Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

The lede needs to be revised

Hi everyone. I was searching about Traditional Chinese Medicine today and saw this very negatively worded description about TCM. The lede does not give a proper introduction to TCM and is backed up by an article that has only an impact factor of 1.17, which is quite low and most definitely cannot reflect the mainstream opinion. I made a change to the first paragraph to a more comprehensive and neutral description, and later it got reverted by a user because they think that my change is non-neutral, which is ridiculous. I was told later that we need reliable sources to back up a neutral description. Please respond with reliable sources so we can try to make a change.

It is worth noticing that many other traditional medicine branches like "traditional Japanese medicine", "traditional Korean medicine", "Ayurveda" (which is alternative medicine in India), etc all have very neutral descriptions, and some of these branches even are derived from Chinese medicine. If their lede can stay neutral, then the TCM lede should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuangyanLi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any policy based reasons to revise the lead? We appear to be following WP:LEAD and your contribution of unsupported commentary was rightfully reverted- Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the "Intro revision" section, current reference 2 which is the Nature editorial is more suitable as a statement attributed to that particular editor, but not necessarily as statements of fact. Therefore, it can be misleading to place such statement as the very first sentence of the entire page, which is seen directly by anyone who Google searches "Traditional Chinese Medicine".

In addition, regarding your comment also in the "Intro revision" section, what evidence are you using to support the statement that "the most important thing about TCM is that it doesn't work"? GavinXLu (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been described as, already in the article, is enough of an attribution. The level of acceptance from the scientific mainstream is extremely relevant context for the reader and should be at the top of the article. What google decides to put on their website is none of our business. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, The cited Nature editorial "Hard to swallow" has no citations/evidence of what it is saying, which is simply an opinion piece rather than a scientific article with evidence. It cannot represent the mainstream just because it's Nature. There are many more reliable secondary scientific articles about TCM that suggest its effectiveness. I really suggest you and a few other active reverters on the TCM article to investigate more into TCM before saying it is "pseudoscience". I can help you to get started here: "Traditional chinese medicine: an update on clinical evidence", "Understanding Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutics: An Overview of the Basics and Clinical Applications" GuangyanLi (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess we all need to investigate more into TCM until we agree with you, otherwise it is still not enough. "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths.

Actually, you have no idea how much we know about the TCM evidence. Maybe we know more than you do?

Back to article work: The Nature article is clearly marked as an editorial, and although it is used several times, what it is used for in the article is either uncontroversial (such as "TCM uses artemisia") or it has another, non-editorial source, or the statement is attributed.

We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience, spread over the whole of the article. Denying that it is not would be silly; literature about pseudoscience regularly features concepts from TCM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this what Wiki is? Wow. A bunch of uninform people with no credential on the subject matter dictating on a topic that they have no credential on what-so-ever. Very disappointing. I will refrain from using Wiki from now on. K2wong (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said avbove, We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience. It is not our doing, it is the scientific consensus. You are not listening. But of course, not listening to things you disagree with is a precondition for belief in pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to define TCM as an alternative medicine practice in a Western sense? The worldview of TCM is not historically an alternate, pseudoscientific version of Western medicine. It has been practiced for thousands of years, and it is based on a different understanding of reality. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to provide a leading context as to the historical and spiritually-influenced basis of these beliefs? To lead with pseudoscience in the description of TCM is inappropriate. An opening section similar to ‘Tai chi’ or ‘Qigong’ - both highly related facets of TCM, would be more appropriate. See also the opening to ‘Kampo’ on Wikipedia, which is the Japanese adaptation of TCM. I find it bizarre that the spiritually-infused healing art of TCM, practiced by millions worldwide, would fall under the umbrella of a Western “alternative medicine” pseudoscience on Wikipedia. This seems a bit dismissive and xenophobic. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ayurveda is treated the same way. I think "pseudoscientific" is maybe the wrong word, but the idea that TCM has no scientific basis needs to be emphasised for WP:FRINGE reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood re: fringe theory reasons, still seems that “pseudoscientific” is an inappropriate label for Traditional Chinese Medicine (and Ayurveda, for that matter). “No scientific basis” is different than pseudoscience, when it comes to beliefs w/ a different spiritual understanding of reality. Also consider “Qi”, Yin and yang”, and “Wuxing” articles— here is the same underlying Chinese philosophy that is deeply connected with TCM principles, yet presented here with a neutrality not found on “Traditional Chinese Medicine” or “Acupuncture” articles. I understand that the umbrella of medicine requires protection from fringe theories / dangerous beliefs, but clearly this isn’t simple “quackery” or snake oil… judging by the wealth of Wikipedia articles related to the underlying TCM philosophy & principles. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that 'Yin and yang' and 'Wuxing' are not presented as medical treatments or supported by sham 'scientific' papers. The context is different so the result is different - in particular, the best-available sources treat them differently, and Wikipedia follows that, as the site's content policies require. That's really all we do here - WP:NPOV means follow the viewpoint of the mainstream sources. We don't pick apart the definitions of terms like "pseudoscientific" ourselves to decide if the sources are correct or not, that is WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM territory, and is considered a misuse of the talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

“Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an alternative medical practice drawn from traditional medicine in China.” So this article is specifically about the Western practice of TCM? In this article (in the Critique section) there is a distinction between “TCM” and “ medicine in traditional China.” Maybe the issue is, rather, that two topics are both being represented by one article. “Medicine in China” is a somewhat weak article about modern medicine in China. Nevertheless, apologies- did not intend to misuse the Talk page. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article was from Nature, which has an impact factor of 69.5. But if what you said is true then yes 1.17 is quite bad. Even my friend got published in a publication with an impact factor of ~7. Alexysun (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts re: moving the offending sentence to the "Critique" section? Seems like that is already the place for it. Biscuitfrank (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we do as described at WP:LEDE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, @Tgeorgescu. Per the original comment, the existing lede is inconsistent with the link you shared, i.e. "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." What would you suggest to resolve this? Biscuitfrank (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It is written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia, neutral point of view is defined as representing views proportionately to the sources, not a false balance. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the existing lead is fine. No problem with wordsmithing, but there anything that needs removing or moving elsewhere. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Source "Understanding Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutics: An Overview of the Basics and Clinical Applications"

Could someone please explain why the cited articles by the editting user was simply categorized as "Junk research" by the reverting user? GavinXLu (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the title of this section because of WP:TALKHEADPOV: "Don't address other users in a heading". This is the reverted edit in question: [1]

Because of the unreliability of the cited source. -Roxy the dog 08:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, after looking at the sources user Soupysubstrate cited, I think they are secondary sources that adheres to the guideline in [2]WP:NOR. GuangyanLi (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These are medical claims, so they need to meet WP:MEDRS. These sources do not - they are poor quality journals, not indexed by MEDLINE. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"—let's face the reality: TCM was a farce played by Mao because People's Republic of China lacked money for Western-style anesthetics and Western-style medicines. It never was anything else, and it will never be anything else. Evidence-based medicine is hugely expensive. That's why China, India, and such countries cannot afford large-scale EBM. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have no credential in Chinese medicine, please refrain from making accusations that have no basis. K2wong (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Only quacks allowed to say something. Right. Stop it, this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Change infobox image back to photograph

In April, editor 梦随飞絮 changed the infobox image from this one:

1.

A prescription section of a pharmacy in Nanning, Guangxi, China selling prepackaged Chinese and Western medicine (left) and Chinese medicinal herbs (right).

to this one (diff)

2.

File:Traditional Chinese medicine2.jpg

The picture shows the doctor is selecting the traditional Chinese medicine for customers.

and then to the current one (diff)

3.

Yinyang, a theory of traditional Chinese medicine

In my opinion, a photograph is a more representative image for the article. While it does deserve a place, the yinyang symbol is already included in the #Philosophical background section. The photographs also address the subject itself, rather than a subtopic.

Between the two photographs, I prefer #1. It shows a nice contrast between medications and TCM in a modern Chinese context. However, I do see the merits of #2 (shows the herbs itself instead of packaging). Let me know what you think. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing back to photo #1, for the reasons stated above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to change it back. HenryMP02 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Add space between period after Act and They in Taiwan subsection of the Regulations section. Ret2pop (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Health Psychology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FeliceRCLi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)