![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 The lead first paragraph should have info about Mao, that TCM is alt med, and that it is not based on science
- 2 US National Library of Medicine sources on Traditional Chinese Medicine
- 3 can't understand why delete the content I added
- 4 TCM
- 5 Your "clarification" on Traditional Chinese medicine
- 6 Article in South China Morning Post
The lead first paragraph should have info about Mao, that TCM is alt med, and that it is not based on science
The lead sentence should say TCM is alt med. The lead first paragraph should say it is not based on science and that Mao invented much of TCM as being an ancient tradition, using fraudulent Communist propaganda, and even admitted to doing so. FloraWilde (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Two editors disagreed that Mao invented TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever Mao did, there's no question that Chinese medicine is as ancient as Greek or Indian, maybe moreso. See Huangdi Neijing etc. etc. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I added text to the history section but kept it out of the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
US National Library of Medicine sources on Traditional Chinese Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/chinesemedicine/chinese.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/chinesemedicine/books.html
Rajmaan (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
can't understand why delete the content I added
Look at the section Drug research. In this article "Huperzine A" was labeled as "poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" and "Huperzine A" was the "one of the few successes" in content. I tried to add the Ephedrine which is from the research on traditional chinese medicine and Kampo, and it was deleted because of Tangential and trivial. I don't know why Ephedrine was considered as Tangential and trivial but Huperzine A is "one of the few success"? I added the regulation in United Kingdom but was also deleted for Tangential and trivial. Then I see the regulation in Canada,Indonesia and many other countries was in this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- After I checked the source [1] for Huperzine A. It seems a misrepresentation for sources (I am not sure). The conclusion of this source is "Huperzine A appears to have beneficial effects on improvement of cognitive function, daily living activity, and global clinical assessment in participants with Alzheimer’s disease. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the included trials," but the article rephrase this like "a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" . I don't think they are the same meaning so I changed the words to cite original words from source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
TCM
Why TCM is not under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions? At least the template is missing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)(Original comment. Comment moved from my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC))
- User:Bladesmulti, this article is under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions. Every article does not need to be in a list. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your "clarification" on Traditional Chinese medicine
Moved from QuackGuru's talk page.
There are still problems with your 'clarification'[2]? Take a look at the new grammar. After your 'clarification', it says:
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM; simplified Chinese: 中医; traditional Chinese: 中醫; pinyin: zhōng yī; literally: "Chinese medicine") is a broad range of medicine practices sharing common concepts which have been developed in China and are based on a tradition of more than 2,000 years, including various forms of herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage (Tui na), exercise (qigong), and dietary therapy. TCM is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine approach. TCM is widely used in China and it used in the West.
"TCM is a broad range ... TCM is primarily used ... TCM is widely used..." Frankly speaking, that sounds like: "The dog is blue. The dog likes food. The dog enjoys walking outdoors." QuackGuru, are you a native English speaker? It'd be important to know since we could pay better attention to your problems with the content once we knew. Oh, and do not remove this message before you have given me a proper answer. So far, I have pointed out and corrected your poor edits. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to criticise QG's english in that para above, you'll have to be more specific. I am a native english speaker, and I cannot see anything wrong with it at all, certainly nothing to warrant any changes of grammar. If you cannot specify the problem, I see no problem with QG removing this message. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- The problems have been fixed now, and I am satisfied with the current version. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- This edit was OR. This text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problems have been fixed now, and I am satisfied with the current version. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Original research in the lede
The source says "In spite of the widespread use of TCM in China and its use in the West, rigorous scientific evidence of its effectiveness is limited."[3]
It is not also widely used in the west. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The source does not say it is in widespread use in the West. But the source says "and its use in the West".[4] This summarises the body to include it in the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Article in South China Morning Post
Traditional medicine faces challenge from upstart Western ideas