepts with their closest biomedical correlates. I don't see the need to inject inflammatory terms like "pseudoscience" - as someone else mentioned above, TCM is a traditional practice that relies on its own self-referential system of correspondences to link treatments to syndromes unique to TCM. The fact that some people use a label like pseudoscience to characterize something does not mean it is an appropriate descriptor.Herbxue (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. A wide range of reliable sources similarly agree that many practices in TCM have no scientific basis, and we report what reliable sources say. a13ean (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But that is a different issue, the lack of scientific recognition of qi and meridians is already well-covered in the article. It is a leap to go from "Science does not support the concept of qi" to "TCM presents itself as science-based, but is not based on science" - that would depend on proving that TCM defines itself as a science or science-based practice, which it does not. Herbxue (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In (say) Mandarin, doesn't terminology surrounding TCM overlap with scientific terminology? I'm no expert, just seeking clarification. A native Chinese perspective may be needed here. Vzaak (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a good question. Where it does overlap (but not equate) is in descriptions of the organs. The "zang fu" of TCM share names with the actual organs they relate to, but in TCM they are not understood in the same way. For example, the "spleen" ( 脾 pi) of TCM is understood as a group of functions that are more closely related to the pancreas and small intestine of biomedical physiology. Concepts of pathology only superficially overlap as basic descriptions like "headache", but the mechanism describing the formation of the headache is completely unrelated to biomedical pathophysiology.Herbxue (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure there aren't terms relating to, say, (picking an arbitrary example) "energy" in TCM that match the scientific term for "energy" (that is, kg m^2 / s^2)? (And by a native Chinese perspective I also meant an outside, disinterested one.) Vzaak (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Energy" is a good example for my point in that "Qi" describes something separate and more broad than specific types of energy (it includes the ideas of air, fluid, nutrients, and energy). A good example for what you are getting at is "Blood" which has specific meanings to a TCM practitioner but the word (血) is the same whether used in the TCM context or the biomedical. Similarly the Chinese word Jing (精) has the modern narrow meaning of "semen" when used in a combo word (精子) but has a broader meaning in the TCM context. It is important to note that in all the examples I gave, the term is used in TCM long before being appropriated as a translation for a biomedical technical term, and they are usually distinguishable by their usage as compound terms or simply by context. I am not sure how we can find a native Chinese editor that is disinterested or neutral regarding TCM to comment on this. Thoughts? Herbxue (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all TCM practitioners consider themselves as outsiders to Western medicine. Certainly some TCM people practice pseudoscience, but others attempt to reconcile it with Western medicine. Shii (tock) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true that many people inform their practice of TCM with science, I am one of them. My point here is that TCM, as taught in TCM schools in China and the west, is based on notions that predate biomedical science. As TCM continues to be based on those notions, and makes no attempt to obscure that it is based on those notions, the pejorative label pseudoscience is not appropriate because, according to the WP definition, pseudoscience is something that presents itself as scientific but is not based on science.Herbxue (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no shortage of sources saying that TCM is pseudoscience. TCM attempts to perform at least some of the functions of evidence-based medicine (EBM), so wp:medicine standards and other policies require the mainstream scientific view to be unequivocally stated. I would also add, off the record, that WP has a moral obligation to avoid steering readers away from EBM. The mere suggestion that TCM might be appropriate where EBM has already proven reliable could have literally deadly consequences. In toto, these points significantly outweigh the concerns of offending TCM practitioners with the pseudoscience term. Vzaak (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your personal objection almost seems to disqualify your guideline-based objection. It's a Eurocentric attack on a very long-standing Chinese tradition. Shii (tock) 21:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, astrology is also a long standing tradition, it's still pseudoscience. Thinking that one argument unrelated to another can invalidate the other is fallacious reasoning. You've missed the point about why people criticise TCM with an off-topic comment related to xenophobia. The comments by Vzaak are in line with policy. There are many sources that refer to TCM as pseudoscience, and as such the material holds due weight in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, the list of pseudoscience is just a catch-all bin: "list of anything anyone ever objected to ever". Its not exactly xenophobia, but it is a "hegemonic self-perception" that you think one group's definitions of another must be given privilege. In this case, you give the privilege to people who are on a mission NOT to accurately convey facts but to color the subject with an unhelpful pejorative term (pre-scientific would be more accurate than pseudo). Since the sources used on TCM in the catch-all bin are mostly by Barrett and CSICOP, any use of the term would need to be qualified that it comes from controversial figures. The CSICOP article on TCM is an embarrassment - they go to China and use the quotes of non-English speakers, or very poorly translated conversations (its very clear that neither side is understanding each other's questions and answers) to make the TCM doctors look foolish, and then they claim that their questions were evaded or ignored. Read it for fun, its rubbish. And possibly racist. Herbxue (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Most of the article is not a Q&A [4][5], only one section is and a lot of it doesn't make sense because they were evading the questions: "[This was typical of many answers we received in that it sidestepped the original question and substituted a rambling string of metaphors instead.]" and also "The answers are not verbatim in every case because some were conveyed through a translator." [6]. That you think their attempts at speaking English somehow makes them look foolish rather than the substance of what they are saying is irrelevant. That you think this is somehow racist west/east or something when they also interview medical doctors and others such as Wang Guozheng, Qui Renzong, Lin Zixin (CSI fellow), Guo Zhengyi and Zhang Tongling boggles the mind. It sounds like you have decided its racist and are twisting the source to match your perception. Can we stick to the specifics rather than getting sidetracked by irrelevant arguments? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Because I understand the notions the TCM doctors were attempting to convey, I know the authors did not make a good faith effort to understand or convey what they were trying to say. And it is clear the TCM docs did not fully understand the questions being asked. I don't buy the explanation that they were being intentionally evasive - and I have had MANY frustrating conversations in China.

Anyway, back to the point - if we are to present as fact the opinions of POV-pushing groups like quackwatch and CSICOP, then we should also present the views of AAAOM as factual. To label TCM with the pejorative "pseudoscientific" has more to do with politics than fact.Herbxue (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch and CSI are not POV pushing groups. They are mainstream and well respected groups. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The latter has its own share of controversy, and the former reads more like a personal blog -A1candidate (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

CSI is a far from scientific group (those familiar with its history will need no more explanation), and Quackwatch is indeed a personal blog. Shii (tock) 20:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

QuackWatch with 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" is a blog? Let's not let the facts get in the way right? Keep your dubious opinions to yourself and focus on making policy based arguments. Quackwatch is a reliable source and has won numerous awards for its information,IRWolfie- (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

QuackWatch is mostly one guy, who likes to file frivolous defamation suits when other people disagree with him. It must be a rare kind of reliable source indeed who can't find a single judge to agree with his views. Shii (tock) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Linking to what some would describe as anti-flouride nutters isn't the most convincing way to demonstrate something. I was under the impression you were attempting to get away from characterisations of pseudoscience and throwing in links to questionable organisations attacking the mainstream hardly helps to demonstrate your case, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"As stated, Dr. Barrett often inserts his strong opinions directly into sections of an article already well supported by the literature. Although entertaining, this direct commentary may be viewed by some as less than professional medical writing and may be better reserved for its own section." (American Society of Consultant Pharmacists) -A1candidate (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

He has bad writing style? That's the best you've got? How about the recommendation for use: "Health care practitioners may find this site interesting with regard to what is happening in the field of complementary alternative medicine." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sufficient time and research has been spent on TCM that I think we should be able to find sources which are more in line with MEDRS (ie, published journal articles or scholarly books) rather than using Quackwatch or CSI. If so, I think that more could be added to the article's discussion of alleged pseudoscientific elements. In less high-profile areas of alternative medicine, I'm comfortable using Quackwatch on a limited basis. I'm just not convinced this is one of those cases. II | (t - c) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't applicable for pseudoscience since we aren't talking about medical claims. Standard sourcing in pseudoscience areas is acceptable, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that were true, I have hundreds of primary sources I'd like to include. Unfortunately, the consensus has been that MEDRS applies here. Also, there is not consensus that the insult "pseudoscience" is appropriate here.Herbxue (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"MEDRS applies here" ≠ "MEDS applies to medical claims". MEDS applies to medical claims, not "here". TippyGoomba (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What?Herbxue (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary: "MEDRS either applies or it doesn't." Yes, sometimes it applies, and sometimes it doesn't. See my comment below this one. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to biomedical claims in all articles, but not to other types of content, even in the same articles.

Content related to controversies, pseudoscience, fringe science, skepticism, opinions, news, etc. are governed by our ordinary RS policy, not by MEDRS. Our "fringe theories" content guideline's wording of "parity of sources" loosens the RS requirements for fringe matters, allowing sources that might not be allowed in some other situations, simply because mainstream sources don't discuss fringe issues, but skeptical sources and major expert blogs do. In such cases, we can use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been making that claim for years, always been shut down. I feel like I'm playing a game with 7 year olds who always try to change the rules to win. If this is true - define what constitutes a "medical claim" that is subject to MEDRS. (and btw - even if Barrett is "allowable" as a source in this article, which would make many primary sources allowable, that doesn't mean we have consensus to include his opinion).Herbxue (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't been making that claim for years, since no one disagrees with it. More likely you've seen arguing MEDRS doesn't apply to some particular medical claim. "medical claim" is too complex for a cache-all definition. I have no idea what to make of your parenthetic statement. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I too am uncertain exactly what you mean, but there is a very wide consensus that QW and Barrett are generally considered RS for opinions on medical, fringe, pseudoscience, quackery, health fraud, etc. on a case by case basis. He's the world's foremost authority on quackery, and he is widely cited as such an authority. For more information on relevant discussions about QW and Barrett as sources:

Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, if you may allow me to quote from the Arbitration Committee's findings regarding Quackwatch: "Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation."

Several of Dr. Barrett's articles may have been cited by a handful of scientific organizations back in the 1990s, but I am sceptical if he still is (or ever was) the world's "foremost authority on quackery". The Stephen Barrett article certainly does not support such a claim, so could you please show me a source for that? -A1candidate (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That is my opinion based on my long exposure to anti-quackery efforts. It's my hobby. Previously to his retirement, I would have nominated William T. Jarvis. Not only was he very knowledgeable and used widely, in much the same manner as Barrett has been used, but he was, unlike Barrett, very personable and pleasant, an impression gained from some email exchanges with both of them. If you have any nominations, I'd be glad to hear them. It really makes no difference to me. As an outstanding skeptic, he was included (by other skeptics) in the list of outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.[7]

Nice cherry picking and ignoring the rest of the thread. Since when does a source have to be "balanced" for its inclusion here? Never. That discussion clearly does not forbid the use of QW, and subsequent discussions (linked above) have not done so either. On the contrary. Sources with no POV or agenda are rather blah and often of little use in our articles, and the real world is filled with RS which have an agenda and are definitely not balanced. In fact, Barrett clearly describes exactly why that lack of balance exists. It is because a false equivalency in matters where falsehood and unscientific claims exist is not a good thing. QW clearly sides with scientific evidence, and that is definitely an "unbalanced" position, and the only proper one to hold. Keep in mind that the result of that ArbCom was the banning of my opposer, so I was on the right side.

Like most other sources, including the New York Times, the appropriateness of using QW is to be judged on a case by case basis. It should be used where it is relevant, and this is certainly a topic where it is relevant.

Has someone claimed that QW is balanced? If so, they are nuts. Let's hope it never becomes balanced. That would be a tragedy and make it impossible for it to fulfill its mission. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The overall agreement in those DR/N threads seems to be that the whether we can use Quackwatch as a RS has to be decided on a case to case basis... What case are we actually discussing here? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• @A1candidate you are linking to a motion that failed to be passed. It categorically failed to reach the required number of votes. That is why it is not mentioned here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal. The situation there is also different in that it is about using sources by Barrett within the context of a lawsuit about Barrett. And as a reminder I will also say: Arbcom are forbidden from making content decisions and anything they say about content is non-binding. They are a bunch of amateurs (as we all are) who have no expertise in the medical and fringe medicine topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me you can only characterise TCM as pseudoscience if it claims to be scientific. Does it? I ask this as an open question. (To me, the far greater issue is the impact on wildlife of certain TCM practioners, whose current-day irresponsible promotion of certain products is having a disastrous effect on threatened and endangered species globally. Otherwise, TCM may be more or less or not at all beneficial to its patients depending on a wide range of circumstances. However, unless practioners restrict their usage of endangered species, then TCM ought to be recontextualised.) Orthorhombic, 10:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wider context?

In editing the Homeopathy article recently I've been looking at de:Paul Ulrich Unschuld's rather interesting book on Western and Eastern medicine, and I think this suggests a way of addressing this topic which is outside the MEDRS/non-MEDRS question. He is arguing, for instance, that TCM is in fact a Western invention which chinese "branding", that the traditional Chinese themselves would not have recognized. Like a lot of altmed, Unschuld sees TCM as a sociological "response" to people's fears about scary modern medicine. As well as the scientific relationship between TCM and mainstream medicine, I think these aspects are valuable to explore too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting find. See p. 198. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Unschuld is respected among the Chinese medicine community even though he is critical of TCM's assumptions. He is quite neutral regarding the question of what medical system is "right" - he sees it all (biomed included) as social phenomena that is dependent on current circumstances.Herbxue (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's so interesting I've ordered a hard copy - the only downside seems to be the rather clunky translation from German. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

This discussion was also started at WikiProject Medicine. In the future, avoid this type of canvassing/splitting discussions. Keep them together. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A few editors are trying to add the following statement:

Quackwatch stated that, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care"

This clearly falls under WP:SPECULATION. -A1candidate (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is not encyclopaedic content. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your understanding of this is poor, and reflects in the article. I await comments from the noticeboard --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How could it be speculation when it is sourced. If there is still an issue it could of been reworded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. A source can speculate can it not? This isn't a secondary source as per WP:MEDRS. CFCF (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me a very clear tertiary source.CFCF (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken page by restoring the page 2 edits ago, including the perfectly satisfactory Barrett part. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WTF has been going on? Do we still have editors who violate NPOV by removing opposing opinions? That's whitewashing and is not allowed here. QW has been deemed a RS for such content. Keep it and stop the edit warring or we're going to see some editors topic banned. If you have a problem with how the wording is framed, that's another matter and can be discussed, but the source stays. It's a very notable opinion about TCM. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from profanity, notable or not it isn't a secondary source, and can not be cited in those sections as per WP:MEDRS. I am in no way a follower of Chinese medicine, but we need to use the proper sources. Read WP:MEDRS. Furthermore that revert was in error, you can't justify restoring content because of a previous faulty citation, where the reference was defined in the dead centre of an article. CFCF (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are not numerous sources for TCM. The Quackwatch source was cautiously used to bring balance to this article per NPOV. If you see the German Acupuncture Trials there are many primary sources and secondary sources that fail MEDRS. There is some editorial discretion with each article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I removed the template from the lede, but I am strongly in favor of better sources as I am very aware there are many of. I'll look into it once I have time.CFCF (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

CFCF, Thank you. It is a notable opinion related to the controversies over TCM and related practices. As such it does not have to meet MEDRS. Also, because it represents an opposing POV, it helps the article to meet NPOV. Naturally believers in TCM, acupuncture, meridians, etc., will find it a disagreeable statement, and that's okay. A truly NPOV article will always have content which offends someone, and that's really how it should be.

As far as MEDRS goes, I'm very well aware of its proper application. I've been around from before it was created. It applies to biomedical and scientific claims, not to opinions or descriptions of dissenting opinion or controversy. That's why MEDRS only applies to relevant parts of articles, not to the whole article. QW represents the maintream medical POV and is highly respected within mainstream medicine, but is obviously hated by those it criticizes. So be it. It is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to dealing with fringe matters, quackery, and healthfraud, and those who don't like its criticisms would love to kill that canary. One of the first and most obvious tells of a pusher of fringe POV is that they attack QW. That's a big red flag, and essentially is like placing a target on one's own back around here. Everyone who values scientific accuracy, including many admins, will watch such editors (see my comment to Herbxue below) very carefully. Wikipedia's policies regarding RS are closely tied with the demands of the scientific method, so the actions of such editors are often at odds with our policies because their unscientific way of thinking places them at odds with scientific facts and RS. The two go together much of the time.

BTW, please explain what you mean by a "faulty citation"? Maybe that can be fixed. Thanks again. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the citation issue. As I'm aware citations should be defined where they are first used, or at the bottom of the page under References, but this one was invoked at the top of the page, and defined in the middle. So when I removed the sentence from the efficacy section it became red at the top of the page. I'll buy your arguments concerning the lede, and am happy now as long as it isn't unnecessarily thrown out there alongside Cochrane reviews. CFCF (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch is the Fox news of medicine. The tone of the questionable sentence is so colored and dismissive that it can't be taken seriously.Herbxue (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming from you, that opinion does not surprise me. Take note of my reply to CFCF in this edit (above), which refers more to editors like you. Your edits are watched, and your professional COI has been known for a long time, so be a bit more circumspect and neutral. Actually, NaturalNews is the Fox News of medicine, IOW consistently on the opposite side from medical and scientific facts. It takes an uncanny knowledge and hatred of truth and/or incredible stupidity, to consistently promote what has been proven false. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

BR everyone around here knows I'm a reasonable guy that plays nice and respects the norms, but the sweeping "throw the baby out with the bathwater" rhetoric that QW uses, and that you used (that TCM has "been proven false") infuriates me because it shows more of a POV rather than a true respect for science (which would be evidenced by withholding judgement until enough data were in, or better yet, only commenting on the facts that are known and not using them to make sweeping assertions like a whole system of medicine, with all its diversity, is somehow a single unit that can be proven false. It just gets my goat.Herbxue (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Herbxue, if I had actually written "(that TCM has "been proven false")," I would certainly modify it as a typo, but you are the one who is putting those words in my mouth by applying them to TCM. I was specifically referring to NaturalNews, not TCM. Those are two very different subjects. Therefore the rest of your comment needs to be revised completely, in accordance with my clarification, as it doesn't apply to my beliefs. I'm actually much more nuanced than that, especially when pushed to clarify my beliefs in detail. If you are ever in doubt again, just ask me (AGF), rather than accuse me. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted BR, my primary goal was to explain my dislike of the QW quote in question, not to attack you. It was my impression that your post meant that "TCM" had been proven false, which would be like saying that "science" has been proven true. My apologies if I misread you.Herbxue (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Like! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I went back and saw that the portion had been restored to the efficacy section again. The problem as I see it is that the sentence is presented as a fringe view denying any effect of TCM treatments. I went back and read the article, and attempted to cite it in a less ambiguous way. Now it doesn't refer to individual treatments (the type that after scientific inquiry have been shown to work at times), but rather to general TCM theories which seem to be unequivocally rubbish. CFCF (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"...TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care" is about the most useless opinion I've heard regarding this topic... What do they even mean with "rational care"? Obviously they don't mean "evidence based" (because than they would have said it. And their prediction would already be wrong anyway)... And to categorically predict for the future that no amount of scientific study will be able make TCM a rational treatment decision is about the most un-scientific stance I've heard in a long time. This is a totally useless piece of POV WP:CRYSTALBALLing and I'm pretty appalled by experienced editors like Brangifer defending it. I propose immediate deletion. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't like it? Then it appears that NPOV is working its magic. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, these additions violate Wikipedia's core editing policies, just like how your blatant accusations are grossly uncivil and violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -A1candidate (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Which "core editing policies"? Maybe that big one about NPOV, our most sacred policy? It requires that RSed opposing opinions, facts, whatever, be included to provide full coverage of the subject, and that whitewashing is not allowed just because someone doesn't like those differing opinions (which happen to make perfect sense to those with the opposing POV).

You really need to study WP:Writing for the opponent and stop the deletionism and whitewashing. I had to learn to do that early on, and it was only when a chiropractor, who also understood that, began to edit the chiropractic article, that it finally began to make huge progress. He understood that the article must contain RSed criticisms of chiropractic, and he allowed them to remain. Now the article contains lots of RS stuff that make me, a chiroskeptic, and chiropractors themselves, all somewhat uncomfortable. That's what a truly NPOV article does, and that's okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. What specifically concerns me is how you tried to intimidate anyone who might not be of your opinion ("One of the first and most obvious tells of a pusher of fringe POV is that they attack QW. That's a big red flag, and essentially is like placing a target on one's own back around here") in general, and Herbxue in particular. Would you bother to apologize? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done for stating the obvious here Brangifer --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Mallexikon. No. One can choose to wear the shoe if it fits, or not. It is not my choice that determines the matter. If Herbxue, or anyone else, insists on wearing the shoe, because that's where they are coming from, then let them stand by their beliefs, but know that there are consequences. (There is also another option, and that is that they will learn and change their POV.) That's just the way it works. We don't tolerate pushing fringe POV, or opposition to mainstream POV. We simply include both POV using RS.

Anyone who is anti-quackbusting (IOW against QW), is obviously anti-anti-quackery, and that double negative means they are pushers of quackery, and anyone who is a pusher of fringe POV, rather than an editor who is willing to allow RSed material from both POV in articles, will be watched more closely. This is not some sort of FringeOpedia. Here we state scientific facts and opinions as what they are, and fringe opinions as what they are. Note that "pushing mainstream facts" and "pushing fringe POV" are not equal. The first is recommended, and the second is often a blockable offense. Why? Because the first never runs out of RS, which the second very quickly does. It quickly resorts to fringe, unRS, and we don't use them here.

What this really boils down to is not one's own personal POV, but whether one is able to edit in an NPOV manner by allowing RSed opposing POV in articles. We have some editors with very fringe POV who are able to do that, but not many. Too many are too religiously tied to their beliefs to abide by the purpose of being here, which is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and not to misuse Wikipedia to push a fringe POV as if it were fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the content and placement (the content in the lead is significantly different) have been significantly altered from what they were at the beginning, to the seeming satisfaction of some members of both POV, can we close this discussion? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Anyone who is anti-quackbusting (IOW against QW), is obviously anti-anti-quackery, and that double negative means they are pushers of quackery..." Yes, as far as I can see this belief is very much consistent with your behavior. What you display here is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. And that always leads straight to personal attacks (like the ones you displayed above, basically stating that all of us who don't want this useless QW quote in the article are pushers of quackery). Please read WP:POV railroad and wonder why I think your conduct fits that description. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is using logic and the rules of the English language. You aren't getting my point because you are not AGF. Violation of NPOV through whitewashing is usually a sign of battlefield behavior. I am not the one trying to keep QW's opposing POV out of the article. Rather than making this a battlefield, I am inviting editors who are violating NPOV to stop it and allow for the presentation of opposing POV. You may have missed that element in my comments. If editors resist my message, then they are the ones creating a battlefield situation. Why not just seek to collaborate and cooperate? It's not an either/or situation. Compromise can often work well. Try reading my comments again.

The comments now seem to be unproductive, so let's step back and look at the article itself. The current version, including your movement of the QW material to a better section (even though you still think it's useless ), is better. Since the content and placement (the content in the lead is significantly different and very neutral) have been significantly altered from what they were at the beginning of this discussion, to the seeming satisfaction of some members of both POV, can we close this discussion? Regardless of what we may feel, the discussion has resulted in changes which have improved the article from what it was at the beginning. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any lack of AGF on the part of Mallexikon or A1Candidate, and no suppression of a differing point of view, just a rejection of one quote that is truly questionable from QW. As far as I can tell, I am the only one here who categorically hates Quack Watch. Other editors' rejection of that specific quote from QW are just an example of an honest assessment of the source in question.Herbxue (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I will concede that QW is not a good high quality medical source as were the other Cochrane sources. That is why I removed it from the efficacy section as it was clearly in an area where WP:MEDRS applies, this was my only objection. Currently it resides in a section which can impossibly be MEDRS compliant and I see no reason to exclude it when so much detail is taken into account from the pro-TCM community. Furthermore as I added, it is now apparent that Quack-watch is an independent think-tank and not a large-scale medical review organization such as Cochrane. CFCF (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct on all points. It's in a much better location now. There is one thing a bit odd though. QuackGuru did notice something I hadn't seen, which is a LEAD violation, but that has been fixed. There is still a bit of a disconnect. We usually use the larger material/quote/whatever, with the context, in the body, and then use only part of it in the lead. In this case we are quoting from the same source, but using different parts in each place, which means that context is missing from the part in the body. I think the part in the body needs more context, and that happens to be in the lead. I'll try fixing the body part by using the whole quote and let's see if that works better. Things separated from their context often cause problems anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical reference

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787890 QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit did not match edit summary

This edit deleted the specific animal products that have little research to justify their clinical efficacy. This was not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This change does not make any sense because it separated the two sentences that go together. "There has been little research to justify the claimed clinical efficacy of these TCM animal products." But which animal products. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All of them. And if you may have noted, we already had tiger bone and rhinoceros horn in the text already. Why do you insist of telling the reader twice? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the text has been altered again. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the references should stay in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to fundamentally change the "no-sources-in-the-lead" convention we've been having, you need consensus. And you would have to include sources for all the other the material in the lead then, too, in order to be consistent. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

For medicals claims we need sources especially when the text is being whitewashed or drastically changed in the lead.

The text in the lead has been whitewashed. I propose the text in the lead should be restored: "A number of potentially toxic Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) consists of plants, animal parts and minerals." The continued whitewashing is not right.

Propose to restore text: Some TCM textbooks have recommended preparations containing animal tissues like tiger bones, antelope, buffalo or rhino horns, deer antlers, testicles and penis bone of the dog, bear or snake bile. There has been little research to justify the claimed clinical efficacy of these TCM animal products. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1.) The information has not been changed. What do you mean by whitewashing? 2.) Are you aware that "A number of potentially toxic Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) consists of plants, animal parts and minerals" is extremely awkward, to an extent that it's grammatically questionable? 3.) Are you aware that we have to paraphrase text in order to avoid WP:Plagiarism? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism? We are covered by fair use laws, so exact quotes are also allowable, and to avoid OR, are sometimes preferable. Providing quotation marks and the source make it normal practice. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but then you're talking about quotes, which should be used with caution (cf WP:QUOTEFARM). --Mallexikon (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no quotes. Quotes were not needed. There was no plagiarism. I rewrote the text. Stop making excuses for deleting text you don't like. The whitewashing in the lead is extremely obvious. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"A number of Chinese medicinals are potentially toxic which include plants, animal parts and minerals" should go in the lead to summarise the body.

At the end of the Traditional Chinese medicine#Animal substances it says: There has been little research to justify the claimed clinical efficacy of these TCM animal products.[147] That is false. It is not all of the animal products in the section. You created original research. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1.) "... include plants, animal parts and minerals" is still grammatically incorrect. Also, it's superfluous. The reader is already told that CHM consists of plants/minerals/animal parts in the appropriate subsection. Why do you want to repeat this here? 2.) Alright. I think you are too picky (we already told the reader that efficiency for CHM in general is poorly documented), but I'll delete the "these". --Mallexikon (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A number of Chinese herbal medicinals (CHM) are potentially toxic? No.

A number of Chinese medicinals are potentially toxic... is correct. It is more than the herbs according to the source you deleted from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Medicinal" already includes minerals and animal parts. I added some RS material to avoid this misunderstanding. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"As traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has become more popular there have been increasing concerns about safety and potential toxicity of the Chinese materia medica (CMM) comprising plants, animal parts and minerals."[8] The current text in the lead failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll reword. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You have shown we need to restore the references in the lead. One wrong word and the entire sentence is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already said what there is to say about the lead-source convention here. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You continue to add original research to the lead. "there are concerns about the potential toxicity of some[original research] of the medicinals in use" The references to the lead must be restored for challenged text. The word "some" is original research.

This was was more whitewashing because you deleted the part about the plants, animal parts and minerals are potentially toxic. This must be restored: A number of potentially toxic Chinese medicinals consists of plants, animal parts and minerals. Please stop deleting text you don't like. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't delete text I don't like, I just delete superfluous text. We already said in the article that medicinals can be plant parts, animal parts, or minerals. Why is it so important to you to state that here again? And why are you so irritated by the word "some"? It's definitely wrong to talk about medicinals in general when it comes to potential toxicity. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

On second thought: Maybe there is a misunderstanding here and some more context could simmer you down a little... Please read Chinese herbology#Toxicity. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You do delete text you don't like. The text was missing a lot of information you deleted. See[9][10] QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mallexikon, do you think you have deleted text you don't like? QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. II

This source QG uses: "He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L. et al. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine 33 (3): 403–7" [11] is an analysis done by Chinese doctors, published in a Beijiing-based journal. It does not constitute a reliable source regarding details about the German health care system. Their claim about some health insurances not reimbursing acupuncture anymore has not been echoed by any other source about the GERAC (and there are a lot them), it hasn't been backed up with a source by the article's authors, and they didn't specify on it either (which health insurance are they talking about?). It has to be suspected that their claim is just hearsay. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then! I'll invoke WP:MEDSCI ("Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" - in this case, a TCM journal that reports details about the German health care system) to delete this source (unless someone objects). --Mallexikon (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)