→This is a seriously POV article: r to OM |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →This is a seriously POV article: Once again, having to deal with personal attacks. |
||
Line 582: | Line 582: | ||
:::::OM, no one is presenting Qi as a truth, we're simply reporting what TCM says about it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not trying to establish Truth, but simply trying to present the sum total of human knowledge (including knowledge about things which are wrong). If you've got other concerns about the material, please do tell, but if your only issue is that what this page says is not 'true' in some ontological sense... well, I'm not sure I see the relevance. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::::OM, no one is presenting Qi as a truth, we're simply reporting what TCM says about it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not trying to establish Truth, but simply trying to present the sum total of human knowledge (including knowledge about things which are wrong). If you've got other concerns about the material, please do tell, but if your only issue is that what this page says is not 'true' in some ontological sense... well, I'm not sure I see the relevance. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Ludwigs, I see you're still prone to personal attacks. See [[WP:NPA]] please. Of course, I know that science doesn't establish a truth. However, I think you should review [[WP:NPOV]], since we're not here to present fringe viewpoints, just what is supported by evidence that qualifies as a reliable source. I can point you to the appropriate links if necessary. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 03:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:38, 23 March 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New content should be added at the bottom, not here. Template:Add
malaria RS needed
RS needed for
" Investigation of the active ingredients used in one TCM medicine has produced Artemisinin, used in the treatment of malaria."
PPdd (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the link to the Wiki page which also mentions this fact. I would start there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_annua -but here is my copy and paste: ^ Duke SO, Paul RN (1993). "Development and Fine Structure of the Glandular Trichomes of Artemisia annua L.". Int. J Plant Sci. 154 (1): 107–18. doi:10.1086/297096.
- Ferreira JFS, Janick J (1995). "Floral Morphology of Artemisia annua with Special Reference to Trichomes". Int. J Plant Sci. 156 (6): 807. doi:10.1086/297304.
- What RS says it is used in "TCM", as opposed to "Chinese integrative medicine"? 14:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Mugwort
Historically, why mugwort? Why not anything else? Did people try randomly burning thousands of herbs on others and then decide, "Ah ha! We burned thousands of people in with thousands of things, and with one of the things we burned them with, a medical effect was noticed". What evidence was used to establish that mugwort is any different than anything else, or to begin burning people in the first place? PPdd (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- there was a study comparing mugwort use to heat by another source. I will try to track it down. However, I would suggest that this makes you appear bias. Are you trying to write an article about chinese medicine, or disprove it efficacy and make it seem absurd?Calus (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was not asking about a justification for it, but why it came about. I am working on an article about history of TCM. I just added these edits[1] to this article. I had tea with camillia[2] last night, and had a ginger[3]-ginseng[4] based drink exactly when you were writing the reply, and I wrote all three linked sections. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVL. :) PPdd (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest that any information you find about why mugwort was chosen is mere speculation. It's impossible to know the mind of those so far in the past. However, that being said, I've heard it said that mugwort is believed to have similar Qi to that of the human body. But this is a slippery slope since the very definition of the word Qi has a rich and varied history. Most likely, it was a case of trial and error. I am still trying to track down the article on efficacy vs other heat sources for you though. Calus (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was not asking about a justification for it, but why it came about. I am working on an article about history of TCM. I just added these edits[1] to this article. I had tea with camillia[2] last night, and had a ginger[3]-ginseng[4] based drink exactly when you were writing the reply, and I wrote all three linked sections. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVL. :) PPdd (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- there was a study comparing mugwort use to heat by another source. I will try to track it down. However, I would suggest that this makes you appear bias. Are you trying to write an article about chinese medicine, or disprove it efficacy and make it seem absurd?Calus (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Mugwort and Li Shizhen
Li Shizhen wrote a short treatise on mugwort. Does anyonw have access to it? PPdd (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Crticism from inside China of TCM as backward, unscientific, and superstitious
Author Lu Xun's Medicine on TCM
- Acclaimed 20th Century Chinese writer Lu Xun's Medicine, about TCM. Here is a complete copy.
- The preface to his Call to Arms contains his encounters with TCM.
- His Tomorrow is about TCM. PPdd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lu Xun died before the modern syncretic version of CM that we know as "TCM" existed.
- Lu Xun is a literary figure, not a medical expert, who lived during a time when China was the laughingstock of the world (important because it informs why he rallied against certain ways in which he perceived China to be weak at that time). He is not an appropriate source on Chinese medicine in general, much less "TCM" which did not yet exist in its current standardized form during his lifetime.Herbxue (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chinese Medicine and Chinese integral medicine is not Tradtional Chinese medicine.
- Lu Xun is not RS, except secondary commentary on him is, if relevant anywhere. However, he is intimately familiar with TCM practice. His observations on it can be used to find RS for them. PPdd (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Metaphysics, alchemy, astrology, numerology
Five elements/phases (Wuxing) framework - RS needed. Classics are primary sources. PPdd (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don Gates says “There are SIX solid Yin organs (Zang)”.[5].
- This[6] group of experts says “the FIVE Zang-organs”[ http://tcmdiscovery.com/News/info/20090526_14189.html]. ???
- The same thing happens regarding hard copy texts, and all over the internet. ???
- The "SIX Zang" and six fu make TWELVE zang-fu, correspond to the TWELVE meridians (and 12 rivers per Li).
- But the "FIVE zang" organs correspond to the five elements/phases, five planets, five shen (spirits), five tastes, five directions. ???
- What are the balancing FIVE Yang planets?
- And the Five directions needed for the corresponence to work are North, South, East, West, and.... um er, ... oh yeah, Center. Center?
- FOUR Tastes, and the Temperatures. PPdd (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I don't understand why you are the most prolific editor of this article. This is some of the most basic theory. Imagine if I did 70% of the edits on the Botany page and months later asked "so monocots and dicots, what's the difference? Xylem and phloem - what are those?". Yes, it really is like that! Please don't put stuff about planets in here. Like I mentioned about Feng Shui, there are people that incorporate all kinds of Chinese cultural and scientific achievements into healing, but some are just not really part of TCM (like human penis). I'm not just trying to rag on you here, I really want to help you understand that you don't know enough about the context of TCM to really edit the article appropriately.Herbxue (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Tongue map of the body
At right is a motor cortex map of the body. TCM has a toungue map of the body. Does anyone know where a pic of such a map is? HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here[7] is a tongue map. Does anyone know how to get one of these maps onto WP:Commons? PPdd (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I could, but I don't think the image is free under GLP (there's nothing on the site that says it is). can you find a free image? --Ludwigs2 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. For some reason, I cannot open an account at Commons, and my original account comes up as not existing. A google image search of "tongue map 'Traditional Chinese Medicine'" produces many such map pictures, but the one I linked to above is on many sites, so I assumed it was most likely to be free to use from some original source. If not, maybe one of the other ones would do. PPdd (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- ah, go over to wp:Village pump (technical), tell them that you just changed user names and that you're having trouble with using global accounts over at Commons. the people there will fix you up - they're good.
- The thing to do about that image is poke around at different ones and find one on a site that releases everything under GPL. there should be enough of them out there that you'll find one. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks again. How do I check "GLP" status at a site? (PS- Please check my "plain English" alterations to your TCM lede 2nd paragraph to make sure I did not misstate TCM theory things by trying to remove any jargon.) PPdd (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most sites will have a copyright page somewhere. find it, and check to see if they release their material under the Gnu Public License (GPL) - free to use and/or modify - or if they make some equivalent statement saying that they release all rights. those are the main ways to get something uploaded to Commons. there are other ways to use images that are more restrictive, but for something like this GPL is best if you can get it. --Ludwigs2 06:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks again. How do I check "GLP" status at a site? (PS- Please check my "plain English" alterations to your TCM lede 2nd paragraph to make sure I did not misstate TCM theory things by trying to remove any jargon.) PPdd (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Two issues with your rewrite:
- "its causing failure to treat or prevent disease with proven science based medicines" is not sensible English. I'd fix it, but I have no idea what it's even trying to say
- "the ecological impact of the exploitation of its pharmacological substances". this is a dramatic overstatement. The vast majority of chinese medicine practices have absolutely no effect on the environment - they don't even produce large quantities of medical waste, the way that western hospitals do. A small number of practices on the fringes of Chinese medicine impact on a small number of endangered species. Let's not imply that every damned chinese medical doctor in the world is out is out hunting down rare animals and destroying the earth.
- One other small issue, but I'll fix that now. --Ludwigs2 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, another editor (at the bottom section of this talk page) wrote that sentence. I just added that a scientific criticism (the main one as I have personal familiarity with) is that a person with a bacteriological infection may fail to get simple anitbiotic treatment (I have seen this happen) because they are instead using TCM, and they may use TCM as a preventative when there is a proven vaccine. The other clause is about the negative impact on endangered species by superstitious beliefs about "medicines" (that's how I first heard of TCM, in a conservation ATV show about rhinos, tigers, etc.) I liked how the other editor was able to sum up the article's criticism material in one sentence for the lede. There might be future criticism about how undue weight is given to nonscienctific POV in the lede, but I like this single sentence approach to criticism, and I like short ledes. PPdd (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Two issues with your rewrite:
Here[9] are some really good tongue pics, and a good map of the tongue. But I can't find the copyright page. PPdd (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Every page on that site has the Cinnabar copyright in the bottom lift corner. hard finding free stuff... --Ludwigs2 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This issue is still open. Could any TCM doctor here please draw a tongue map, upload it to WM:Commons, and let us know? PPdd (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason for believing toungue has map of body?
I can find nothing in the metaphysics/alchemy/astrology/numerology that explains tying the tongue to a map of the body. Does anyone know how this is based per TCM theory? PPdd (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Content, organization
Unacceptable [citation needed] tagging
I think that whoever put all these Citation Needed tags everywhere is being disruptive and pointy.[citation needed] Whatever anyone thinks of Traditional Chinese Medicine, this is not at all an acceptable way to handle your disagreement.[citation needed] I am tempted to just remove all of them, [citation needed] but that doesn't solve the problem of bringing the article's citations up to an acceptable level.[citation needed] On the other hand, neither do the damned tags.[citation needed] The policy do it yourself comes into play here.[citation needed] There are 17 tags on the page, only about half of which, at most, are legitimate.[citation needed] Would the person or persons that made this unnessacary mess please fix it? Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [citation needed]
- I put them on any sentence without inline citations, and I fixed it by deleting all NRS material. PPdd (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Removal of all RS scientific and critical info from lead
- Luwigs2,why did you POV remove all the RS scientific and critical info from the lead, and move it to a section below?
- Why was the fully RS lead material replaced with NRS opiion, some of which is innacurate, and some false?
- Please discuss here before replacing RS lead content with NRS lead content. PPdd (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I would say the article, including the lead, is still tilted towards a skeptic's POV (third paragraph does not reflect the true safety and efficacy of most of TCM) so not sure what you are objecting to. It looks WAY better now but still not quite neutral.
I question the section saying TCM medicinals are processed according to "alchemy" rather than chemistry. Its really more like traditional cooking methods (steaming, dry-frying, frying with honey, cooking with other, mostly plant based substances, etc.) but I will check your RS to see why it says that here.Herbxue (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- First, I did not remove all of the critical material, just the pointless critical material. Your have a personal fascination with animal penises and putative cannibalism that has very little to do with the conventional practices of TCM, and I removed them per wp:UNDUE
- Second, please give me more than 25 minutes to make revisions before engaging in wholescale reverts. thoughtful writing takes some time. I suggest you make your self familiar with wp:UNDUE for the rest of the afternoon while I try to fix things up here.
- @Herbxue: it's important to frame the article with respect to western scientific medicine. Wikipedia cannot actively oppose TCM (the way PPdd has been doing) but it cannot actively endorse it, either. we can haggle over the balance, obviously... My own personal take on this is that we should give an accurate description of the practices while pointing out that they are not verified (or usually even tested) by what most english-speaking readers would recognize as medical research. This is simply to avoid giving TCM the appearance of more prominence in the western world than it actually has. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. We can gradually add more about the debates regarding the quality of TCM research later.Herbxue (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, guys - the IPs are getting into the game now. if you all could restore the parts that the just got reverted, I'll pick up with more editing tomorrow; no sense in my trying to revise the article when people jusmp in to undo what every I do as soon as I do it. In the meantime, I'm going to go ask to have the page semi-protected. --Ludwigs2 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. We can gradually add more about the debates regarding the quality of TCM research later.Herbxue (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Herbxue: it's important to frame the article with respect to western scientific medicine. Wikipedia cannot actively oppose TCM (the way PPdd has been doing) but it cannot actively endorse it, either. we can haggle over the balance, obviously... My own personal take on this is that we should give an accurate description of the practices while pointing out that they are not verified (or usually even tested) by what most english-speaking readers would recognize as medical research. This is simply to avoid giving TCM the appearance of more prominence in the western world than it actually has. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
I put a neutrality tag on the article at the request of another editor. The article was then adjusted to be NPOV. As a test for NPOV, I substituted TWM for TCM, eastern for western, etc. Here[10] is the TWM article. Here[11] are the diffs. Since each line is now sourced, if anyone still feels like there is a line that is POV in that it is not sourced, please bring that line up here. PPdd (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is an interesting exercise but I don't think is sufficient to show neutrality as the development and current applications of the two subjects are not parallel. As such I think the neutrality tag needs to remain. While the statements in the TCM article are sourced, they are cherry picked and are introduced in a non-neutral way. For an example of something closer (but not there yet) to neutral see the page on astragalus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astragalus). There is ambiguity in the research on telomerase activity and even in the generally accepted research on immune support but the article does not start out saying something like "astragalus is useless as a supplement", it presents the facts, and gives both sides. The TCM article doesn't do this. It starts out with the assumption that TCM is wacky and dangerous. This doesn't match the excellent safety record of TCM, especially when compared to pharmaceuticals.Herbxue (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Astragalus spp. article is a botany article, not a medical article. Botany articles have an accepted format, long developed by WP:Wikiproject Plants, of which I am a member. The TCM article does not start out saying "it is useless". It never says it is useless anywhere. What is POV about the TWM test article? Where does it say TCM is whacky? And the "toxic" part later down is from Zhang himself. Chemotheraphy is also toxic, basically killing cells until all the cancer is dead and hopefully thEre is enough left to live. That is not "whacky", but it is very dangerous. PPdd (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your attitude toward WP should not be to try to create an image for TCM, but to report what the RS say.(1) The first appearance of "negative" info is alternative medicine. Are you suggesting removing that? The next occurance is "Those that have been scientifically analyzed have sometimes been found to be ineffective, have sometimes been used to make discoveries in science-based pharmacology, although not necessarily for what it was believed to treat, and often contains dangerous toxins." A POV editor tried to have the last parts of the sentence removed. The sentence is entirely NPOV. (2) It makes no sense to claim scientific discovery of cancer treatment discovered while testing for toxins is a triumph for TCM when TCM uses it for ashtma, not cancer. Use of the chemicals for cancer is part of evidence based medicine, not TCM. (3) The next part of the sentence is that it contains toxins. That is exactly what the most important TCM physcician/systemtizer Zhang said is how the medicines work! How is Zhang POV? These sentences are NPOV, not POV. Why would you want them removed or lablelled POV? How are they "cherry picking"? PPdd (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- You first sentence above is duly noted (oops I mean the sentence that begins "Your attitude towards...). For the record I did not recommend removing any sentences mentioned above (yet). A couple statements you made need to be commented on:
- There is nothing untrue about the statement about some medicinals being ineffective, but it ignores the fact that many are considered effective. A more balanced statement would include that fact. A VERY IMPORTANT point here is that a "scientific" study can evaluate any individual intervention, but if you find that astragalus helps regulate the immune system, and TCM has long used it for that purpose, you cannot claim that the TCM aspect is invalid because the study adds to pharmacological knowledge. TCM and Evidence Based Medicine are not mutually exclusive terms. Modern TCM does incorporate modern pharmaceutical knowledge into therapies (see articles from the journal "Chinese Medicine" such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255464). A substance like oldenlandia has been used in TCM for cancer treatment for a very long time, just because someone in a lab discovered that certain phytochemicals may be cytotoxic in vitro to rectal cancer cells doesn't mean its a win for "Science" but not for TCM. It is both.
- Who is the Zhang mentioned? From what source is he described as "the most important TCM physcician/systemtizer?"
- In terms of cherry picking, Matuk is sourced rather heavily, but does not seem to be an authority on the subject. A B.S. in Biology and an Illustrator? Not a great source.
- Where in any of the sources cited does it say that TCM is based on a "complex association with the gods"? It is not in the Matuk article or the Cancer Society linked page. Statement should be removed as it is not sourced and not true.Herbxue (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's the way I first wrote it, "sometimes effective", without MEDRS to back it up. It was challenged by others and I had to change it. We can say it is effective if there is a reliable WP:MEDRS secondary source like a meta-analysis or systematic review (but not a primary single study source). There is also "Chinese integrative medicine", where, e.g., scientists may be checking for toxins in a TCM asthma-impotence drug, and find a toxin that treats cancer, and some TCM advocates then claim that "TCM works", when all that happened is a new drug was discovered in a TCM medicine by evidence based medicine.
- Zhang is in this edit I made[12]. Check this article's history section. You can read more in, e.g., Chen Ping's History and Development of Traditional Chinese Medicine, or Wong KC and Wu LT's 1936 classic History of Chinese Medicine.
- Matuk is a historian of medicine, and a WP:MEDRS secondary source published in a premier peer reviewed medical journal. Cherry picking is pusing one and not another. What is the other you suggest?
- "complex association with the gods" is a quote from the Matuk article - "Eastern and Western medicine began with similar fusions of religion, spirituality, and science. Anatomists resorted to analogies of the universe to explain the body when superstitions surrounding death and the fate of the soul prevented closer observation through dissection. To anatomists, nature was divided into elements, each determined by complex associations with gods and all existing by divine will (Mahdihassan, 1973)". If you check out Mahdassan, it says the same thing, but we don't need to cite multiple sources once we have one MEDRS secondary source in a peer reviewed medical journal. PPdd (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- So the Matuk quote refers to both Western and Eastern at first, but then the "gods" part is specifically referring to "anatomists". Which anatomists associated with TCM had a "complex association with gods"? Sounds to me this is a foggy-headed association between the history of western anatomists and an unclear perception of TCM by someone who is not a subject matter expert. She isn't even clearly making a statement about TCM. So why is it in the TCM page? It should be removed unless this is a book report about Matuk. Also, I must state that "TCM" is modern term for the current practice of Chinese that was systematized in the mid-20th century that does include scientific inquiry and evidence based practice (Integration is a major feature of contemporary TCM and there is no separate entity of Chinese integrative med unless someone is using that term to promote themselves). EBM and TCM are not mutually exclusive, as evidence by the article in the peer reviewed journal I linked to above. btw - Zhang Yuan Su is a controversial figure in Chinese medicine who was one of the few famous doctors throughout history that recommended rejecting the use of ancient formulas for modern diseases. Definitely influential but not to be considered the norm in TCM.Herbxue (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it says "both" eastern and western anatomists. It then goes on to say that TCM anatomy did not change, but western anatomy did because of dissection. In fact, "tom" in "anatomy means "cut". "A-tom" means "not-cutable", and that's where the word "atom" comes from, because it was thought at the time of discovery not to be cuttable any more, as Democritus first speculated when he smelled bread. PPdd (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are thinking of what is called "Chinese integrative medicine" (See, e.g., Certain progress of clinical research on "Chinese integrative medicine", Keji Chen, Bei Yu, Chinese Medical Journal, 1999, 112 (10), p. 934, [13]). TCM is based on what the RS source says. There are 200 sources in the article all use the expression "Traditional Chinese Medicine" in the same way. You should not be at WP if you have a POV agenda, or to impose what you think is true, including med journals, NACAM, Acupuncture Today, and the Journal of Chinese Medicine. And "both" means both, not just one and not the other. The Journal of Biocommunications is a major peer reviewed medical journal, and is definitely MEDRS. I also cited you another source above that says exactly the same thing as Matuk. Also see ber list of references. Wikipedia is about what sources say, not what editors think. Matuk was discussed ad nauseum in the acupuncture article talk pages, with acupuncture proponents trying to make a WP:POINT over and over to try to get out what they did not like to hear. These are not even historical facts that are disputed anywhere. PPdd (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you bring up a good point in stating that it "doesn't mean its a win for "Science" but not for TCM. It is both." Should western medicine be the standard all other medicine is held to? If so, it brings up certain notions which may be of importance. In regards to "using poison to treat poison", this is exactly what western medicine does with Chemo therapy (if you grant that cancer is seen as a "poison" in TCM). Also, in regards to the toxicity of mercury, it makes TCM seem like its full of quacks for having used it, and yet it is in nearly every modern vaccine. Perhaps a fair and balanced article would mention these facts. I would not endorse such a stance, but I'm throwing it out there to discuss in regards to a fair and balanced view. Calus (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Herb and Claus, you both misunderstand the purpose of editing. Wikipedia is not about Science or TCM "winning" or not. It is about what the MEDRS secondary sources say for medical claims, and what secondary RS says for others. If mercury is in an evidence based medicine, it should be stated in that article if there is RS for it, and not be in it if there is not RS. PPdd (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- By your logic then mercury should not be mentioned as toxic in this article at all because it is lab science that most clearly describes is such. You can't only have it your way. I am not saying either the toxicity of mercury or the effectiveness of astragalus should be omitted. They both should be included because they both have a history of use in TCM AND more information about there use has been generated by modern scientific means, of which there is already plenty of in the article. You can't apply a standard only to selected information.Herbxue (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "my logic", or "my way". Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS, which are the only way here. And try to understand what they are saying about sources, especially secondary sources in medicine, where there must be a meta-analysis or systematic review because of the nature of p-value, and lesser reasons. That is why TCM journals are not MEDRS, because their peer reviewers are not biostatisticians for secondary source reviewing, and not even scientists or MDs, and often do not even know how to do a meta-analysis, to say less about critiquing one as required in a peer review of such.
- Astragalus was an obscure plant rarely used in traditional Chinese medicine, for night sweats and diarrhea. It is very dangerous for people with Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, and systemic lupus erythematosus, and may interfere with corticosteroid medications. It was scientifically analyzed and found to have a biochemical that works for something not even within the TCM framework, but which became a part of evidence based medicine since there were primary source studies indicating an effect for something not predicted by TCM. Then TCM people, who will latch onto anything found to have a medical effect that is not toxic, suddenly claimed this as a “victory”. If this all was put in the article using a secondary source then TCM really would look ridiculous, but there is no such secondary source. LOL.
- What does this have to do with Wikipedia, since there is not secondary source? PPdd (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- "TCM people, who will latch onto anything found to have a medical effect that is not toxic, suddenly claimed this as a “victory”" - I thought this wasn't about winning? But if "TCM people" use things that are effective and non-toxic why does the article emphasize the toxic substances?
- Thank you for the references above (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS) I skimmed them and did not see anything about a different standard of reporting sources describing toxicity or other effects, favorable or unfavorable. So again, if it is valid to include toxicity of one substance discovered by scientific methods, then it is also valid to include hepato-protective action of another (if properly sourced, which isn't hard).Herbxue (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Latch on" is what is on skeptic sites, but they are not MEDRS or RS, so it does not go in the article. In fact, I deleted a bunch of skeptic stuff from the article since it was not RS.
- Toxicity should have MEDRS, the same as a claim of efficacy. Its just a much easier standard to find MEDRS for toxins, since it involves a chemical analysis, not a very difficult series of complesx long term human studies. This is all already discussed in this page and the archives. If it is not difficult to find a secondary source MEDRS, then present it and it will not be contested by anyone. PPdd (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Even after reading the policies I still say it is a double standard to allow a more lax requirement of proof to claim toxicity than claims of efficacy. The page is about TCM - it doesn't need to say TCM works, but it does need to faithfully describe the rationale for why TCM uses a given intervention both in terms of traditional actions as well as pharmaceutical actions of the herbs. The Wikilawyering article #3 clearly states that a rigid adherence to policies does not trump the intention of the policies, which is fair presentation of the subject based on consensus.Herbxue (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, we do not need to claim or prove that any individual substance works on this page. PPdd said "We can say it is effective if there is a reliable WP:MEDRS secondary source like a meta-analysis or systematic review (but not a primary single study source)." - Thats not to say we can't reference in vitro and human studies that found effect - its just reporting the literature and work that has been done, not making medical claims. As such, for example, a cohort study showing improved survival rates for breast cancer survivors who took ginseng can be reported in this page without being evaluated in a systematic review, as long as the TCM page does not endorse or make claims about the medical significance of that research.Herbxue (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its not more lax. Its just easier to scientifically publish biochemical spectral analysis about already known toxins, compared to doing a series of complex human studies and a systematic review for efficacy. The initial studies on toxicity of the chemical had to go through the same rigor, but this was usually done completely independently of TCM, as in the case of lead and mercury, or aconite. Also in some cases but not all, toxic effects may be dramatic, while efficacy may be subtle and more difficult to establish. Pharmaceutical companies face this same "more lax" hurdle all the time (or at least they are supposed to; they often try to game the system and lie with statistics). PPdd (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Establishing ground rules for editing; addressing over-referencing; describing significance
As I tried to look at this article, I found it to be rather overwhelming and unwieldy. A few thoughts:
- Basic editing ground rule that I have on my talk page: Use descriptive edit summaries. Whenever you add/remove a reference, say so and why. If you add/remove a bunch, consider discussing the change in the talk page. Quantify the number of references added/removed if feasible. This isn't mandatory of course, but it very helpful to fellow editors. Could we get this?
- This article is basically turning into a list of most weird and crazy TCM medicines without regard to their due weight and without relating at all their historical or modern significance. This is extremely troubling, obviously a grave violation of neutrality, and obviously not encyclopedic. The article, for example, does not even mention Artemisia annua at all, which led to the discovery of a revolutionary malaria treatment, but mentions the souls of hanged criminals in a heading. There's no discussion at all of what modern Chinese think of their traditional medicine and how it has changed (or not changed) in the past two hundred years.
- Please do not add a bunch of duplicate references. Wikipedia is not the place to collect all information relating to a subject. We're not a source database. Let's try to keep the number of sources to less than a hundred by using scholarly reviews and books.
As a first start, this article's listing tendencies need to be pulled back. I'll be putting all the toxic information together in one section; I don't think it's necessary or feasible to have a comprehensive list in this article, but a separate list article could be created. II | (t - c) 22:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Please read WP:FROG re neutrality, as the article is in development.
- One of the features of TCM is "toxicity", the more toxic the more effective. This leads to, e.g., aconite being called "the king of herbs". Materia Metrica is a list, so we are stuck with a list of toxics.
- Artemisia annua is a very obscure medicinal in TCM. It was so obscure it was only recently "discovered", and analyzed and found to have antimalarial properties, but that is not the TCM use, that is the Chinese integrative medicine use. I would be happy to work up a section on it, but only as pertains to TCM. Other uses by TIM can go in that article.
- Duplicate references are necesary in edit prone pseudoscience and alt med articles in a way not needed in uncontroversial articles, and stabilize the article.
- Your point about "what Chinese think of TCM is good. I put up a notice above about this, which was objected to by one editor and otherwise not reacted to. PPdd (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck in trying to improve this page. You may want to look at earlier discussion on Artemusia Annua. It was included in the article and then PPdd took it out saying it lacked RS. I then provided PPdd with RS to show that it is in fact a Chinese herb and used to treat malaria. To my knowledge he never put it back in the article. Perhaps he considered it too "obscure" for inclussion, unlike human penis and dead corpses? I would say more, but I am attempting to assume good faith, good luck and please don't quit in frustration. This page is in desperate need of fresh neutral viewpoints. Calus (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I put it back in with RS, but i used the MOS required "plain English" word "Wormwood". Actually, my ex girlfriend is the Caltech prof who discovered how to use this for making an alternative energy form using her "forward directed evolution" invention, so I was already very familiar with it. It turns out that the TCM medicinal is not effective both since the chemical is insoluble in the TCM solute, and because the concentration would be too small for an effect anyway. You might want to check the MEDRS I added for this, since I just copied it from the Artemisia article. (Incidentally, Artemesia californica is the stuff sold in new age hippie stores called California sagebrush. I can confirm its efficacy for pleasant olfactory stimulation. :) PPdd (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest using the specific english name "Sweet wormwood" which refers to the herb in question. Wormwood on its own is most commonly used in reference to Absinthe. Calus (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done, and Sweet wormwood was moved up alphabetical list within section. PPdd (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest using the specific english name "Sweet wormwood" which refers to the herb in question. Wormwood on its own is most commonly used in reference to Absinthe. Calus (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I put it back in with RS, but i used the MOS required "plain English" word "Wormwood". Actually, my ex girlfriend is the Caltech prof who discovered how to use this for making an alternative energy form using her "forward directed evolution" invention, so I was already very familiar with it. It turns out that the TCM medicinal is not effective both since the chemical is insoluble in the TCM solute, and because the concentration would be too small for an effect anyway. You might want to check the MEDRS I added for this, since I just copied it from the Artemisia article. (Incidentally, Artemesia californica is the stuff sold in new age hippie stores called California sagebrush. I can confirm its efficacy for pleasant olfactory stimulation. :) PPdd (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck in trying to improve this page. You may want to look at earlier discussion on Artemusia Annua. It was included in the article and then PPdd took it out saying it lacked RS. I then provided PPdd with RS to show that it is in fact a Chinese herb and used to treat malaria. To my knowledge he never put it back in the article. Perhaps he considered it too "obscure" for inclussion, unlike human penis and dead corpses? I would say more, but I am attempting to assume good faith, good luck and please don't quit in frustration. This page is in desperate need of fresh neutral viewpoints. Calus (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as Chinese medicines being fundamentally toxic: this is unlikely, considering that ginseng, an extremely common herb, is not known for its overt toxicity. Sure, someone in their history said that it is all about toxicity, but that's not necessarily true. I frankly don't think you (PPdd) are a reliable source about this topic at all, and this is further solidified by the fact that you appear to use no peer-reviewed references in your editing. The edit to include Artemesia was OK, but not really helpful in one respect - it is way too long and detailed. Basically it looks like you copied some information from the Artemesia article, and probably didn't even fact-check it. This is a wide overview article and it should be using summary style. I don't agree that duplicate, and often very poor (unreliable websites) are necessary in altmed type articles, and I will be working to trim out the cruft that really dominates this article. II | (t - c) 04:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the insistence of the IP editor to keep this page looking like a jumbled, messy list and my running up against 3RR, I'm going to have to take a break. I'll list here some of the articles I'm looking at to work with:
- The New Face of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Science
- Complementary and alternative therapies for epilepsy - Chapter 17, page 177
- Clinical Immunology and Traditional Herbal Medicines
- Merging Traditional Chinese Medicine with Modern Drug Discovery Technologies to Find Novel Drugs and Functional Foods
- The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Survey of 13 Randomly Selected Journals from Mainland China
- [http://cmjournal.org/content/4/1/3 Study designs of randomized controlled trials not based on Chinese
medicine theory are improper]
- Natural Products Drug Discovery and Therapeutic Medicine (I have a copy of this book)
- Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Comparative Overview
- Therapeutic wisdom in traditional Chinese medicine: a perspective from modern science
- Statistical Validation of Traditional Chinese Medicine Theories
- Review of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE IN CONTEMPORARY CHINA
I do not know a lot about traditional Chinese medicine, particularly the theories - and to be honest I'm not very interested in the theories. But there is a lot of academic literature on the subject, so there's no excuse to use random websites, as PPdd has been doing. II | (t - c) 05:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Style change
Pleae don't change the style from what it originally was. Some of use this in cooking, and it is good to be able to have a nice organization to look things up. The table of contents it very helpful and well organized, and makes sense as to how to find things. DanielaMarinache (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Daniela, the article is in the middle of a major rewrite, restoring material and formatting that has been criticised by several editors just because you find it helpful is rather unproductive. --Six words (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Luwig - Try a rewrite on your own user supbspace, then propose it at talk. That is the civil way to behave. Otherwise it will cause warring. Your edits make you either look like a vandal, or like you have no idea what is or is not common in TCM. Why delete good content, just because it looks weird to you? It is a fair assumption from your edits that you are not Chinese, and have little sensitivity to the possibility that there are things that are common in other cultures that are taboo in the west, and they just look alien to you. You should view other medical systems with an open mind, not a western scalpel to cut out things that you think should not be mentioned because of your own narrow perspective. 64.134.226.49 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Daniela - You cook with human placenta? As far as I know, the Chinese only use feces and placenta for medicines, not cooking. Human feces, oddly, is one of the few medicines that may work, and science expermints show that the licorice actually makes them work better. This stuff is common on the shelf in China. Tiger penis is not. 64.134.226.49 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think human placenta is not unique to China. I've heard of many mothers eating the placenta of their child after birth, perhaps thats not medicine but it serves the same function as medicinally used in TCM. Either way, I left a message for you at your talk page Daniela. Perhaps you were not paying attention to the page last week, but it got really heated, and I ask that you give Ludwigs some leeway to make changes that we can then all discuss here. Calus (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its not unique to China, only very common there.
- Charred human pubic hair common.
- Human feces in licorice, and human urine sediment is a common ingredient for diseases of the inside of the mouth, and one of the most common medicines used in traditional chinese dentistry.
- Human penis is common in the literature.
- Li said that the other parts are OK, but "A gentleman does not eat human skulls". His book is still used as a textbook.
- Human penis is common in Chinese literature of the 20th century.
- It is a common theme in Chinese literature to attack the traditional medicine system as being backwards, superstious, and cannibalistic, and "human blood soaked bread rolls" are a common item of contemporary Chinese literature discussing Traditoinal Chinese medicine.
- All the images and outline content of the article probably looks pretty exotic, sensational, and shocking to a westerner, but a Chinese person would not even notice it. 64.134.237.45 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
PPdd please knock off this silliness. Enough already. Human penis and pubic hair are not prescribed by TCM physicians. The classics like Ben Cao Gang Mu mention alot of things that are no longer accepted TCM practice. Have some common sense already.Herbxue (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Herb, if you read the source, feces and urine sediments are, and Calus said on this talk page that charred hair is. I have heard elsewhere about the use of penis, so it is at least talked about in the general public. What is the RS you are relying on for your statement? DanielaMarinache (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Table version of list
I've rescued the table version of the long list from the page history. it still needs a lot of work, but it's better than that ungainly sprawl, I think. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Revisions to article
PPdd - do not do wholescale reverts on significant changes without due cause. discuss first. Frankly, the number of complaints that I've been seeing about this article in the past week should clue you in that there is a problem, and that if you start an edit war you are unlikely to win it. so settle down and talk, please. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I added RS content, and I added RS source to the only lead sentence without it, and which you had made to disappear in its entirety. No one wants an edit war. You reverted the RS lead, and replaced it with your POV NRS replacement of RS content with your NRS false or innacurate opinion. Given your "warning" elsewhere that you would be doing this, I interpreted your edit as a delieberate vandalism revert. Please don't play games with one letter edit summaries that are unintelliagble given the complete POV removal of all scientific and critical material from the lead. Please don't revert RS content again, and replace it with your NRS opinion. It is either vandalism, or an attempt to start an edit war, as you indicated you would do before your edits. PPdd (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPdd please AGF and let Ludwigs2 get some work done. Then, AS A COMMUNITY we can all discuss whether it was appropriate or not. To add to the above, all of the complaints on this page are either about you or by you. Please show good faith and let someone else get some work done.Herbxue (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, please let someone else work on this page for the day and then we can all Discuss the changes made. It was your manic changes and reverts which lead to our dispute this last week and my charge of you not operating in good faith. I let my emotions get the better of me, as it was impossible to keep up with your additions and reverts. Please show good faith now by just chilling and take a step back for the sake of this article. Calus (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Calus, apology accepted. I put a lighthearted and comic section on "Buddhism" on your talk page to further smooth things out. It is written as a joke, but it also contains content relevant to discussion of the TCM article. PPdd (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, please let someone else work on this page for the day and then we can all Discuss the changes made. It was your manic changes and reverts which lead to our dispute this last week and my charge of you not operating in good faith. I let my emotions get the better of me, as it was impossible to keep up with your additions and reverts. Please show good faith now by just chilling and take a step back for the sake of this article. Calus (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPdd please AGF and let Ludwigs2 get some work done. Then, AS A COMMUNITY we can all discuss whether it was appropriate or not. To add to the above, all of the complaints on this page are either about you or by you. Please show good faith and let someone else get some work done.Herbxue (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposed plan of improving article
- Trained in mathematics/metaphysics/botany, with their nested clasification of ideas, I like nested outlines, not lists. This enables information to be easily scanned for information sought after. MOS says – “Stability of articles - Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.” This article began with a list, which was then developed.
- But who cares what MOS says?! All that matters is what makes presentation of information easy to understand, and easy to access, i.e., improves WP.
- I suggest completing the “animal, mineral, or vegetable” style, then tying the sections in to the super-section on classification for diagnostics. Then only AFTER this is done, considering a rewrite of the article and lead, based on the semi-finished article structure and basic content (realizing WP:WNF). Doing this now creates instability and makes completion of the work still needed to be done more difficult. Hebxue, Calus, and Mallexikon all seem to have a very good background knowledge for making contributions in trying to complete the theoretical diagnostic-symptoms classification section, and making it intelligable. Then sense can be made of the following substances of Materia Medica ultimately selected. Its like writing a term paper or any journal article.
- Put all the content in, then see how it all fits, organize it, then pare it down into a good form and presentation.
- Outdated substance might either end up in a history section, or end up in a category section stating they are outdated.
- The history section also needs a lot more work inserting RS content before paring it down.
- I also suggest that if there is content without RS, it be posted at the talk page, not put in the article. Then others can help do the work finding RS. Putting more source-less material in the article will make it a big mess again. There was already complaints in an above section (now marked “resolved”) about the entire article being filled with “citation needed” tags. It makes no sense to go from a fully sourced article back to an unsourced one.
- The lead should not be rewritten while the article is in construction, as this makes no sense.
- Major deletions of content should get consensus at talk before being made. PPdd (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion: step back from editing the article for a week and ask your friend to please do the same. During this time let Ludwigs2, ImperfectlyInformed and others work on the article. You tried it your way, now let them try it their way. --Six words (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but PPdd has a point here. I think we should wait with rewriting the lead for now as it should reflect the general content (and the general content is currently undergoing a lot of changes). I also think that a controversial topic like this calls for a high citation level. Mallexikon (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That I can agree with, but not with the “major deletions need consensus” - I didn't see a consensus for including most of the material in the first place, so I'm not willing to discuss removing the material in detail now. The section below is pretty much a picture perfect example of collaboratively working on an article. --Six words (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but PPdd has a point here. I think we should wait with rewriting the lead for now as it should reflect the general content (and the general content is currently undergoing a lot of changes). I also think that a controversial topic like this calls for a high citation level. Mallexikon (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Another proposed plan for improving the article
I suggest we start with the following moves (two of which I've already done, in the article history):
- rewrite the lead to a more neutral presentation
- This implies removing all the pointier comments about fringe items like fecal consumption and penis usage
- also implies shortening the lead, and moving some of the material off into an overview
- Take the long list of medicinals and make the following changes:
- table-ize the list so it takes up far less space and removes all of the unnecessary section headers
- remove long explanations - if the medicinal is notable enough to require a long explanation it will probably have an article of its own, and we can link
- remove all of the pointy fringe elements and leave a list of commonly used elements (we can have a special section for things like rhinocerous horn and tiger penis that are incidental to mainstream TCM but have notable impacts for other reasons
- refocus the list so that it is not entirely composed of disgusting and/or poisonous materials - the vast majority of components of TCM medicinals are innocuous roots, leaves and berries, with no harmful effects whatsoever. we can have a separate section on dangerous components if that seems useful
- expand the descriptions of TCM theory and practice, so that we can give some indication of the depth of the theory and breadth of different practices.
- It may be best to break it down by region: Chinese practices, Korean practices, south-east asian practices, Japanese practices
- possibly a separate section on practices that have become westernized?
Comments on this as a rough outline? --Ludwigs2 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good start. I would make sure to include shark fin soup to the list of fringe elements, and not included in the category of obsolete herbs. Shark fin soup is not even TCM, its a cultural use of what is questionably a TCM herb and belongs in an article about eastern nutrition. I'm not sure about the need to have a separate section about practices that have been "westernized". Each country has historically put their own spin on the medicine. America's contribution, ie the use of motor points, just happens to be more western in nature. But perhaps you were referring to the herbs, and other editors have championed the notion that integrative chinese medicine is separate from TCM. Overall, I feel that breaking it down by region is a great idea. Calus (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I think perhaps before the medicinal section would be a good place for information on how the herbs are categorized- taste, temperature, meridian effected, and functional category. Also, what it is believed certain processing does to herbs, or Pao Zhi. I think these concepts can be summarized very briefly. Calus (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rough outline sounds good - I am wary of the prospect of trying to describe the regional variations. "TCM" describes a particular modern syncretic version of Chinese medicine, that has a pretty defined range of practices and theories. Once we get into Japanese and other variations, I feel like those need their own articles. Calus I like the idea of introducing the flavors, nature and channel entry before introducing the herbs/medicinals, as well as the Pao Zhi section. Certainly a section on safety and ethical concerns about particular substances needs to be included, as well as a brief section describing the unique difficulties of doing research in TCM, which I would be happy to contribute to.Herbxue (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good thoughts.
- the lead definetely has to be rewritten (to be shorter and more neutral, and not give undue weight to fringe phenomenons any more). But not now. Let's do the lead after we know a little better how the overall article looks like.
- I totally agree with all the proposed changes to the drugs list. This article should give an overview; the rest belongs to "Chinese herbs" ("Traditional Chinese drugs" would actually better but doesn't exist so far)
- I don't think Korean/Japanese/etc. regional practices belong here.
- the way I see it the most important part of this article is the "theoretical superstructure". I've been working on this since months now but my progress has been slow. It still needs a section about yin and yang, a section about the wuxing, a section about patterns, a section about how to discriminate them, a section about diagnostic tools etc. etc. Mallexikon (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really like this plan! If the regional variations are difficult to describe or you expect it to take a long time, it's always possible to just write a short section about regional variations in general, listing but not exhaustively explaining the variations and, once you find the time, start developing a tie-in article on a user space subpage. Once you're satisfied it is in a good enough shape you can move it to mainspace - I'm no fan of stubs and moving new articles into mainspace before you've finished working on them is risky as it increases the chance of the article getting tagged for deletion (which means arguing why it should stay will take away time you could have used to improve it). Remember that when you're finished an article doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the it was before. Happy editing! --Six words (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see the wisdom in treating regional variations as such, with perhaps a short summary and development elsewhere. It is certainly good information but not necessarily essential to an article on TCM. Calus (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just realised that there are already separate articles on Japanese and Traditional Korean Medicine (and Tibetan, Mongolian, ...). They're not great imo, but since they already exist I think it's enough to have a very short section in the TCM article saying that other traditional medicine systems are based on or share some characteristics with TCM and link to them. --Six words (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see the wisdom in treating regional variations as such, with perhaps a short summary and development elsewhere. It is certainly good information but not necessarily essential to an article on TCM. Calus (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really like this plan! If the regional variations are difficult to describe or you expect it to take a long time, it's always possible to just write a short section about regional variations in general, listing but not exhaustively explaining the variations and, once you find the time, start developing a tie-in article on a user space subpage. Once you're satisfied it is in a good enough shape you can move it to mainspace - I'm no fan of stubs and moving new articles into mainspace before you've finished working on them is risky as it increases the chance of the article getting tagged for deletion (which means arguing why it should stay will take away time you could have used to improve it). Remember that when you're finished an article doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the it was before. Happy editing! --Six words (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Inclusionism, Exclusionism
- Inclusionism[14] & Eventualism[15].
- Exclusionism[16], Deletionism[17], and Immediatism[18]. PPdd (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, controversy on this page is that raw infrormation, if not "dressed up" and "presented in a respectful and not unflattering way", or balanced with other information that is not yet in the article, should or should not be deleted. PPdd (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing flattering about mercury in cinnabar or flying squirrel feces, but I for one never objected to their inclusion (even though practitioners are taught to avoid using Zhu Sha Cinnabar which should be mentioned in the article) because they are actually materials taught in the TCM curriculum. I do object to them being emphasized in the article because they are not that commonly used (some gyn experts may use Wu LIng Zhi Flying squirrel feces regularly). The one's I have objected to were not because they make TCM "look bad" but because they are not TCM, even if they are mentioned in Ben Cao Gang Mu in the 1500's. They are not in 中药学 Zhong Yao Xue or in Bensky's Materia Medica. They are not taught in TCM schools here or in China. Therefore, they do not belong in the article. This is not about censorship, its about getting it right and having the proper focus.63.139.146.30 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)oops didn't log in...Herbxue (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Herb, I agree with you regarding flattering. Ludwigs2 described TCM as "disgusting" on another page, justifying deleting things, and implying that showing its medicines was unflattering. I was referring to his stated basis for deletion. Most medecine of any kind pertains to bodily fluids, gorish surgeries, sexual function or not, poisoning invasive parasites with toxins, sickness, pain, and death. I am no expert, but would be surprised if mercury was not used in some evidence based treatment. As to mercury not being common, what about pao alchemy? It is not common in what I described elsewher as "madernized TCM", but it is common in purist TCM. Are you trained in 5 Phase metaphysics, or in Chinese pao alchemy in making medicines?
- Ludwigs2 deleted dried human placenta, justifying the deletion as "disgusting" and "cannibalism". Are you saying this is justified in any way? Everyone has heard about it. Why should they not be able to get info about what is one of the most commonly mentioned TCM medcines in the press and on skeptic sites?
- Ludwigs2 deleted the sources on human feces in licorice, and human urine sediments, which is used in TCM dentistry. If you want to challenge the source, do so, but please don't support deletion of content based on Ludwigs2's sense of the disgusting, or your own opinion.
- In my personal experience, the urine sediments was the first TCM thing I ever personally saw, as my Japanese butoh dance teacher used it as a TCM remedy on a daily basis, for something or another regarding her mouth, as did her numerous Japanese guests over the years, and a close friend who was a Buddhist monk, as described on Calus' talk page. That's why I thought of looking for RS re the mouth on this in the first place.
- This article is not what you and your school or some government thinks TCM should be, or made undemocratic decrees about, although that information should be in the article with RS. I have knowledge that purist TCM was practiced just two days ago (March13) on my partner's mother-in-law in western China. He and one of my best friends, a Hollywood celebrity MD and famous TCM advocate, are my sources for most of the medicines I listed. I found RS and put everything they mentioned in the article with RS. They are both believers, one in purist TCM, and the other in general TCM, and have no desire to make themselves look "disgusting", as Ludwigs2 called their beliefs.
- Also, I commented on inclusionism re TCM at Calus's talk page. PPdd (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have not yet digested the basic theories you are introducing in this section so I apologize for jumping into specifics right away. I do have to restate that the systemization / popularization of 中医 Zhong Yi as "TCM" in the west does in fact refer to the currently practiced orthodox system of medicine in the PRC and Taiwan. The term Zhong Yi (which we translate as TCM) was specifically created to differentiate this system from western biomedicine. There was no need for such a term in the years before western scientific ideas began to take hold in China and challenge the old assumptions and ptactices. What you refer to as "purist TCM" may actually refer to folk medicine (eating feces and drinking pee) or may refer to a medical style of a particular era, most common would be an adherence to Han Dynasty Medicine focusing on the Shang Han Lun. TCM refers to the professional practice of Chinese medicine as synthesized by modern scholars who attempted (I do not say succeeded) to merge disparate classical traditions over a span of 2,000 years and modern science into a recognizable system of medicine with a limited range of theories and practices. I will mine the best sources to describe this with RS such as Unschuld's "Medicine in China" and Volker Scheid's book about the Menghe tradition and its influence on the development of modern TCM.
- To make the TCM article cover every type of healing ever attempted in CHina and call it TCM is simply inaccurate, as I will show with the RS. This includes folk medicine, which has contributed to TCM over time but is not as bound by theories. Same is true for shamanism, feng shui, Daoist vision quests - these are peripheral traditions which may have intersected with and contributed to TCM, but they are not TCM. This is why I also cautioned against including Japanese, Korean, and Western developments as they should have their own page, we should not attempt to cover them here.Herbxue (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- NCCAM says in the first sentence. "Traditional Chinese medicine, which encompasses many different practices". Are you saying Chinese integrative medicine does not exist, and NCAAM, The Journal of Biocommunications, and all of the many other RS and MEDRS deleted by Ludwigs2 are wrong in saying "TCM"?
- Are you saying Ren Zhong Huang and Ren Zhong Bai are "folk remedies" and not "TCM" like the sources Ludwigs2 deleted say? PPdd (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- To make the TCM article cover every type of healing ever attempted in CHina and call it TCM is simply inaccurate, as I will show with the RS. This includes folk medicine, which has contributed to TCM over time but is not as bound by theories. Same is true for shamanism, feng shui, Daoist vision quests - these are peripheral traditions which may have intersected with and contributed to TCM, but they are not TCM. This is why I also cautioned against including Japanese, Korean, and Western developments as they should have their own page, we should not attempt to cover them here.Herbxue (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:REDFLAG, which links to a section entitled "Exception claims require exceptional sources". Random websites like acupuncturetoday.com, yinyangwhatever.com, quistuff.com, etc don't cut it. II | (t - c) 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- II, now you are making sense. I have no problem at all with deleting anything that has questioned sources. It's helpful, and forces finding solid sources. When I do it, however, I look for good RS before deleting, and then I put the content on the talk page in specific sections and ask others to find RS if I could not find RS. Replacing the entire RS and MEDRS lead and deleting all the MEDRS on anatomy, physiology, etc., and sources such as the Journal of Biocommunications, and replaing it with unsourced opinion plus simply duplicating the wishy washy political NCCAM website as the only RS is not helpful. I don't recall any random websites in the lead, and in any case, there should be a specific talk page objection, or at least edit summary, not a mass deletion with no explanation. Don't you agree?
- As I recall, Acupuncture Today is a journal, with a website, and articles are published including by pre-eminent practitioners. Sources might be considered on a case by case basis per the author, also, and specifically challenged at talk, not deleted without explanation. PPdd (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Acupuncture Today" is not a journal, it is a newsletter for practitioners that also serves as an advertising medium for goods and services sold to acupuncturists.Herbxue (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. The online version has articles by eminent practitioners and scholars, like the chief editor of the Journal of Chinese Medicine (JTCM?). (I didn't check that. Its from memory.) Might not some of them as published in AT be RS on practices and beliefs? PPdd (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Acupuncture Today" is not a journal, it is a newsletter for practitioners that also serves as an advertising medium for goods and services sold to acupuncturists.Herbxue (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight
- "Commonly found or used" differs greatly from being "easy to get", such as human placents, or "rare but highly valued", such as gold and jewlry regarding wealth, or in TCM, deer and tiger penis and ox bezoar.
- Considering autotrophs (plants), primary (vegetarian animals), and secondary consumers (carnivores), there is about 10% loss in biomass with each trophic level, meaning that one would ‘’expect’’, ceteris paribus, all things being equal, 10% animals in TCM (according to the WP article. I thought it was more like 7%.), and so about 1% carnivoirs. In fact there are 8% animals in the list put together on a list of what to investigate by one of their main universities, a pretty good fit. I am not saying that this is a good argument for weight, just that it shows arguments can be made with statistics any way one wants. One could likely make the same argument about “American diet”, to delete “meat” from that article.
- There are things commonly on news shows and in the press, for which likely WP users would want to look up more info. There is no reason not to let them have the info they want to “present TCM” in one way or another. Who cares? Just put in info and if someone does not want it, they don’t have to read it.
- There are things commonly in the literature, like human blood rolls. As far as I know, they are a fiction. The article should have that info, one way or another.
- Human placenta is so rare but highly valued that it is typically faked.
- Availability and price also determines usage. Deer penis is pricy, and there is only one per two animals, and this is a small part of the animal biomass. So are ox bezoars. But deer penis it often a centerpiece display item, like a big shark’s fin. And certainly no one is arguing ox bezoars should not be in the article. Tiger penis is not common because it was so much in demand, it drove that tiger to near extinction.
- Best not to delete things, and let the RS one-liners evolve to a true balance on their own. PPdd (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that balance will evolve on its own - it virtually never does, which is why we even need policies telling us to strive towards it. Having a reliable source is necessary, but not enough - in order to present a subject neutrally we do have to make editorial judgements regarding weight. --Six words (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Six words, I defer to your greater experience on evolution by WP:Inclusionism and WP:Eventualism being wrong. But I also believe that having RS is needed to assert undue weight to justify deletion and rewriting the lead previously backed with RS and MEDRS, to replace RS with nonRS. Especially when reweighting the lead in contradiction to weight given in RS overviews, deleting or replacing RS content that is heavily weighted in significant works on TCM coming out of ivy league universities like Princeton/Harvard/Staford, or significant overviews of TCM in significant medical journals such as Journal of Biocommunications, or by major RS magazines such as National Geographic, etc., as was recently done. PPdd (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, consensus is important and the post-Ludwigs lead is more acceptable to the community. You can spend as much time trying to defend misrepresenting TCM with POV RS as you want but we as a community will continue to try to make this page neutral and to look like an encyclopedia entry. For a good example of neutral introduction to the topic please search for "TCM" at the Encyclopedia Britannica site. It has inaccuracies but it is a good example of the neutral tone we should be shooting for.Herbxue (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- We had consensus on the basic lead structure quite a while back, including what Ludwigs2 had specifically endorsed and not one editor objected to, but he has now deleted it. Let's see if he puts it back in. Please don't represent yourself as "the community", since this creates unneccesary tensions here. Since others have argued to let Ludwigs2 go at it for a while to see where he goes, but their silence does not reporesent agreement. Most who watch TCM and alt med articles have been silent for a couple of months. PPdd (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPdd: so far as I can tell, you and your friend are the only ones objecting to the ongoing revisions. am I wrong on that? --Ludwigs2 18:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- We had consensus on the basic lead structure quite a while back, including what Ludwigs2 had specifically endorsed and not one editor objected to, but he has now deleted it. Let's see if he puts it back in. Please don't represent yourself as "the community", since this creates unneccesary tensions here. Since others have argued to let Ludwigs2 go at it for a while to see where he goes, but their silence does not reporesent agreement. Most who watch TCM and alt med articles have been silent for a couple of months. PPdd (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Cultural bias; Have some sensitivity before deleting good information
Why are wikipedia people deleting things just because they are not from the culture? Things that look strange or exotic to the West, go unnoticed by Chinese, such as use of placenta. You should try the medications before you go ranting against them and making this look like whitewashed by its mores "American Medicine". Why are good things with good citatoins being deleted all of a sudden? DanielaMarinache (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really know what you're talking about, some TCM practitioners actually complained about the undue weight obscure “medicines” that were mentioned in this article. If you were the one reverting to the “old” lede (twice), you should read it again and ask yourself if you really think that this is good, culture sensitive material. --Six words (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I didn't delete it, I hid it temporarily while I did some research. I do not think that these practices are widespread in Asia - if only due to a limited supply of materials - and we do not want the article filled with minor but titillating trivia because that's not the way an encyclopedia works. good enough?--Ludwigs2 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Luwigs - These medicines are not obscure. Cite RS to back that up. They are all at typical stores in China, except the rare ones, like tiger's penis, which is easy to buy on the black market. I fact, the list looks like a "most commonly sold" list. 64.134.226.49 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Daniela - You should state things precisely. I doubt you cook with all of these things. Some can only be bought in China. 64.134.226.49 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Time out. Placenta is listed in materia medica (and often recommended for the mother who just gave birth to recover portpartum) but in studying at 3 TCM hospitals in China I never saw it prescribed. Ever. Why? Because like bird's nest, shark's fin, and various penises it is more a part of the culture rather than the professional practice of medicine in China (and most of it fake street-hawker stuff). As for human feces? No way jose. Not prescribed by TCM physicians, not on the shelf at Tong Ren Tang. Not TCM. Period.Herbxue (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Herb (nice name). Placenta is very common in China And its not unique to China, only very common there.
- These guys, Ludwig and SixWords might not understand that this is an encycopedia, not another area to censor science or cultural information to satify their own culture's prudishness.
- Charred human pubic hair common.
- Human feces in licorice, and human urine sediment is a common ingredient for diseases of the inside of the mouth, and one of the most common medicines used in traditional chinese dentistry.
- Human penis is common in the literature.
- Li said that the other parts are OK, but "A gentleman does not eat human skulls". His book is still used as a textbook.
- Human penis is common in Chinese literature of the 20th century.
- It is a common theme in Chinese literature to attack the traditional medicine system as being backwards, superstious, and cannibalistic, and "human blood soaked bread rolls" are a common item of contemporary Chinese literature discussing Traditoinal Chinese medicine.
- All the images and outline content of the article probably looks pretty exotic, sensational, and shocking to a westerner, but a Chinese person would not even notice it. 64.134.237.45 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I think Ludwig and SixWord's edits earlier today looked very much like an appropriate encyclopedia entry. A vast improvement from what it was a week ago. I know a thing or 3 about TCM, having studied in US and in China (Shanghai and Chengdu) and I can tell you the human body parts and feces are not commonly prescribed by TCM physicians. Ginger is. Cinnamon is. A boiled down gelatin made from donkey hide is. But human penis and feces? No, I am sorry, it is not. Even hornet's nest is more common and hornet's nest is NOT VERY COMMON. Turmeric is. Talcum is. Peony is. TIGER PENIS IS NOT! Only very rich people with too much time and money indulge in these more exotic animal parts and even then it is a cultural oddity, not TCM. They do not belong on this page. They should have their own page. Go nuts and create it. But it is not appropriate here.Herbxue (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't substantially edit the article, just undid the revert - those of us discussing here (minus one) agreed to let Ludwigs2 have a few days to improve the article before we interfere. Later, when the “overhaul” is completed, editors can read the article as a whole and see if the result is OK for everyone. --Six words (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears, sir, that you censored basic scientific information, and deleted information in ignorance both of the subject and the culture. Have you ever even been to China, to a TCM doctor or dentist, or a herb store in China? Please hold off on the censorship while others are trying to read and evaluate the content. 64.134.230.18 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I have been to China, studied in TCM hospitals, and frequented herbal pharmacies in China. And I don't object to uncommonly used or never-used substances being removed from this article. I wouldn't call it censorship if it is information that is of questionable relevance to the topic (and human penis and feces is not relevant). If ginseng were ommited, or green tea, or goji berries, or coptidis - stuff that is really used alot, that would be another story.Herbxue (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference in how common things are used in different places. There is also a difference in how common things are used in cooking for health, and learned and prescribed in a TCM school. There is also a difference between things that are used in small amounts in many recipes, and things that are used in bulk. There is a difference in what is commonly used and what is commonly discussed or written about. DanielaMarinache (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok... but in TCM there are standard formulas (mixtures of herbs) that are commonly used, as-is or modified, for certain conditions. TCM doctors in Shanghai, Chengdu, Seattle, Paris or Austin will see an early stage upper respiratory tract infection with pronounced sore throat, thirst and fever, and most will prescribe a formula including honeysuckle and forsythia. Regional and cultural differences notwithstanding, they invariably will not give human penis and feces.Herbxue (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You did not understand what I just said. There are regional differences in practice, and there are those who use the old ways, and not only the more restricted new ways. Do you deny this? Chinese doctors are a small minority of those who prescribe medicines. Housewives prescribe them for their family daily, in cooking and otherwise. Also, there are widely different schools and practices all over Asia. What is your source that this is not true? And the article has a reliable source on human feces/licorice used for mouth sores. It sounds like you do not know anything about this. What is your source that the source in the article is not correct and you are? DanielaMarinache (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Daniela, If you are hung up on what is used as food, why not start an Eastern Nutrition article (if there is not one already) Many herbs are used in cooking but that is not the same as TCM. 108.6.74.235 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You did not understand what I just said. There are regional differences in practice, and there are those who use the old ways, and not only the more restricted new ways. Do you deny this? Chinese doctors are a small minority of those who prescribe medicines. Housewives prescribe them for their family daily, in cooking and otherwise. Also, there are widely different schools and practices all over Asia. What is your source that this is not true? And the article has a reliable source on human feces/licorice used for mouth sores. It sounds like you do not know anything about this. What is your source that the source in the article is not correct and you are? DanielaMarinache (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Attention, bias, ignorance, and censorship
This article has drawn the attention of (at least) two social network groups. The censorship of information is drawing even more attention, since people are trying to read the article and the content keeps getting deleted. This is not an article about "what TCM should look like". It is an encyclopedia article for getting information. All the deleted information is common stuff, like the deleted herbs. It is all either common in stores in China, or commonly discussed, by environmentalists and bio-ethicists in China, or in Chinese literature. Americans should not be deleting content in areas they know nothing about. What appears shocking, prurient, or disgusting to Americans, a Chinese person would not even blink at. An argument was made that "there are 13,000 herbs listed" so he deleted things that were the most common of these, either in stores, in the literature, in the press, or at the water cooler. There is no reason any of the deleted material should not be in the article. I asked a Chinese architect friend, and believer in TCM to read the article, and his comment was “accurate”. I asked what he would delete as obscure or inappropriate, and he replied, “appropriate for Americans?” I said for an encyclopedia, and he suggested deleting nothing but “add cinnamon”, and a few other less well known in America herbs. Please do not delete or censor information while others are actively trying to read it. 64.134.230.18 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPdd, Please take a break from editing while these things are worked out. Show some good faith and let others have a crack at it without Applying Undo to every edit. Please discuss here FIRST. Personally, I do not agree with your above statement, and "asking your friend who happens to be Chinese" does not really mean anything. Calus (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - are you PPdd? This article is not a list, and it will never be a list. It is a wide overview article. Specific herbs will not be mentioned unless they are noted in peer-reviewed articles or books as being particularly significant. If you want to work on summarizing the important medicinal pharmacopeia of TCM, you can work on List of medicines in traditional Chinese medicine. This article will have a summary style. I will be restoring the trimmed version in a couple days. It's also notable that very few of the herbs were actually deleted. Instead they were consolidated into a couple paragraphs. For example, rather than have a couple hundred lines of rather detailed information on the human parts used in herbs, I used the following sentence: "Traditional Chinese Medicine also includes some human parts: the classic Meteria medica (Bencao Gangmu) describes the use of 35 human body parts and extreta in medicines, including bones, fingernail, hairs, dandruff, earwax, impurities on the teeth, feces, urine, sweat, organs, but most are no longer in use." That's summary style. If people want to read in-depth about this stuff, they can find that in the other article. But it's hugely distracting for those who trying to get an overview, and it's not how we write our articles on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 04:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- II - I tried today to convert that long list into a simpler table format, but it got reverted by one of the IPs. I'll reassert my changes tomorrow or the next day (unless someone beats me to it), but I have a sinking feeling that this effort is just going to devolve into a mess. PPdd, shows no signs of letting up, and the fact that his (self-admitted) friends are showing up to revert changes back to 'his' version is a troubling omen. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- II, why would you want to remove information that readers like me and others would want in an encyclopedia article? And why do such deletions of content and long standing (the list of animals was here long before I got here) "list style" (its really an organized style, not a list), which violates MOS as to changing style, in a major way? Why are you threatening to delete content without consensus, which was developed long ago? If you want a brief overview article, why don't you write your own "TCM in brief" article, or jsut write an overview section. But don't decide what info others can read and verify that they want to know aobut TCM. If you don't want to read it, then don't, but don't try to deprive others of knowledge they want. And the list-like nature of TCM, 75% of which is just a list, is inherent in prviding info on what TCM is. PPdd (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- II - I tried today to convert that long list into a simpler table format, but it got reverted by one of the IPs. I'll reassert my changes tomorrow or the next day (unless someone beats me to it), but I have a sinking feeling that this effort is just going to devolve into a mess. PPdd, shows no signs of letting up, and the fact that his (self-admitted) friends are showing up to revert changes back to 'his' version is a troubling omen. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - are you PPdd? This article is not a list, and it will never be a list. It is a wide overview article. Specific herbs will not be mentioned unless they are noted in peer-reviewed articles or books as being particularly significant. If you want to work on summarizing the important medicinal pharmacopeia of TCM, you can work on List of medicines in traditional Chinese medicine. This article will have a summary style. I will be restoring the trimmed version in a couple days. It's also notable that very few of the herbs were actually deleted. Instead they were consolidated into a couple paragraphs. For example, rather than have a couple hundred lines of rather detailed information on the human parts used in herbs, I used the following sentence: "Traditional Chinese Medicine also includes some human parts: the classic Meteria medica (Bencao Gangmu) describes the use of 35 human body parts and extreta in medicines, including bones, fingernail, hairs, dandruff, earwax, impurities on the teeth, feces, urine, sweat, organs, but most are no longer in use." That's summary style. If people want to read in-depth about this stuff, they can find that in the other article. But it's hugely distracting for those who trying to get an overview, and it's not how we write our articles on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 04:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
PPdd you are the lone standout on this question. We as a community support the more appropriate encyclopedia style that Ludwigs2 introduced. If we go with the list, then in needs to include thousands of items or it shouldn't include any at all. It just wouldn't work. You continue to reject the efforts of multiple editors who have my support even though they don't share my opinions. That is called community consensus building. If you don't like it, start your own blog or something. This is not the place to be on a crusade.Herbxue (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Definition of and scope of "TCM"
- RS on medicines used[19] –
” Whether individual doctors are using them can be determined only by field research.”
- One TCM vet on defining “TCM”[20] –
“A basic misconception is that Chinese medicine, as currently practiced in the West, reflects the type of medicine most commonly practiced in China and, furthermore, that current medical practice in China truly reflects age-old customs."
- One TCM veterinarian’s opinion on trying to translate “TCM” when there is no Mandarin or Cantonese “word”.[21] (his view is not consistent with any of the other RS in the article as of now, but draws important distinctions) –
“Another basic misconception is that Chinese medicine, as currently practiced in the West as so-called traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), is a reflection of the traditional medicine that is practiced in China, and furthermore, that the medicine that is practiced in China is a true reflection of ancient practice. Neither premise is correct. … The Chinese medicine that is beinbg practiced in the United States and Europe is not the same as the healing systems being practiced in East Asia. … Chinese medicine in the sense of a homogeneous system of ideas and therapeutic practices, did not exist prior to its promotion as such in the twentieth century and does not exist today. Instead, the entirety of beliefs and knowledge of preventive and curative strategies developed and applied until the middle of the twentieth century may be reasonably described as ’Chinese traditional health care.’ It is also possible to speak of the entirety of medical theories and practices thought of, propagated, and applied in the previous two mellinia as ‘Chinese traditional medicine (TCM), which is a digest from traditions developed between the 1950’s and the early 1970’s. The distinction between traditional Chinese medicine promoted in China as zhonyi since the mid-1970’s is, in fact, not an accurate reflection of the tradition of Chinese medicine measured from ancient times to present.”
- There are also questions on “most common” – “not commonly available (tiger’s penis, human parts) – suggested as the best, but not used because of potential liability or error (aconite)
- WP should not tar various responsible TCM medical communities (such as those pulling tiger’s penis out of their lists to use for ecological reasons, or aconite or cinnabar for safety reasons) with what they no longer teach or are trying to ban or discourage. At the same time, WP should not delete things based on trying to achieve these practitioners’ responsible goals by not mentioning them. The thing to do is find RS when there is a delineation, and make it with the RS. PPdd (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside who gets to "offically" use or define the expression "TCM", and looking at what actually exists.
- (1) There is a communist chinese propoganda machine orthodoxy on what TCM is.
- (2) There is a humanitarians' redoing of this orthodoxy into another orthodoxy.
- (3) There is a looking at the preceding two from a scientific perspective and not throwing away thousands of years of knowledge, valuable even though not gained using conventional scientific method.
- (4) There are folk rememdies not produced by 5 Phases or pao theory.
- (5) There is a purist, classic, ignore all orthodoxies practice, related or not to 5 Phases or pao alchemy.
- (6) There is a version using astrological considerations, a la the Heiner Fruehauf universities, such as the timing of the planting of aconite on when yin is rising after the winter solstice, the year, date, and hour of birth, or the allignment of one's front door or furniture.
- (7) There is a Sichuan Fire Spirit School of herbal prescribing.
- (8) There is what is purely historical, and not practiced anyomore for reasons other than the preceding.
- (9) As with big pharma, there are profit oriented marketed versions of TCM on random websites.
- (10) There is a spaced out (or not) western new age version of TCM.
- (11) There are various semi-official national versions, like NCCAM.
- (12) Chinese commentary on TCM such as by Lu Xun[22]
- (13) "TCM" practiced in different regions of China, Korea, Indonesia, Japan, etc.
- (14) There may be more that other editors can add, or more precise wording for the above that may split into more categories.
It seems that some of the above, such as the communist government, want to coopt the term "TCM". There appear to be RS for all of the preceding in the pre-Ludwigs2-deletions version. Does anyone have better wording, or more categories for which we can look for there may be RS to support? PPdd (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to comment on this list as its a bit all over the place. But when you use the term "purist" what exactly are you talking about? What source of knowledge to the "purist's" draw their practices from? Are there books that these purists acknowledge as more pure than contemporary TCM? ( I just want to know what you think a "purist" is).Herbxue (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I added to the top. "Purist" could be "age-old customs" as in the first quote above, or believing anything the theory predicts, or those who disregard changes from the communist government or westerners "from above". It is my own term, so I put it in scare quotes. PPdd (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- TCM usually means Traditional Chinese Medicine and in capitalized form is most closely associated with modern mainland Chinese theory and practice. It does not encompass all of traditional Chinese medicine in a broad sense. I don't think a Japanese, Korean would accept this term. And certainly in the West it viewed as an exclusive term. The term traditional Oriental medicine (TOM) would be more inclusive. Some people do not like 'Oriental' as they view it as derogatory. But 'Asian' does not work in this context because it woudl include the Indian sub-continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.104.142 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
5 Phase vs. pragmatic trial and error truth, cf Chinese integrative medicine
- Calus points out that " they must choose between TCM schools or 5 element schools", i.e., there are at least two schooling styles, one of which is called "5 phases" or "5 elements" (and would likely be called "alchemy" anywhere else), and the other is called "TCM", which is a different usage than in all the sources in the article. I will refer to these as "hocus pocus TCM" and "pragmatic TCM". The practices seem to be about the same, but what is actually believed by the practitioners about why things may work seems to be very different. One of my best friends is a famous celebrity MD, and is a TCM and traditional medicines advocate. He said something like
Does anyone have any RS on the distinction Herb made?"just because the theory is hocus pocus, does not mean that effective medicines were not gradually discovered by a slow trial and error process".
- There is also a third perspective, common in China, for which I have provided sources in above talk page sections; "Chinese integrative medicine" takes scientific discoveries about chemicals in TCM medicines and uses them where they may be effective even though the use is different from things TCM uses them for. That is, when the scientific discovery shows a use as stated in TCM may be effective, it is TCM, but when the efficacy is for a use not predicted by TCM, it is called Chinese Integrative Medicine. Here is one source - Certain progress of clinical research on "Chinese integrative medicine", Keji Chen, Bei Yu, Chinese Medical Journal, 1999, 112 (10), p. 934, [23]. PPdd (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification - I did not say there were "two schooling styles" only that contemporary TCM has folded modern western basic sciences into the practice of Chinese Medicine. That is in keeping with the syncretic evolution of TCM. I did not comment on the 5 phases.Herbxue (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Another clarification: The application of knowledge gained from chemical or pharmaceutical knowledge is part of contemporary TCM, no different from "Chinese Integrative Medicine" which is not really an entity but perhaps a label created by a few authors. Also very important: The chemical analysis and pharmaceutical studies of herbs very often confirms the traditional use, such as Ma Huang /Ephedra or Qin Jiao /Gentiana.Herbxue (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Herbxue that TCM has evolved. I can see "Chinese Integrative Medicine" being an apt label for practices in China where doctors can prescribe western medication and order certain tests. However, the advances they make in application of herbal medicine etc is considered TCM when practiced in places like america where pharmaceutical medication is not under the scope of practice of a TCM practitioner. Again, I feel its very important to clarify that TCM stands for a modern set of practices which has evolved from classical views, and is separate from Chinese Integrative Medicine. I currently have 3 good leads into sources to establish this point and hope others can also help with this very important terminological distinction. Calus (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (I meant Calus, not Herb. I fixed it.) "Chinese medicine" may include both TCM and evidence based medicine, but "Chinese medicine" is different from "traditional Chinese medicine" because of this, just like "western medicine" differs from "traditional western medicine". PPdd (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I dont agree with your statement, but cant fault you for thinking that way given your sources. I hope to provide suitable evidence to clarify this matter in the near future.Calus (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are starting to get WP. I am not making an argument, and am not "thinking that way". All I am trying to do is represent the sources. As to what I am really thinking, a hint is in my pubic call out for MEDRS based on my complaint that most MEDRS sources today are just about finding toxins in a brief lab experiment, since human studies on efficacy take huge amounts of time, and need to have replication, then systematic reviews, which takes many, many years. So I was having trouble finding MEDRS for medicinals other than those with toxins being founbd by biochemists and then published about in med/science journals. But someonw pointed me to WP:WNF, and I read it and cooled off. PPdd (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I dont agree with your statement, but cant fault you for thinking that way given your sources. I hope to provide suitable evidence to clarify this matter in the near future.Calus (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (I meant Calus, not Herb. I fixed it.) "Chinese medicine" may include both TCM and evidence based medicine, but "Chinese medicine" is different from "traditional Chinese medicine" because of this, just like "western medicine" differs from "traditional western medicine". PPdd (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Herbxue that TCM has evolved. I can see "Chinese Integrative Medicine" being an apt label for practices in China where doctors can prescribe western medication and order certain tests. However, the advances they make in application of herbal medicine etc is considered TCM when practiced in places like america where pharmaceutical medication is not under the scope of practice of a TCM practitioner. Again, I feel its very important to clarify that TCM stands for a modern set of practices which has evolved from classical views, and is separate from Chinese Integrative Medicine. I currently have 3 good leads into sources to establish this point and hope others can also help with this very important terminological distinction. Calus (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Modernized TCM and purist TCM, also 5 Phases TCM and not
This is as explained to me by my partner in Shanghai, a Chritian architect from gansu, with an eminent biologist wife, a father-in-law who coaches the math olympiad at a major university, and a mother-in-law with ovarian cancer (it was like pulling teeth to get that description out of him, rather than "medical problems"). He says personal health is not discussed in his western China culture, especially not ovarian cancer. He says that unlike in America, it is not polite to say, "How is your mother-in-law" in his culture, if she is sick like that.
She is getting "purist" TCM treatment and not surgery and chemo. He says, "it works, she is getting a little better". Does anyone have sources for any of the following, or even personal confirmation? -
- There is a division in TCM between purists and a modernized version. Purists uphold and venerate tradition and their elders. Marketers, such as westerners trained in TCM, often pay lip service to tradition and elders. The same in the west would likely be scathing in crticism, without the lip service of the culture for elders said to be respectred but not. Modernists may try to censor things out of TCM which other westerners may find taboo, harmful, superstitious, backward, or not in the interest of the a marketing image of TCM they are trying to create in the world, such as by imposing western standards on all of TCM by decrees “from above”. Modern TCM may try to impose a western science attitude on TCM theory and practice, and try to put forth TCM as being Chinese integrative medicine. They may try to remake TCM in a new public relations friendly way so as to avoid further criticism by writers such as Lu Xun. They view purists like Heiner Fruehauf as doddering old fools, yet may pay them lip service respect. This division is clear when comparing TCM in remote areas of western China such as the Gobi desert, with Chinese Integrative Medicine practiced in the eastern metropolitan areas such as Shanghai.
Similarly, there is a division between metaphysicians and pracical physicians.
Comments or RS for this? PPdd (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
input needed before change: Roots vs. modern TCM
I have a problem with the statement: "but in traditional Chinese medicine little has changed since antiquity and “the most current medical knowledge always had roots centuries old”." This is blatantly false. I can think of numerous examples where TCM has changed since the classical period. Just because something stays true to its roots does not mean that it is without change. Since this has a citation, I am leaving it as is for now. I believe an error of interpretation was made, or a mistaken inference and am open to suggestions. Calus (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The statement is directly from the MEDRS source. As explained above, you are confusing "Chinese integral medicine" with TCM, at least accoring to the various cited MEDRS sources. I will add the RS citation to the integral medicine article. PPdd (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that "little has changed since antiquity" is directly from the MERDS source. I'm working on providing sources to prove that TCM as a modern medicine is much different than the classical notions attributed to it. I think once we as a community agree on the definition and scope of this page much confusion and what appears as skeptical bias to practitioners of TCM will disappear. Calus (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is directly from the MEDRS source. At the end of each sentence should be a footnote, the footnote should preferrably have a link, and you can check the wording on the link. This particular issue has been discussed over and over again, including twice on this page, and super-extensively on the acupuncture talk page and in its archives. Please see WP:POINT and WP:MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that "little has changed since antiquity" is directly from the MERDS source. I'm working on providing sources to prove that TCM as a modern medicine is much different than the classical notions attributed to it. I think once we as a community agree on the definition and scope of this page much confusion and what appears as skeptical bias to practitioners of TCM will disappear. Calus (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
First off, I would like to commend the work already done on the article. I can actually read it now without becoming emotionally upset, for what thats worth. I see places where I can help by adding content and needed citations. I'm looking forward to contributing to the article, without trying to make it sound like a promotional brochure. I have discussed previously how I feel an article on TCM should reflect contemporary practices (again, without sounding like a brochure). It's my understanding that TCM began with the cultural revolution and does not simply refer to a "traditional medicine." Others have pointed out that to simply classify everything that has been practiced as medicine in China as TCM is disingenuous. Although I do very much like mention of historical practices as such. The best source I have found so far is "Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China, 1945-1963: A Medicine of Revolution by Kim Taylor" This abstract says: "Kim Taylor's Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China, 1945–63 examines how the state, high-ranking medical administrators and medical writers fashioned and deployed for political purposes what came to be known as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)." Calus (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That may be an acceptable source even though the full text of the abstract you linked to isn't too positive (saying it disappoints the reader by having a small scope, narrow source base and leaving many questions unanswered). If you can get your hands on a copy via library it won't hurt to read it, but judging from that critique it's not good enough to spend £60 on it. --Six words (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that its not worth the sticker price. Although, it's limited scope is part of the attraction. I feel its important to mention that TCM is not just all forms of medicine practiced historically in China. Although I also don't want to try and go out of my way to make that point. Perhaps others can advise me on the fine line between addressing good information and making a point about something. I would like to do my best to dissuade others that my I see WP as a format to create a brochure for TCM. Calus (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- From where I'm standing it doesn't look like you're trying to do that. The review doesn't say the book is bad, just that it could be better (“adequate, but does not enrich the field in any significant way”). --Six words (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Six, I think Calus may be correct that there is an ambiguity in usage of "TCM", and he is just trying to find a source on this. There was a take-over of the word by the government, changing its meaning to two meanings.
- @Calus, I see no problem with using the source as you want to. Your distinction is accurate as far as I know, and your source demonstrates this. I commented on "purist TCM", and the "modern, or modified TCM's", as well as "5 Phases metaphysicians", and "practical physicians" in a section below. There are many modifications of TCM, some were for humanitarian reasons, some for political reasons, some for purely profit making and marketing reasons, etc. All are currently taught and in use at this time. The terms "purist" and "practical" are my own inventions for different uses of "TCM". PPdd (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- From where I'm standing it doesn't look like you're trying to do that. The review doesn't say the book is bad, just that it could be better (“adequate, but does not enrich the field in any significant way”). --Six words (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that its not worth the sticker price. Although, it's limited scope is part of the attraction. I feel its important to mention that TCM is not just all forms of medicine practiced historically in China. Although I also don't want to try and go out of my way to make that point. Perhaps others can advise me on the fine line between addressing good information and making a point about something. I would like to do my best to dissuade others that my I see WP as a format to create a brochure for TCM. Calus (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
"Natural", "Herbal"
I'm not sure what the point of this sentence is:"In addition to natural unprocessed plants, TCM medicnes are sometimes called "natural" or "Chinese herbal medicine" when they include human and animal parts, minerals, and processed sunstances.[citation needed]" As it stands it is very wordy and does not really fit where it is. Also I would point out that the word natural means nothing according to regulatory bodies like the FDA. I'm unclear on its use here. Calus (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- TCM medicines are very often called "herbal" and "natural", but they contain human and animal parts, as well as minerals, so are not "herbal", and are sometimes processed so are not "natural". I had RS for this, but it was deleted a long time ago, so I am looking for the RS on this ambiguous usage of "herbal" and "natural" again. There is a "citation needed" tag because even though this is obvious, I like having citations even for obvious sentences. PPdd (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not just say that: "The materia medica of chinese herbology, and what constitutes an herb in TCM, includes substances other than plant parts; such as minerals, animal products, and even in one instance human placenta. These substances may even be processed prior to use in the belief that processing can change the herbs action (function?) or reduce the substances toxicity". there already exist suitable citations to state this. Calus (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Three problems. (1) The materia metrica is not written in English, and the translation "herb" has a specific meaning in English of being a non-woody plant, or just a plant. (2) Pure heavy metals are about as non-"herbal" as anything can possibly be. (3)Most TCM proponents describe TCM meds as "natural", compared to synthesised chemicals, or highly processed sunstances, and this general usage in the public should be accounted for with decribing what the word "natural" everyone hears means. A better word than "natural" is "unprocessed or primitively processed", but that is OR.
- Along the same lines, one of my favorite restaurants is a vegan one in Hollywood, and I get their "chicken" quesadillas, and I realixed looking at the menus that tofu is about as processed as any food in history, but is listed as "natural".
- The mention of human placenta violates one of the MOS policies on the lead. I seem to recall other human parts having been used, but it was an obscure usage, and I did not try to look it up to include it because it was obscure. PPdd (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Chinese term usually translated as "herb" is 藥Yao which is more accurately translated as "medicinal" by Nigel Wiseman and others (See "A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine" by Wiseman and Ye, Paradigm Publications, pg388). "Materia Medica" is the common translation of various Chinese University textbooks titled 中藥學 Zhong Yao Xue which is more accurately translated as "The Study of Chinese Medicinals".Herbxue (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Medicinal" is a much better translation, but the damage to English has already been done, and "herbal" is out there for TCM, as well as "natural". Maybe better than "the materia medica" is "compendium of materials of medicines". PPdd (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP: "Materia medica is a Latin medical term for the body of collected knowledge about the therapeutic properties of any substance used for healing" There are chinese materia medica's written in many languages. ie there are materia medica's written on Chinese herbs in many languages, which we call Chinese Materia Medicas. I dont see any problem in using that phrase here. I understand your point about the word natural, but it is a marketing term without any real significance. Many people think natural is the same as organic, for example, and it is not. I would much prefer to see a distinction along the lines of processed medicinals and leave the whole messy notion of what is natural out of this article. What you are getting at with regards to distinctions made by practitioners is one of "whole food" (substances) vs. extracted active ingredients or chemicals. Note that vitamins, fall under the latter category of being single compounds but most people consider them natural. The issue of herbology is difficult, since it seems apparent that heavy metals are not herbs, and yet they fall under the category of herbal medicineCalus (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Medicinal" is a much better translation, but the damage to English has already been done, and "herbal" is out there for TCM, as well as "natural". Maybe better than "the materia medica" is "compendium of materials of medicines". PPdd (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Chinese term usually translated as "herb" is 藥Yao which is more accurately translated as "medicinal" by Nigel Wiseman and others (See "A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine" by Wiseman and Ye, Paradigm Publications, pg388). "Materia Medica" is the common translation of various Chinese University textbooks titled 中藥學 Zhong Yao Xue which is more accurately translated as "The Study of Chinese Medicinals".Herbxue (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not just say that: "The materia medica of chinese herbology, and what constitutes an herb in TCM, includes substances other than plant parts; such as minerals, animal products, and even in one instance human placenta. These substances may even be processed prior to use in the belief that processing can change the herbs action (function?) or reduce the substances toxicity". there already exist suitable citations to state this. Calus (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- TCM medicines are very often called "herbal" and "natural", but they contain human and animal parts, as well as minerals, so are not "herbal", and are sometimes processed so are not "natural". I had RS for this, but it was deleted a long time ago, so I am looking for the RS on this ambiguous usage of "herbal" and "natural" again. There is a "citation needed" tag because even though this is obvious, I like having citations even for obvious sentences. PPdd (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
+ Comment - "Herbal" is a list of medicinal plants. "Natural" means not man-made per the Wiki article lead section; e.g., raw unprocessed plants are natural, but processed products made from them, such as by boiling out toxins, are not natural under the Wiki definiton. These are words used re TCM by NCCAM and the data bases. The sentences were reworded, and RS added. If there are no more objections, I will mark this as resolved so others do not have to read it. PPdd (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure if this is resolved, but certainly getting there. to quote WP: "A herbal may also classify the plants it describes,[3] may give recipes for herbal extracts, tinctures, or potions, and sometimes include mineral and animal medicaments in addition to those obtained from plants" I believe we can use the word Herb to define minerals and animal products. However, I do not object to mentioning that the use of the word herbal includes mineral and animal products. Also, I am working on a Pao Zhi section about how herbs are processed, and the belief behind what that processing does, which should help add to the knowledge base. Calus (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is definetely not resolved. "Natural" is too vague a term, the wikipedia article is a good example (please compare). Better to avoid this wording. Mallexikon (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure if this is resolved, but certainly getting there. to quote WP: "A herbal may also classify the plants it describes,[3] may give recipes for herbal extracts, tinctures, or potions, and sometimes include mineral and animal medicaments in addition to those obtained from plants" I believe we can use the word Herb to define minerals and animal products. However, I do not object to mentioning that the use of the word herbal includes mineral and animal products. Also, I am working on a Pao Zhi section about how herbs are processed, and the belief behind what that processing does, which should help add to the knowledge base. Calus (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Tell that to NCCAM and the main TCM data base. They call it natural, as does the Journal of Chinese Medicine, and Acupuncture Today. This ruse pretending to be "natural" when in fact they roast or fry mercury, lead, and arsenic in medicines, and highly process them to chemically (alchemy, actually) extract poisons or combine chemicals in ingredients, is very ... PPdd (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- PPdd, If you have a problem with the way TCM is represented in America, this is not the forum to make your point. Its best to just avoid use of the word natural. Calus (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Reconciling "TCM acupuncture" with needling and other acupuncture modalities
I'm curious how the issue of Traditional Chinese Medicine is being reconciled with other modalities of acupuncture etc..
It is my understanding that TCM has a well definable history and viewpoints which differ from other practitioners of acupuncture. Are we merely ignoring this history and lumping all forms under this section. Calling something TCM has a very specific meaning in my mind.
For example, there is a statement that 365 acupoints exist on the body in correlation to the 365 days of the year. If we ignore the fact any person with knowledge on this subjects knows that the number of recorded acupoints has changed throughout history, I still question the scope of the source. The cited source refers to Daoist acupuncture which is very different from TCM. This is one example, but i think there are many other instances where one system is taken as an example for all systems. But should this article really only reflect TCM?
Perhaps other systems like five element, daoist, korean, or japanese acupuncture and theory would be best placed in a stub.
It is very misleading and biased to attribute outdated viewpoints with modern TCM. Calus (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP is designed to have linked pages, and this is gone into as outlined in the to-do list at the linked acupuncture talk page (which includes the talk page archives, so the little you see at talk is only a fraction of the discussions). Any claim you want to include has to be based on a both reliable and verifiable publication sources that can be confirmed with consensus to outweigh any source you want the opinion of deleted. Nothing put in the article can ever be based on your own knowledge, even if your knowledge is true and contridicts an RS. It would help you to read WP:MEDRS if you are going to edit medical pages, and read the archives of the talk pages. Here is a case in point (I was just about to drop you a message at your talk page about this). Medical or scientific claims have to be in a peer reviewed medical publication source, and not in an alt med journal, whether or not you think they are true. The medical source must be a secondary source publication that meets WP:MEDRS. It cannot be a primary single source study, but must be a systematic review or meta-analysis of studies, because of the meaning of p-value as a publication standard (and thus inherent random positve result studies), using funnel plots etc. to eliminate publication bias, Some (not all) alt med publications are RS (but never MEDRS) for claims about practices and beliefs. For example, if an alt med journal says "Aout study or review found that this can be used to heal that", because of MEDRS you can not write "This can be used to heal that", but can only write "under TCM beliefs this heals that". This is because alt med peer rewivers may be experts on their own practices and beliefs, but they are not MDs, so cannot peer review medical claims. This has been gone over again and again on talk pages, and editors who insist that they "are real doctors too", and bring it up once again, are considered disruptive and pointy and usually end up getting banned from alt med article editing. PPdd (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your clarification on wiki protocol. I'm still curious to see what others think about TCM as a definition of this page which contains things not considered TCM per se. Also, i would point out that many MD's practice acupuncture; are you saying that their input would carry more weight in helping to keep this page free of bias?
Many beliefs stated here are of Classical chinese medicine not Traditional Chinese Medicine which was stripped of any religious or mystical connotation by Communists.Calus (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote more than I should of because I was about to post some of the info at your talk page re your earlier edit. (others don't need to read it, since they already know it, so it doesn't really go on this talk page. The upshot answer is that the entire lead (part before the table of contents) is based on careful consideration of policies and guidelines in relation to the article body, and more importantly, on RS. Find an RS for your claim, and lets discuss here. The worst place to learn to edit is in the lead, since your edits will almost certainly be deleted. Mine were for many weeks at the homeopathy article, but my edits in that article's body were not. PPdd (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really do appreciate your help, and I think it will help prevent future "vandalism" as more and more people become aware of the state of this article. There has been much attention drawn to this article on other forums by outraged individuals. Please show all those to follow the same level of kindness you have me. Together we can create an unbiased view to benefit everyone.Calus (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote more than I should of because I was about to post some of the info at your talk page re your earlier edit. (others don't need to read it, since they already know it, so it doesn't really go on this talk page. The upshot answer is that the entire lead (part before the table of contents) is based on careful consideration of policies and guidelines in relation to the article body, and more importantly, on RS. Find an RS for your claim, and lets discuss here. The worst place to learn to edit is in the lead, since your edits will almost certainly be deleted. Mine were for many weeks at the homeopathy article, but my edits in that article's body were not. PPdd (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to restate my assertion that Traditional Chinese Medicine is different from Classical Chinese Medicine in hopes that someone can help provide proper citations for this. I think once we establish this fact, a lot of the confusion and bias can be weeded out. For example: "Traditional Chinese medicine theory is based on ancient Daoist philosophical and religious conceptions of balance and opposites (yin and yang), and other metaphysical belief systems. " Would be more accuratly stated as "Traditional Chinese medicine theory is based on Classical Chinese medicine which includes ancient Daoist philosophical and religious conceptions of balance and opposites (yin and yang), and other metaphysical belief systems. " TCM was stripped of daoist and religious conceptions by communists, and it is misleading to equate them. Calus (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are thinking of what is called "Chinese integrative medicine" (See, e.g., Certain progress of clinical research on "Chinese integrative medicine", Keji Chen, Bei Yu, Chinese Medical Journal, 1999, 112 (10), p. 934, [24]). TCM is based on what the RS source says. The 200 sources in the article all use TCM in the same way. There is not a different word for "classical Chinese medicine" and "Traditional Chinese medicine" in the Chinese languages. When a scientific discovery is made, it is called evidence based medicine. At the top of the acupuncture talk page the distinction between "TCM acupuncture", and "needling", etc., is dilineated. If you are a new editor, you should know that when people write, without an ability to smile, gesture, or intone; and they write briefly, not elaborately, it seems stiff and authoritative. Please get used to it. (See? I just gave you an example with that last sentence, which even had a "please" in front. I could have spent extra time written the longer, "you will have to get used to it". etc. :) )PPdd (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Medicine has always been called medicine in the english language, but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed with such things as the discovery of bacteria. TCM as it's practiced today, has little resemblance to classical theory. When one chooses to become an acupuncturist and get their masters, they must choose between TCM schools or 5 element schools which are based upon more classical theory. Hence, it is important to be very clear on what constitutes TCM in this encyclopedia. In common use, it may be more acceptable to lump everything into the category of TCM, and that may be what sources have done. However, we should have higher standards. It may be as you say that I am merely referring to integrative medicine, but I don't think so, since that implies the use of western medicine. I would like to see others weigh in on this issue. Perhaps it is a matter of scope, is this article on modern TCM practices (note that Tradition Chinese medicine is not some dead thing from the past but still currently taught in masters of science programs in the US), or is this article about Traditional Chinese Medicine as it has been practiced throughout history?
- If a patient notices that their practitioner went to a TCM school and then sees information on this wiki referring to 5 element practices and outdated views of the world, they are being mislead. Calus (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Other new editors put the 5 element stuff in above the theory section. I have been using the NACAM, Acupuncture Today, Journal of Chinese Medicine, etc. RS source definitions. But I did not know there was a difference, other than the Chinese integrative medicine stuff using science a bit. What is the basic difference in the "TCM school" and "5 element school" as you know it? I can then use the info and look for sources. PPdd (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm wary to answer this question because there are those much more knowledgeable than I. To oversimplify, TCM deals with "zang fu" organs and patterns of disease comprised of various signs and symptoms. A TCM school incorporates a ton of western medical knowledge. In my opinion, the two are taught separate but equal, with a focus on a TCM scope of practice, but with a healthy knowledge of western medicine to, at the very least, spot red flags and know when a referral is necessary. Perhaps western medicine is also emphasized at a 5 element school, but that i cannot say. What I do know about 5 element is that it treats people based on the 5 element cycle listed in the theory section, and each "element" constitutionally speaking gets treated differently. Basically, it divides all patients into one of five elements and works from there. Again, I am not the best person to ask about 5 element but I do know that it is not Tradition Chinese Medicine, as it is known today. I don't even think the degree is the same. If we were talking about shoes, one would be nike and the other Reebok. I would google 5 element schools to see how they differ themselves from TCM schools. The more I think about it, the more I feel that if this article is titled Traditional Chinese Medicine then it should reflect modern TCM views and beliefs currently being taught, and not antiquated notions. Calus (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Other new editors put the 5 element stuff in above the theory section. I have been using the NACAM, Acupuncture Today, Journal of Chinese Medicine, etc. RS source definitions. But I did not know there was a difference, other than the Chinese integrative medicine stuff using science a bit. What is the basic difference in the "TCM school" and "5 element school" as you know it? I can then use the info and look for sources. PPdd (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out a case in point. I admire and respect Heiner Fruehauf, and he states clearly in an article cited by this page, "a consistent focus in my life to help restore the clinical power of classical Chinese medicine to where it was before", But then that article is used to prove this statement: "some TCM believers think that this is because it was either processed incorrectly or planted on the wrong place or on the wrong day of the year, i.e., for supernatural or astrological reasons, not because of the toxins." Obviously, the information is in regards to Classical Chinese Medicine, and not Traditional Chinese Medicine (which is the current form of east asian medicine)Calus (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources
The Monkey and the Inkpot book on Bencao Gangmu by Carla Nappi (Princeton/Harvard/Stanford/UBC)
If you want background on TCM, there is a fascinating comprehensive and fairly new book out of Princeton/Harvard/Stanford on TCM’s still used central text, the Bencao Gangmu by Li Shizhen - The Monkey and the Inkpot: Natural History and its Transformations in Early Modern China.[25] by Carla Nappi.[26]
From the back cover –
“Carla Nappi takes us into one of the greatest Chinese encyclopedias of the natural world and its medicinal properties, the Bencao gangmu, which inspired the vision of the Chinese encyclopedia that haunts the pages of Borges and Foucault. Nappi draws us into the Bencao’s complexities, and into the fertile and restless mind of its creator, Li Shizhen. Nappi opens the door on Li’s cabinet of wonders.” – Paula Findlen, Stanford University
PPdd (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the recommendation, have not read it yet. Quick note: Li Shizhen's Ben Cao Gang Mu (written in 1500's) is considered important because it marked a big step forward in encyclopedic presentation of Chinese medicinals. It is not currently used as a textbook but is considered an important reference for one of many pivotal times in Chinese medicine. Not a central text on practice but rather important for its style as a reference book.Herbxue (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bencao gangmu is used as a text by some purist traditionalists, as a reference by some in modified versions of TCM, and as a historical document by some such as in Chinese integrative medicine. It is also viewed as a book on taxonomy, metaphysical ontology, natural history, and Chinese history regarding what came before it, similar to works of Aristotle or Linnaeus. It is interesting that you use the word "encyclopedic", since the back cover reviewer from Stanford, Paula Findlen, calls it an "encyclopedia". 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This month in Harvard Magazine - Li Shizhen: Brief life of a pioneering naturalist: 1518-1593 by Carla Nappi
Li Shizhen: Brief life of a pioneering naturalist: 1518-1593 article in March/April 2011 Harvard Magazine, by Carla Nappi - [27] PPdd (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Collapse Box
Collapse accusations of bad faith and personal attacks unrelated to source. Refer personal attacks and nonAGF accusations to be made at editor's talk page
|
---|
|
Scraping (Gua Sha)
The WP article on this says it is not painful, without MEDRS. Does anyone have MEDRS on this? PPdd (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Example of “expertise” of an editor on TCM - why nonRS opinion based on editor-“experts” MUST not replace RS content
Six words, RE your "weight" comment, I put in the article –
“All the medicinal are toxic.” - Zhang Jiegu
Herbxue, claiming “TCM expertise”, wrote above -
“Who is the Zhang mentioned? From what source is he described as "the most important TCM physcician/systemtizer?”
Not only did the quote link to Zhang's artricle, but I had a section in the History section on him. An "expert" should at least read the article before complaining about it! That's the kind of thing typical of censors in the religous right of all religions. You can check the brief Zhang Jiegu article I wrote to see who Zhang is.
Herb went on to deride still another historian of medicine writing in the Journal of Biocommunications -
“Sounds to me this is a foggy-headed association between the history of western anatomists and an unclear perception of TCM by someone who is not a subject matter expert.”
Ludwigs2, usually meticulously careful elsewhere, bit the "expert" claim and used Herb’s WP:Essjayism claimed “expertise” to delete both the Zhang quote, the image of aconite, the “King of the 100 Herbs”, and toxic medicines from the article as undue weight, and deleted the Journal of Biocommunications material on TCM anatomy and physiology from the lead. That’s why RS is needed to base deletions, not nonRS opinion by altmed practitioner “experts” with a financial stake in TCM image in America (who use their “expertise to insult BLP real people you or I may or may not know). I did not comment on this before to try not to be uncivil. Was I wise to not mention this before, trying not to be insulting? I only do so now because of all the many uncivil things and accusations made about me, and deletions and edits replacing RS with nonRS, based on editor-"experts", and I am now trying rigtht now to say all this as civilly as possible. (The funniest thing about it is that my POV and that of Ludwigs2 on “vatial foces” etc. might not be so very different.) PPdd (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think I said it before, I don't know much about TCM. I wouldn't expect an expert to know each and every important historical figure, especially if googling for that figure finds that
Zhang's students became far more famous than he, so information on Zhang is often a footnote to that provided about his students. Thus, for example, in the book History and Development of Traditional Chinese Medicine (1), which serves as one of the primary references for this article, Zhang is not even described other than brief mention as a teacher of Li Gao (aka, Li Dongyuan). source
- If most published works on TCM don't think he's that important, then (for wikipedia) he probably isn't. --Six words (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned before the Zhang you refer to (most commonly referred to as Zhang Yuansu) was important for one stage of the development of TCM (the Jin-Yuan era) in that he espoused the idea that ancient formulas should not be used for "modern diseases". This is a very rare departure for any Chinese thinker historically. It is typical for Confucian scholars to be deferential to the past, and for medicine that mainly meant the works of Zhang Zhongjing (which is why I had to ask "which Zhang?", not because I don't know who they are you joker). As his influence stemmed from a departure leading to a brief period of creativity, he does not represent the main thrust of TCM historically, and so is not, as you say, a "central figure in the systemization of TCM". Please see the "Pi Wei Lun" by Li Dongyuan as translated by Bob Flaws of Blue Poppy Press. Like Li Shizhen, Zhang is one imporant scholar out of MANY.Herbxue (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- And by the way, I never recommended removing anything about aconite. It is a hugely relevant topic, though entirely unflattering to TCM. I stand by my rejection of the Matuk article. It is clearly written from an Orientalist POV and a lack of understanding the subject in its proper context.Herbxue (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned before the Zhang you refer to (most commonly referred to as Zhang Yuansu) was important for one stage of the development of TCM (the Jin-Yuan era) in that he espoused the idea that ancient formulas should not be used for "modern diseases". This is a very rare departure for any Chinese thinker historically. It is typical for Confucian scholars to be deferential to the past, and for medicine that mainly meant the works of Zhang Zhongjing (which is why I had to ask "which Zhang?", not because I don't know who they are you joker). As his influence stemmed from a departure leading to a brief period of creativity, he does not represent the main thrust of TCM historically, and so is not, as you say, a "central figure in the systemization of TCM". Please see the "Pi Wei Lun" by Li Dongyuan as translated by Bob Flaws of Blue Poppy Press. Like Li Shizhen, Zhang is one imporant scholar out of MANY.Herbxue (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Table of Substances still too focused on exotica
The article is looking much better but the table of medicinal substances still generally does not reflect the true weight of relatively safe plant and mineral products used in TCM. There are some specific substances that need to be edited or removed to more clearly present the reality of TCM practice.
1. Lei Gong Teng "Thunder Vine" Radix tripterygii wilfordii is listed by a rarer alternative name, Qi Bu Si "Seven Steps to Death". If you check the standard texts - Materia Medica by Bensky, for example, it is listed as Lei Gong Teng and alternative names include Cai Chong Yao, Duan Chang Cao, and Hong Yao (Qi Bu Si is not even listed under alternative names so is certainly not the appropriate name to use in the article).
2. "Snake Oil" - several products made from snake are used in TCM, but "Snake Oil" is not among them. If you read the references linked to in the article, neither makes the point that "Snake Oil" is a TCM substance, only that a Chinese snake oil is higher in omega 3's than other species of snakes, and that omega 3's do have anti-inflammatory benefits. If you check authoritative sources, there are dried preparations of snake body and snake skin listed in the Materia Medica, but no "Snake Oil". There is also a popular over-the-counter product that uses the bile of the snake in a preparation used for cough. For topical application TCM typically uses menthol-based liniments with a variety of herbs, often containing cinnamon and angelica. I recommend "Snake Oil" be replaced with Snake Periostracum (snake skin slough) or removed entirely.
3. Actinolitum, listed as "Asbestos", in Chinese Yang Qi Shi, is not a commonly used substance in TCM though it is is listed in Bensky's Materia Medica, where he explains that the compact (non fibrous) form is the one described in the TCM literature, but that it is the heteromorphous fibrous forms (actinolit-asbestos and tremolit-asbestos) that are carcinogenic when inhaled, which is what most people associate with the term "asbestos". In any case, Actinolitum is a preferred name, though it would be better omitted altogether unless we are trying to list every substance in the materia medica because its relative relevance is very low.
4. Shark's fin and the penises are probably more suited to an article about traditional cooking, and do not appear in the english Materia Medica, I will check the Shanghai text before making any specific suggestions about what to do with this article.
If nobody objects I will edit the Thunder Vine, Actinolitum, and Snake Skin Slough entries myself.Herbxue (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, go ahead. I've been working my way slowly through the article from the top down and just haven't gotten there yet. I was going to suggest that we might trim that table down to just the most commonly-used ingredients, as examples, and refer people to the List of medicines in traditional Chinese Medicine article for a detailed list. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. A table or list will just be too unwieldy for this article as it would eventually have thousand's of substances. Maybe brief mention of ginseng, cinnamon, astragalus, and licorice in the body of the text, but it would be difficult to establish inclusion / exclusion criteria for a table or list.Herbxue (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a seriously POV article
There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting just about anything written here. There is no qi. There is no xue. Nothing. It should be clearly stated everywhere, that there is no scientific evidence for almost everything here. Right now, this is merely an big giant advertisement for the bogus TCM. If this were TCM-pedia, we'd have no problem. The violation of just about every principle of NPOV is amazing, this article takes the gold medal for POV editing. Oh, and the one slightly neutral comment that TCM is considered alternative medicine is almost pejorative, written as if Western people are so "stupid" as to consider it AltMed. I know it doesn't say that, but it certainly implies it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which article you are reading but there are not any medical claims being made here. An article about any subject needs to describe that subject, not judge it. (Totally beside the point, there actually is a good deal of science supporting the validity of many TCM treatments). Whether Qi exists or not - this is not the place to discuss that issue. It would be way more POV to assert that Qi does not exist, less POV to simply describe a phenomenon, even if it were just an idea, as it has been conceived and used over thousands of years. This is the place to describe the theories and practices of TCM. If the Beatles article says that they wrote Rock and Roll music - that is not an endorsement of Rock and Roll, it is simply a description.
- It also begs the question of what you consider "scientific evidence" to mean. Even within conventional Biomedicine there is great debate about the value of many practices - consider that relatively few cases of prostatitis are actually due to bacterial infection but urologists routinely prescribe cipro without any testing. Is that scientific? No, it is based on the doc's clinical judgement. But wikipedia is not the place to debate who does or does not have good clinical judgement. What a mess that would be! This is a place to describe and explain things.Herbxue (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- We probably should review what NPOV means. It does not mean that we represent all views. No, we state what is supported and what is not. Qi does not exist, is not supported by ANY scientific evidence at all. NONE. To state otherwise is POV. And we're not talking about other medical technologies....whether you are right or wrong, that's a discussion in those articles. The fact is, this article is extremely POV. It is an advert for a pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, scientific evidence is clear. Please see scientific method. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- OM, no one is presenting Qi as a truth, we're simply reporting what TCM says about it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not trying to establish Truth, but simply trying to present the sum total of human knowledge (including knowledge about things which are wrong). If you've got other concerns about the material, please do tell, but if your only issue is that what this page says is not 'true' in some ontological sense... well, I'm not sure I see the relevance. --Ludwigs2 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, I see you're still prone to personal attacks. See WP:NPA please. Of course, I know that science doesn't establish a truth. However, I think you should review WP:NPOV, since we're not here to present fringe viewpoints, just what is supported by evidence that qualifies as a reliable source. I can point you to the appropriate links if necessary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)