Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 4

SARS section?

Resolved

What does this SARS paragraph have to do with TCM? I don't want to mess with something that is being worked on by others. But would someone whose already involved with this please just delete it already rather than just commenting on it? D?ugosz

Its removed. PPdd (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Picture of Tibetan Medicine?

Resolved

I'm not trying to start any argument over the political status of Tibet, but it seemed a little strange that there is a picture of Ancient chinese medical chart, Wu Xing, and then "Ancient Tibetan Medicine Poster." Please do not take this to mean some political argument, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to be putting something about Tibet/Tibetan medicine in this page. Why not a poster about Hindu medicine and the chakra system? Tibet/Tibetan medicine is quite unique, as well as its history, it isn't merely a sub-branch of Traditional Chinese medicine. Perhaps if there was clarity about why this picture is here, that would help (maybe to show comparison of traditional medicine systems). Without this, i would suggest removal of the picture; it can imply the wrong message.

(Please remember to sign. Its removed. PPdd (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More than just alternative medicine, excludes science based medicine

Resolved

TCM goes way beyond most alternative "medicine" systems in that it includes many occult beliefs that have more to do with religeon than medicine. It also does not include science based medicine. This information should be in the lede.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Its in the lead. PPdd (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Occult

Resolved

Please scrutinize the sources. I am not sure they accurately support things. A thousand pardons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that's pov-pushy language (makes TCM sound like they cut the heads off chickens and dance around their patients naked). 'Occult' is a hold-over term from orientalism, and shouldn't be used without good cause (it really only applies to 19th century mysticism in the European world). I haven't read this article over in a long time - guess it's time to go in and do some house cleaning, vacuum out stuff like this.

ok. in order:

1. An annotated bibliography, which is useless in itself to support any claim.
2. A dissertation (primary source that lacks a degree of credibility) focusing on a specific practice (zhuyou exorcism) not on TCM as a whole
3. I don't know what this is, since the publication information (if that's what it is) is written in Chinese. It might be an academic paper, but if so, it's an incautious one. for instance the transition from 'Art of Numbers' to 'Occult Arts' in the first paragraph is suspect, though the author does not himself make the bonehead move of associating it with western conceptions of the occult (as the wikipedia editor who inserted this information did).

Not only are these unreliable sources, but they fail verification (they do not support what they are meant to support in this article). I'm removing the phrase now. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Ludwigs2 gets this one right. Traditional medicine is in the lead right where it should be to provide context. Metaphysical gets at some of the same ideas, and does not carry the inaccurate connotations of occult; while this term also requires some context, it appears to be in common use as a descriptor for such concepts as yin and yang. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, the links in the sources you refer to do not work for me. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

All issues have now been addressed. PPdd (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM - "inconsistent with modern science", or merely "not accepted by modern science"?

Resolved

TCM is flat out inconsistent with modern established science, not merely unaccepted by it. The existence of a nonphysical mind is "not accepted by" behaviorists. While some concepts such as "yin and yang" are not accepted by the scientific community as being unmeasureable, the TCM correlation of the human body with the number of rivers of a particular Chinese empire and number of days in the year is outright inconsistent with modern science. (What counts as a river, and what the boundaries of an empire are, is arbitrary; The number of days in a year is NOT 365, that is only an approximation; even if the previous problems were to be somehow corrected, there is no correlation of rivers and earth spin cycles per revolution about the sun with the human body.) I have undone Ludwigs2's pro-TCM POV lessening of the wording. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

HkF: are you talking theory or practice here? Obviously the theories are radically different - no western medical doctor is going to make diagnoses based on the principles of yinyang - but in practice TCM and regular medicine are not contradictory. No one offers TCM as competitor for western medicine, sometimes TCM and western medicine are used in a complementary fashion, often they are simply separate, with TCM focusing on things that western medicine doesn't have much to say about, and vice-versa. TCM does not exclude western science (most practitioners in the west will direct patients to GPs where appropriate), nor are the practices inconsistent with each other; the fact that the models they use are different is an important point, but hardly hardly turns them into oil and water.

More to the point, the statement seems to be based on your own particular (somewhat stawmanish) perspective on TCM. at least, it doesn't seem to be sourced to anything. so I'm going to tag it now with 'citation needed' and give you a couple of days to provide a reliable source before removing it again. --Ludwigs2 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RS is always good. The RS should be on content in the article body, with the lede summarizing this RS material.

I meant both theory and practice. For example, TCM says that there is a map of the body in the tongue. (There really is such a map of the body in the brain.) If a theory or practice uses just some things inconsistent with science, it is a pseudoscience, whether or not it has some other components that are incommensurable or use scientific methodology. My friend once insisted on going to a well known TCM doctor in our city's Chinatown to find out if she was pregnant. The "doctor" examined tongue, and declared her not to be (she was). His practice, and the theory on which it was based, is "inconsistent" with science. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you're claiming that TCM is incommensurate with western medicine because a particular practitioner didn't diagnose your friend's pregnancy correctly? so if I came up with an example where TCM worked as advertised, then TCM is good again? Or how about if I found an example where a conventional doctor misdiagnosed a patient - would western medicine then be pseudoscience?

arguing from personal experience has a place in the world, but that place is not here.

Find a source, and we'll argue over the proper use and interpretation of the source in the article. Your personal knowledge of TCM seems to be heavily skewed towards funky examples (like if all someone knew about western medicine was that it used to use leeches and frequently cuts off diseased body parts). It's not a fair assessment of the practice, and there's no sense getting into a long dialog about it, so let's just see if we can find a source that says something we can both agree to. --Ludwigs2 03:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved with RS. PPdd (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Need to add inconsistencies to science section; too much focus on efficay studies, not enough on inconsistency with anatomy

Resolved

Much can be added to the science section. For example, ideas about maps on the tongue correponding to the body is flat out inconsistent with, and contradicted by, knowledge of human anatomy and physiology. Similarly with locatoin of meridians and acupuncture points. Focusing on efficacy studies is irrelevant if the model itself is known to be wrong. That would be like bothering to test efficacy of a 10^-60 dilution in homeopathy. Studies would be a waste of time, and positive effect would more be like evidence of randomness, or a flaw in the study, not evidence that there is something showing anatomy is wrong. Does anyone know RS already at hand (avoid duplicating finding RS if they are already found) regarding the toungue not having a map of the body on it, and for meridians and points being inconsistent with sciences of human anatomy and phsyiology? There is also not enough matrial on occult numerological basis (whether or not those words are in the RS, the bases should be in the science section). Also, the inconsistencies section should come before the efficay study section, since it makes the latter redundant for some readers. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

you're hung up on this. no one actually claims that there's an actual physical 'map' on the tongue - it's just a diagnostic tool, much the way that a doctor will look at your pulse and blood pressure and make assertions about your general health. there's no conflict with anatomy here, because (as noted) TCM does not use the same reductionistic anatomical model that western science does. just as an example, TCM puts the skin as part of the same organ system as the lungs; western medicine notes that the skin (like the lungs) allows transpiration of gases with the environment. same basic idea, cast as one organ system in TCM and cast as two distinct organs with related functionality in western medicine. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, Ludwigs2, that is getting into not even wrong territory - TCM anatomy is not simply another basis set that can be used to describe the body to arbitrary accuracy. This is a shame, as I basically agree with what I think is your gist, that in some ways TCM is in conflict with medicine in the same way that philately is in conflict with the BCS theory of superconductivity. A more apt comparison might be the old bifurcating system of taxonomy that is gradually being replaced now that we can actually measure genetic relationships.

I would also like to talk about this edit, which added a couple {{cn}} tags to the lead (edit by Ludwigs2, I think made instead of reverting again). The first of them I like - baldly stating that TCM excludes science based medicine I think is actually incorrect without defining our terms. Specifically, do we mean the protoscience only (in which case the statement is misleading, as its development was not informed by proper science), or do we mean what people in China who describe themselves as traditional healers actually do (in which case the statement is wrong often enough to be misleading, as referrals do occur; whether they occur in proper proportion to the patient load is a separate question).

The second cn tag, though, I would like explained. Ludwigs2, from past experience I have found that you are usually a great deal more reasonable than you at first seem to me. I suspect that is indicative of vastly different styles of thought; you strike me as using the humanities-philosophical mode, while I prefer mathematics and experiment. Having identified the problem, I believe it should be possible for two rational human beings to work together in its awareness. The statement [TCM] is based on beliefs about the body that are not consistent with established science, to my reading, would be absurd to source because that is the whole point of this article - the beliefs of TCM practitioners. Reading your statement above, I believe that the conflict arises in your interpretation of consistent.

Proposal: delete that sentence. Part of its utility is encapsulated in the link to traditional medicine in the preceding sentence, and the rest is covered by the second paragraph. Replace first (overly long and convoluted) sentence of the second paragraph with: Anatomy in TCM is organized according to metaphysical concepts. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your taxonomy analogy is pretty much what I was aiming for: the TCM model is an old way of conceptualizing the body that lacks access to modern analytic techniques but is still (within its limitations) functional - it would not have lasted several thousand years if it did not have something positive going for it.

Don't read into the CN tag. the first one I debated tagging with {{POV assertion}} because (as you note) it is a bald misstatement. the second one, however, I really was just asking for a citation we could discuss. the problem as I see it is in the word 'inconsistent' - inconsistent to my mind would mean either

• That TCM consistently tells patients to ignore or avoid western treatments
  • not the case in the west, where practitioners are often licensed and interact with conventional medicine on 'best treatment' principles
  • the converse in Asia where doctors often steer patients to western medicine but patients refuse
• That TCM engages in practices which western medicine considers dangerous. the only arguments I've seen in that regard are
  • moxibustiion, which physicians object to because it may cause minor scarring when done badly
  • worries about unknown interactions between modern medicines and herbal medicines
  • worries that patients may choose TCM over conventional medicine in cases where conventional medicine would be better for them (which isn't a criticism of TCM, but rather of the priorities and intrinsic rationality of the patients)

Since neither of these really pertains, 'inconsistent' strikes me as a bad word choice. so either we discuss better word-choice or we find a source that gives us a clear description of how the word is being used (so that wikipedia isn't saying something potentially damaging to the topic in its own voice).

With respect to your specific proposal: I rather like that over-long first sentence of the second paragraph. To my mind it captures the captures the difference between TCM and scientific medicine well. Yes, it has a colon and several clauses, but I think readers are up to the reading challenge, scarred by twitter as their brains may be. can we do a gentler rewrite?

As an aside, I actually have a handful of different conversational modes I use, depending on the tendencies of the person I'm talking to. this is in my preferred mode (reasonable discussion aimed at resolving conflicts over differing perspectives); the others I use to short-circuit, derail, and refocus degenerate forms of communication (of which there are several distinct kinds on-project). that annoys people, the way that people get annoyed when they throw a punch at you and smack their fist on a lamppost instead. I keep hoping that people will learn that it's not a wise idea to throw punches at me like that, but for some editors degenerate communication is such an ingrained habit that I suspect they may never get it. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re - "It would not have lasted several thousand years if it did not have something positive going for it", are you making the same claim about bloodletting or the cammandment "thou shall have no God other than me" of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which was started by Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago when the world was created with fossils of nonexistent species built into the ground. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

bloodletting actually does help with some illnesses, and the first commandment was a fairly unique sociological move that allowed the Jewish people to persist as a unified culture for thousands of years (well past contemporaries like the caananites and the philistines, and even longer than major empires like the egyptians and romans). Monotheism has a whole lot wrong with it, as practiced, but it's a damned effective social tool. and please don't confuse modern Christian claptrap with ancient Judaic tradition. --Ludwigs2 16:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense, thank you. I would not call the first sentence of the second paragraph really bad, it just reads like something I might have written <self-deprecating grin>. This one appears to be the fault of someone else, but I am trying to get better at writing for a general audience, particularly people who use English as a second language. Looking further, I think that the lead goes into too much detail in some places, and omits important points covered in the body of the article. First, though, the article needs to be reorganized, starting with ditching the first section: Traditional Chinese medicine#Traditional Chinese medicine; the section title is inconsistent with the MoS, it reads like an old lead, uses no sources, and the points are already covered in the appropriate sections. Look for a proposal concerning logical section order, coming soon to a talkpage near you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No more "science" section. Specific scientific info was merged into specific topics, so as not to generally apply to whole article when it does not. PPdd (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to clean up (pseudo)-medicine articles

Resolved

Pursuant to the above post:

I recently removed a lot of content from Chinese herbology. I encourage editors to remove all unsourced claims from such articles with extreme prejudice. False claims in BLPs are removed because they might be libelous. False claims and unsupported content in articles about (pseudo)-medicine can cost lives. Wikipedia must do no harm. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna (cute pun-name by the way), wikipedia is not a medical text, and is not subject to the Hippocratic oath. Wikipedia should not be telling people to partake of cures which are a direct threat to their health, at least not without appropriate warnings (e.g. we should not have a page outlining the 'rat poison' cure for scrofula without some notice that oral ingestion of rat poison is generally fatal). However, wikipedia does not go out of its way to determine for itself which practices are effective and which are not; we simply present pertinent and complete information about various practices, and leave readers to make judgements on their own. Unsupported content is one thing, but trying to excise 'false claims' often strays into the 'nono' region of using wikipedia as an advocacy tool. --Ludwigs2 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points indeed. All I'm really saying is that we should adhere to Wikipedia's policies, but with a little extra vigor. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "false". As we pursue "verifiabily" and not "truth", we should simply do what we do with all articles. But, as we take extra care with BLPs, so as not to do harm (getting our butts sued off, and trashing the subjects' lives), we should take extra care with articles such as these. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, false is false, so there is no error in your using that word. That there might be some isolated cases where TCM cures have a minimal effect should not be used as an advertisement for TCM, just to isolate the rare substances that do a little bit of what they are supposed to do and incorporate these in science based medicine. TCM is false, and its tongue diagnosis and 12 rivers based acupuncture are false. That there may be a very slight analgesic effect of randomly sticking needles in the body causing a minor release of some alangesic produced by the body is a reason to duplicate the analgesic and use it, but this is not an argument supporting acupuncture. TCM is false and dangerous, and an encycopedia should call a spade a spade. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, polemics, I see. HkF, that is patently unencyclopedic reasoning. If you feel it's necessary to engage in the basic research necessary to demonstrate that TCM is somehow 'false', 'bad', 'evil', 'monstrous', 'ugly', 'socially inappropriate', 'mean to pets and small children', or whatever other derogatory phrases might be running around in your head, I suggest that you go publish something and become a reliable source, so that less ideologically motivated editors can cite your work in this article. trying to do your basic research here is a nono'; that's not what wikipedia is for. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory link to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Obligatory disclaimer that the standards outlined therein apply to the medical aspects of this article, while the sociological aspects are treated using sources appropriate to those statements. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Massive unsourced or nonMERS claims have been reworded, or inline RS cited. I also put a giant BIG BOLD warning about this regarding it possibly costing lives below. Resolved. PPdd (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed organizational structure

Resolved

I propose an organizaional structure based on prevalence of common usage going from

• (1) traditional Chinese medicine (a medical substance) most commonly encountered and sold in local grocery stores worldwide for health and well being, home remedy, or by prescription. Used daily by many. Prescibed by TCM practitioners from acupuncturists to "doctors". Claimed uses can be gone into a bit. Common encountered medicines, such as ginseng, can have slightly more detailed subsections than more obscure ones.
• (2) practices of TCM (a set of alternative medical practices) for well being or treatment of illness commonly encountered like acupuncture and herbology. For laypersons, knowledge of practice should come before knoweldge of theory. No one needs to study the theory of neurolgoy before being referred to a neurologist.
• (3) the highly esoteric theorical underpinnings (among people going to an acupuncturist, who really cares what a meridian is, or worse still, that there are 365 acupuncture points based on some correlation of number of days in a year and the body.
• (4) linking theory to medicines to the medicines and practices.
• (5) medical and scientific opinion last.

This improves readablity for laypersons worldwide, who might just want to know what is the use of ginseng, or what kind of doctor to go to, and not that there are 365 acupuncture points, or that it is believed that the toungue contains a map with the vagina on it to use as a basis for diagnosing a staff infection. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm beginning to understand part of the problem here. You seem to equate TCM with grocery store medicinals (a bit like equating western medicine with condoms, cold medicines, and bandaids). Tiger penis is to Chinese medicine the way that facebook is to computer science: an item with a certain unfortunate popularity that is loosely based in the same principles, but not something that one should measure the field by. People (being people) have a knack for reducing everything to the stupidest common denominator. Should we criticize western medicine because one of its best selling products is Viagra? Granting that viagra works and tiger penis doesn't, we still don't want to criticize an entire area of knowledge because part of it panders to the masses. --Ludwigs2 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chiinese medicine (substance) is widely available all over the United States. Traditional Chinese Medicine (pratcice and theory) is not. But all should be in the article. There is only one clause in one sentence in the lede about medicine, which contradicts most common usage for an English language encyclopedia. There is no reality based/science based in formation in the first lede paragraph at all any longer. Nothing in the rest of the lede either. There was only two sentences I put in it in the first place, which you called POV, since one of them was the scientific opinioin. How can you call my edits POV, for including just two sentnces, one of which TCM should have no problem with, that it is based on two observable principles, the number of days in a year, and number of rivers in a Chinese Empire? How can you call this a "problem"? HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. people buy over-the-counter drug store medications far more often than they visit the doctor to get prescription medications, but we do not equate western medicine with drug store medicines simply because the later are more frequently used. Nor should we do so with TCM. and I'm not sure what you're saying about the POV bit, either. I thought those revisions were POV; I don't necessarily think that all of your revisions are POV. what are we talking about here? --Ludwigs2 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a usage thing. Western medicines are usually called drugs or medicine, a kind of plural. But medines of TCM are usually called Traditional Chinese medicine. Your recent edit fixes any problems. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RS found for "75% of TCM is use of medicines". Resolved. PPdd (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for NRS "theory" section material

Resolved

I deleted this NRS material. Instead of just deleting it, I moved it here, so editors can help find RS for it.

"TCM's view of the human body is only marginally morphologic, i.e., concerned with anatomy, but primarily focuses on the body functions (e.g., digesting food, breathing, keeping a certain temperature etc.).

- - As a first step of systematization, certain body functions are identified as being connected and ascribed to a common functional entity (e.g., nourishing the tissues and maintaining their moisture is seen as connected and the functional entity identified to be in charge is: xuě/blood). The terms used for those functional entities are usually very illustrative (blood, essence, liver, heart etc.), but don't claim to be anatomically correct. - - The most important functional entities stipulated are - * qì - * xuě (‘’blood‘’) - * the five zàng organs - * the six fǔ organs

- * the meridians"

PPdd (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mallexicon found RS. PPdd (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for NRS material in "zàng-fǔ" section

Resolved

"The zàng-fǔ (zh s 脏腑, t 臟腑) constitute the centre piece of TCM's systematization of bodily functions. Bearing the names of organs, they are loosely tied to (rudimental) anatomical assumptions (the fǔ a little more, the zàng much less). As they are entities defined by function first and foremost, however, they are not equivalent to the anatomical organs - to highlight this fact, their names are usually capitalized.

The term zàng (脏) refers to the five entities considered to be yin in nature - Heart, Liver, Spleen, Lung, Kidney -, while fǔ (腑) refers to the six yang organs - Small Intestine, Large Intestine, Gallbladder, Urinary Bladder, Stomach and Sānjiaō. By citation from the Huangdi Neijing's Suwen: ‘’言人身脏腑中阴阳，则脏者为阴，腑者为阳。‘’[Within the human body's zang-fu, there's yin and yang; the zang are yin, the fu are yang].

Since their concept was developed on the basis of Wǔ Xíng philosophy, each zàng is paired with a fǔ, and each zàng-fǔ pair is assigned to one of five elemental qualities (i.e., the Five Elements or Five Phases). These correspondences are stipulated as:

• Fire (火) Heart (心) and Small Intestine (小肠) (and, secondarily, Sānjiaō [三焦, ‘’Triple Burner‘’] and Pericardium [心包])
• Earth (土) Spleen (脾) and Stomach (胃)
• Metal (金) Lung (肺) and Large Intestine (大肠)
• Water (水) Kidney (肾) and Bladder (膀胱)
• Wood (木) Liver (肝) and Gallbladder (胆)

The zàng-fǔ are also connected to the twelve standard meridians - each yang meridian is attached to a fǔ organ and five of the yin meridians are attached to a zàng. As there are only five zàng but six yin meridians, the sixth is assigned to the Pericardium, a peculiar entity almost similar to the Heart zàng."

PPdd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mallexicon found RS. PPdd (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for "tequniques" section material

Resolved

Please help find RS for "tequniques" section material -

"Techniques -

• Palpation of the patient's radial artery pulse (pulse diagnosis) in six positions
• Observations of patient's tongue, voice, hair, face, posture, gait, eyes, ears, vein on index finger of small children
• Palpation of the patient's body (especially the abdomen, chest, back, and lumbar areas) for tenderness or comparison of relative warmth or coolness of different parts of the body
• Observation of the patient's various odors
• Asking the patient about the effects of their problem.
• Anything else that can be observed without instruments and without harming the patient
• Asking detailed questions about their family, living environment, personal habits, food diet, emotions, menstrual cycle for women, child bearing history, sleep, exercise, and anything that may give insight into the balance or imbalance of an individual."

PPdd (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RS has been found. PPdd (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture from Erotic photographer

Resolved

I'm curious how the picture of moxabustion in what appears to be a brothel taken by a self-described "erotic" photographer is in any way an unbiased view of TCM. The photographer obviously staged the scene, which is evident if you check his bio and look at his gallery. Can someone please help to clarify how this photo is appropriate, or what steps need to be taken to get it removed for good. I'm leaving it up there for now, and looking forward to hearing others weigh in on this matter.

Calus (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle it makes no difference who took the picture. That being said, that photographer's work is pretty awful, and the picture likewise. We don't have to have a picture there, much less this one.

The use of meatpuppets and sockpuppets is totally forbidden here and the way they have attempted to remove the picture is wrong. A picture of this type isn't worth edit warring over. Reasoned discussion should be tried, then dispute resolution if that doesn't work.

To save going into dispute resolution (a very disruptive and time-consuming process) over a picture of such poor quality, I'm going to remove it. We don't need it or ANY picture there! Let's just use a bit of commonsense and end this matter here and now. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Calus, can you upload another pic you like of acu/moxy to WP:Commons? PPdd (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope to take pictures of a modern clinical setting on Thursday. If all goes well with releases I should have a suitable image shortly. Calus (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

if you can figure out the legality labyrinth of WP:Commons and get the pic in there, I will help you stick it in the article if you need help. A horizontal orientation pic would help break up the verticle column of pics at the right, which is kind of a necessity since 75% of TCM is the medicines, and the medicines are inherently list like. The medicines are ordered roughly biologically, from "higher" land animal life forms to lower, to marine, to fungi, to plants, to minerals, in order to help optimally break up the inherent list-like situation for readability and appearance. it was once suggested to put the "king of herbs" and "queen of poisons" at the top, or "snake oil" followed by "ginseng" as a list by common awareness in English language countries (its an English language encyclopedia), but the former was rejected since the plant list was longer and the list was top-heavy (although it served as a good warning with aconite listed first), and the latter became infeasable and arbitrary. I made the subsectoins alphabetical, moving snake oil way down, which likely made skeptics unhappy. PPdd (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. I'm somewhat familiar with Creative Commons. I also have many sensationalist photos from a herbal market in China if that floats your boat. I have one of an entire table of placentas. However, I don't think any were human in origin.Calus (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more the type to like a boring picture of a person lying on a treatment table getting moxy or acu with moxy. There is already a good pic of acu (the one of the two hands), but not a very illustrative one for moxy. The one that was removed would have been good if the woman was wearing doctor's cloting. It would also be nice to have a more horizontal pic to help break up the visuals in the article. PPdd (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Flagged

Resolved

This article's opening section has an unambiguous and inappropriate value bias against Traditional Chinese medicine. I am new to this, please tell me how to pursue flagging this article. Thank you. Hollerbach (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You will find something helpful to you about this in WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:Article creep, WP:WFTE, or WP:AGF. PPdd (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article has been hijacked by Skeptics lumping all sorts of things under the heading of TCM in order to discredit it by making it sound crazy. Erroneous views held by western doctors in the past are not used to discredit modern MD's. However, I do appreciate their dedication and thank them for working to improve this article, even if they are unable to separate their bias from editing. Overall, I agree that this article should be flagged so random viewers know it is being challenged for bias, and don't take all in here as statements of fact. Calus (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it. PPdd (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural mushroom

Resolved

This is most commonly know in the US and other parts of the world as Reishi mushroom. Perhaps that should be the title, or at least mentioned. Calus (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I added this in. I should have caught that, since I collect conks, mostly from the field or from Korean and Japanese herbal medicine stores. PPdd (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ginkgo inaccuracy

Resolved

Ginkgo used in TCM is different than the common ginko biloba supplements commonly sold to improve memory. That is the eastern herb which uses a different part of the tree. I don't believe TCM uses either the fruit or the leaf, but that should be double checked. If so, there is no reason to include the toxicity of those parts of the tree. Calus (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good observation. Source on toxicity was removed as unrelated to TCM, in that it only referred to leaves, not the seeds used in TCM. PPdd (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Strychnine tree seeds

Resolved

According to the Materia Medica by Dan Besky, page 1050; "Due to the small difference between the therapeutic and toxic doses, use of strychni semen (ma quian zi) bears a high risk of inducing severe poisoning and for this reason should be regarded as an obsolete drug". It is listed in the 'Obsolete Substances" category. Due to this fact I challenge it's validity in an article on Traditional Chinese Medicine. At very least, it should be noted that the herb is no longer used. Calus (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the source indicates that it is not used in the practice of TCM, so it should be removed from the page.Herbxue (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Cited source is now added for disambiguation. The seeds are still sold and used by others, just like tiger's penis is still a problem, but a secondary source on some TCM authorities' responsible removal of highly toxic materials and highly endangered species would be helpful. PPdd (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a section on the bottom for obsolete herbs. In fact, I think the way herbs are listed now should be reordered. I think the most commonly used type of herbs, i.e., plants based should be at the top, followed by fungi, animal parts, and minerals with a section on obsolete or black market herbs at the bottom. Perhaps herbs should be ordered as they are in TCM materia medica, by TCM categories of function. I understand the way things are ordered now, but not the reason why. Calus (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed. They are ordred biologically per WP, from higher land anminals to lower to marine to fungi to plants to minerals, and alphabetical within the categories. I tried ordering by usage, but all that happened was arguments about which is more important, like "King of herbs" should be first, or "Snake oil should be first since it is an English language encycloipedia" citing WP on this, etc. People wanted to use the order to express their POV, and only advocates and skeptics stated objections so as to create POV, so it is now back to standard NPOV biological WP style which has broad consensus over WP. The only reason to change it is POV, and changing now is a gross violation OF THE VARIOUS MOS and other standards. This has all been extensively discussed, such as at the projects, here, and elsewhere, and to bring it up again is pointy. PPdd (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that is a disservice to the subject. For one thing, this is not a Biology article, it is about TCM which really has no parallel subject in terms of scope, continuity, or cultural interconnections so it does not make sense to apply an arbitrary format. For another thing, all the WP policy pages you cite clearly indicate that any policy should be ignored if it stands in the way of faithfully presenting the subject. Our hands are not tied.Herbxue (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The disservice is all the POV pushing in trying to order things, and pointy ignoring of WP:MOS as to the original NPOV biological ordering, and as to alphabetical ordering, cherry picking lists to best achieve POV. As far as I know, the most common classification is either by toxicity with most toxic being highest on the list becuase those are considerered most effective, alphabetically, or biologically. The the latter NPOV was changed to the middle with a POV and pointy violation of MOS, then when aconite was added to the article, and became the first on the list, it was changed back to biological. Listing by toxicity (which would also violate MOS), was also rejected, leading back to the original NPOV biological. Then a list structure was cherry picked using one particular author's subcategories, again POV pointy violating MOS, and when this developed in a way POV editors did not like, it was changed back to NPOV biological, which is where it is going to stay, as any further discussion pointily violates MOS as to the style being that of the first major contributor's NPOV biological listing. MOS - "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.", which is me, since I created the entire section, and did 99% of the edits in it. POINT - "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the... interpretation. ... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." Bringing this up again and again in the face of MOS and clear NPOV biological ordering, and after having POINT notices, is pointy and disruptive. PPdd (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not fair. I am not making a POINT about TCM in the article itself, I am "pointing out" here that the order is not in keeping with how THIS SUBJECT is generally presented in textbooks or in school curricula. I h:ave not made any attempt to re-order anything (yet). Can you please cite where you read "the most common classification is either by toxicity with most toxic being highest on the list becuase those are considerered most effective" - they are not usually listed that way in any resource related the the subject at hand (TCM) and it is a false generalization to say that they are considered the most effective.Herbxue (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For about the fifth time here and elsewhere, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.". WP:POINT includes repeatedly raising the same issues again on talk pages, which are already determined per WP:MOS, with WP:SILENCE after a while when it keeps coming up again because WP:MOS is dispositive and biological order has been determined to be WP:NPOV. WP:DE includes on WP:Talk pages, and frequently has led to topic bans for WP:SPA on alt med articles. WP:GOI, WP:BLUD, and WP:STICK or possible WP:BAN for WP:DE per WP:POINT. Also, writing "yet", in the face of all of these policies and guidlines, indicates both an intention to be DE, and SPA. PPdd (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for citation: aconite

The toxic component of aconite root used in TCM is destroyed in boiling water. This should be easy to find citations for. From there it is easy to state that "preparation" involves boiling for up to 2 hrs prior to adding other herbs to the formula. The way it is written now makes TCM seem ignorant of aconite's toxins, or unable to neutralize the toxins.

Perhaps we can also do something about 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" Calus (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Note - If the article makes a medical claim about how to medicinally "detoxify and use" highly dangerous poisons, above all sources it must strictly adhere to MEDRS as to peer reviewed reliable secondary source scientific/medical publication, and not just be from a TCM or alt med publication. Any violation of this will be immediately deleted by one of the many editors watching this article, and might result in a block. PPdd (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken, but as I indicated above, this page does not need to make a medical claim, it needs to report on the practice of TCM. The sentence could read "many practitioners believe that boiling for over an hour reduces toxicity" and then add a couple sentences after, backed by RS, that support and/or refute the validity of that practice.Herbxue (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point Herbxue, perhaps something like: Many practitioners believe that boiling for at least an hour prior to decoction with other herbs reduces the toxicity while maintaining the therapeutic qualities.(alt citation) The poisonous chemical compound aconitin, is an alkaloid with low solubility for water. One method of extraction is to boil the plant and distill the steam from boiled water" (or something, since we dont want to give instruction on how to create a poison, but its easy to show with scientific research that the toxic chemical cannot stay in boiling water.)Calus (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got it exactly with your suggested sentence (except you are supposed to find the sentence in a source first, not in your head, but nobody really does that who knows facts already). There may be much more than just boiling under historic TCM belief, and you might have to say "Famous TCM person A believes that boiling for such and such time and then doing this and that, and it had to be planted at the solstice and at this location... reduces toxicity" ". (But please don't boil aconite and use it. For all you know it was not planted on the solstice like it should have been, and in that case Heiner Fruehauf will not want to take responsibility for what happens.) :) PPdd (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the toxic dose of a poisonous drug is generally close to its therapeutic dose.

Resolved

This sounds a lot like the phamalogical notion of a "narrow therapeutic index", I'm not sure if the Alt medicine source can make this claim. Calus (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I might have worded too closely to the wording in the RS. Reworded per MEDRS - "Under TCM it is believed that toxicity is needed to fight pathogens in the body; that the therapeutic dose of a poisonous drug is generally close to what is believed to be its toxic dose." PPdd (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is only true for certain more rarely used substances. It is not true for things like Ginseng, Goji, Ganoderma, etc. The statement, while it may represent good RS, is incomplete RS. Its like saying "John Keats was a poet, he had TB, so poets generally have TB". The treatment principle called 以毒攻毒Yi Du Gong Du or "using toxin to attack toxin" is very rarely used. Not sure what the best way to cite a source for a statement of what TCM is not, because if I count up the instances of that treatment principle showing up in textbooks on therapeutics manuals it might be construed as "original research". In any event, the statement in the article is misrepresentative - pathogens are more often cleared with relatively non-toxic substances.Herbxue (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Matuk article is questionable source - No "complex association with gods"

Resolved

I just noticed that under section 33 Unfaithful Citations Mallexikon brings up a very similar objection to the Matuk article as the point I made under section 42. Two editors clearly read this source as mixing apples and oranges while the way it is used in the article makes it sound like "association with gods" is a verified part of TCM development. PPdd has defended the source as coming from a peer reviewed journal, but, as I pointed out, the author Matuk is not a TCM subject matter expert but someone attempting to make (what I perceive as) a sophomoric point about a non-existent East-West parallel. I think if this article makes the dangerous claim that TCM has anything to do with "gods" (and what gods?), then a better source should be found. "God" is a loaded word, loaded with connotations that are completely foreign to the Chinese. How could a medicine based on a "complex association with gods" have been systematized and promoted by the Chinese communists during their most culturally caustic period? Would anyone else care to defend the Matuk article, and this claim in particular, as a reliable source on TCM? If not I think the statement should come out.Herbxue (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Mallexikon brought up a question about wording in that section, and the article wording was changed to exactly reflect the source. You are making a different complaint, that you personally disagree with the source. What RS do you base your personal opinion on?
• (2) The Matuk medical history article was peer reviewed. What evidence do you have that both Matuk and the peer reviewers are not TCM history experts?
• (3) The article appeared in a prominent medical journal on a controversial subject. What RS has responded if the article is so erroneous as you say? PPdd (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My only opinion is that the article is sophmoric. It is not my opinion that the study of TCM does not involve "complex associations with gods" - please see the "A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine" by Wiseman and Ye - no mention of "gods" defining TCM anatomy. Please see "The Foundations of Chinese Medicine" by Maciocia - no mention of "gods" associated with TCM anatomy. In order to sincerely collaborate to improve this article can you please consider the possibility that someone made a mistake in a peer reviewed journal. Remember Vioxx?Herbxue (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is clear MEDRS, and its editors and peer reviewers did not share your opinion, or it would not have been published. Apparantly no one else of any stature shares your opinion, since the article has not been reacted to in the literature. The article says what is quoted, where this was already discussed on this talk page and extensively at the acupuncture talk page, and the wording in the article was changed to accurately reflect what the article says. Please read these talk pages and please do not keep trying to beat a dead horse and make a point. PPdd (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording changed from quoted taxt "complex associations with the gods" to "complex association with reiligion and spirituality", as "religion and spirituality' are also words used in the article, which not only cites references for words used, but shows an illustration of the association from TCM history. PPdd (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok that's more acceptable, thanks. Still incomplete but way less loaded with misrepresentative connotations (although the word "religion" here still skews the reader toward assumptions that do not apply as the medicine and major philosophies developed together throughout the Warring States through Han periods and the "Religions" as we know them now did not really exist as a formal entity at the time. Also, religion was soundly rejected during the period of time that modern "TCM" was developed. But I'll let this sleeping dog lie). Herbxue (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd Article Topic Ban

article talk is not for discussing editors. take it to wikiquette, if you want to pursue this

I would like to open this for discussion to the community and some consensus. PPdd has 3 times the number of edits than the 2nd highest editor in the last 3 months of editing this page, close to 700. The average time between edits is less than 2hrs. He has repeatedly reverted others edits and later claimed to have made them in mistake. This is entirely possible given his fast and loose editing style. He appears to act from a sense of ownership and has made absurd claims about the subject matter which show a lack of competence, and possible attempt to introduce a skeptic POV. The validity of his NPOV claims is clearly open for debate. While on the one hand his introduction of subject matter is a benefit to this article as a whole, the inability to allow others to edit, and constant rewording before any consensus can be acheived on talk page is disruptive. It is my opinion that a Topic Ban is warranted, to prevent further abuse. Calus (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I have not made any "absurd claims" about TCM - I have not made any claims about it at all. I only found RS for material already here when I came, and added more with RS and MEDRS. In fact, I use TCM daily with ginger/chrysanthomum/genseng/ginkgo drinks, and my best friend is a famous celebrity MD who advocates TCM on the grounds that the theory is hocus pocus but some of the medicines work, and there is no big pharma misleading adverts since the profit incentive is pretty low. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Topic-bans are usually a last resort; I don't think this is necessary (and the article talk page would be the wrong place to discuss it anyway) - hopefully Ludwigs2 can fix the article so everyone is OK with it. In the meantime let's try to stay calm and civil. --Six words (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I would suggest that PPdd leave Ludwigs2's edits alone until we all get a chance to comment and collaborate on improving them. That would show good faith.Herbxue (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Given that were multiple edit wars with 5 of Herbque's SP's blocked, before deleting existing edits that may have been up for months, and doing so without reviewing the entire talk page discussions on them, and reviewing the individual edit's edit summary, it should be discussed first, not deleted first. PPdd (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I don't have SP's! And the edit wars you refer to were WP newbies just trying to remove a picture that other neutral parties agreed was in poor taste. Stop distracting people from the real issue here! You should let someone else edit the page without disruption for awhile and then we can all comment on it. Including you. Doesn't that sound fair to you?Herbxue (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Re - Multiple AGF attacks on me on this talk page and these edit summaries

Collapse discussion of editor, not article

Editors are supposed to AGF. Since this has not happened, and I was implicitly or explicitly accused of bad faith on this talk page, in this artricle's edit summaries of, or on pages associated with the TCM page. Not one editor has apologized, even for the overt and repeated simple assertion of bad faith in my editing. Editors are not supposed to force another editor to out themself with attacks accusing bad faith, but that has been done. Although I did phil of math/data analysis and performance art stuff, I am also a xerophytic field botanist, and I have been the chief american scientist for the largest agricultural congolmerate in western china since 2009, based in gansu at the eastern edge of the gobi desert. We make cancer drugs from traditional herbal medicines (and chinese whisky, and etc.). I also own a company in shanghai. When at WP, I only know what is in RS. My best friend and principal info source to look up RS from, is a world famous celebrity MD, and is a major advocate of alternative medicine (I got to know him by debating him in hollywood a few years back, although I had met him years before that). He says something like, "the theory is hocu pocus, but the medicines were derived by a very long period of trial and error and meticulous record keeping for thousands of years, so some of it works." Because I was accused of POV (without anyone knowing my real background), I decided to WP:ENEMY, and went to major mainstream TCM sites to see what they said, such as NCCAM, Journal of Chinese Medicine, and even Acupuncture Today. I then tried to work their content into the article with RS. Almost everything I originally deleted from the article as NRS is now back in, as I reworded per RS or MEDRS and put back in the article, or others did. When the new POV WP:SPA army arrived with their Socks and Meats, they first vandalized, then WP:C violated, then edit warred, contested the article's saying "human parts", in instead of "one human part". Recalling reading about "parts" and that word in particular, I looked up RS for the sentence, just as I did for any contested sentence here, either to change it or to source it. I found a wealth of literature, and have recently been writing from it, which they interpret as POV, since all recent edits have been from that one area. But they had no problems with me when I was writing the history section. They don't understand WP:WNF, or WP:AGF, and clearly have not read WP:FROG. AFG everyone. :) PPdd (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) I left you a message at your talk page. I would like to suggest you can show good faith by leaving the page alone and letting others like Ludwigs2 or someone else edit the page for awhile. Then we can all comment and collaborate on the edits as a community. Does that not sound reasonable to you? Take a break. I'm about to. :)Herbxue (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 is a good editor, and frequently broadens my mind. But he argued here that the Materia Medica materials should not be in this article. He is unlikely to edit without thoroghly researching to get a perspective, and will not be deleting RS content. I suggest you read

Undue weight of Opisthokont; marine and animal products and fungi

Regarding traditional Chinese drugs, "Plants are by far the most commonly used" ingredients. In the classic Handbook of Traditional Drugs from 1941, 517 drugs were listed - out of these 517, only 45 were animal parts, and 30 were minerals.
The first source is from 1992, the second one from 1941. This is not "kind of obvious", and it doesn't have anything to with so many more plants being in the world than animals. TCM mainly uses plants. Period. Animal products are a fringe phenomenon. In the article, the opposite is implied: the animal products take as much space as the plants, plus they're listed first. I recommend changing this. Otherwise we give rise to the notion that the article pushes a POV agenda. Mallexikon (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "number" of different plant species on a list has nothing to do with prevalence usage, which can only be established with a secondary source on demographic studies. Also, those sources are not reliable. What is the exact quote. PPdd (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How are you determining which sources are reliable and which aren't? You have not addressed the fact that you are pushing a POV agenda by ignoring the many common-sense corrections regarding the misrepresentative nature of the TCM page. Plants are the most commonly prescribed substances in TCM, ask anyone who actually knows something about the subject.' Brendan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.mattson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its my understanding from all of the sources I have seen that by far the most common thing is to prescribe a mixture of plant/fungus/human/animal/mineral, based on each treated individual's personal diagnosis, and it is only rarely just from a single category of original medicine. Incidentally, fungi are more closely related to animals than plants. PPdd (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The supposedly "reliable" source just cited misclassified marine animals and fungi as "plants". See Opisthokont. PPdd (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it misclassified them? And do you seriously imply that you'd rather see fungi classified as animals than plants (when they're actually none of both)? Mallexikon (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is very specific - it lists roots (120), leaves (15), stems (25), fruits (130), flowers (40), herbs [leaves and stem] (50), bark (20), animal parts (45) and minerals (30). It's highly unlikely they mistook any opisthokonts or fungi as roots, stems etc. Mallexikon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfaithful citations - Journal of Biocommunication artice

PPdd wrote: "TCM anatomy is “determined by complex associations with gods and all existing by divine will”". This is an unfaithful use of the source. The original text says:
"Eastern and Western medicine began with similar fusionsof 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."
"Anatomists" refers to Easter and Western medicine. To single out TCM as being superstitious is not faithful to the source. The same goes to for this:
PPdd wrote: (TCM)"relies on astrology with “inauspicious dates for cauterization and bleeding; it draws relationships between astrology and blood-letting"".
The original text reads like this: "The accompanying text of the Frog Classic outlines inauspicious dates for cauterization and bleeding; it draws relationships between astrology and blood-letting, subjects that also occupied much of Europe’s pre-Renaissance medical writings".
The JBC article wants to demonstrate similarities in the early origins of Western and Eastern medicine. If you're using this text to one-sidedly accuse (modern) TCM of superstition, you're distorting the facts. Mallexikon (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is "accusing" TCM. The source says what it says. Yes, TCM is "singled out" from what the source says because this is an article about TCM, not about the history of the very nutty traditional european medicine, which had the same basis of beliefs about the human anatomy as TCM. The article you cite describes the origins and basis of TCM "alternative anatomy". If you want to use it as a source for TWM, then add content to the history of western medicine article. The source also says that TCM anatomy has not changed since these origins, because it never adopted dissection and corrected its anatomy to what is really in the body. The blood is not propelled by a supernatural energy called qi, it is propelled by mechanical pumping of the heart. PPdd (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And you quoted only part of the sentence, omitting the rest. That is a logical fallacy known as reductio ad ridiculum. PPdd (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're still using the source in an unfaithful way. It talks about "early anatomists" and the Frog Classic from the Han dynasty. It doesn't say anything about TCM as a whole. You implied that yourself. That's more like original research. And whether the sentence "the blood is propelled by qi" is in a scientifical sense wrong or not relies on how you define qi. If the definition of qi is "that what propels the blood" it's scientifically correct. Mallexikon (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states that TCM never changed from these beginnings, and now has a wrong "alternative anatomy". PPdd (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't state that. It states that "in China, little changed. Rather, history accumulated in layers; new thoughts co-existed with old ones ...". The text doesn't say anything about where those little changes were, so you can't know. It also doesn't explain what it means by "Alternative anatomy". It says "Internal organs were not regarded as distinct entities describable by shape, color or form..." because the Chinese were not interested in anatomy. They didn't need any anatomy for their medical system because they were only dealing with body functions. The reductio ad absurdum is on your side here. Mallexikon (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct anatomy is essential to physiology. The only thing TCM has is an what the article says is an "alternative anatomy", with supernatural forces making blood self propel itself through what the article says is an "imaginary organ system". Did you say you were a student of allopathic medicine? PPdd (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not getting it. They didn't go at it in a scientific way. No anatomy. No scientific physiology either. The whole system is very abstract. All these entities are only defined by their function; the names don't matter. They diagnose a spleen-qi-deficiency, then give herbs from the section named "strengthening the spleen-qi". Whether the spleen is actually involved or not doesn't matter at all. Mallexikon (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I get it. But when the whole theory runs on blood self propelling itself using supernatural energy, not a pumping heart, blood vessels being incorrectly located, the propulsion mechanism being "palpably" blocked with blood "pooling" or "stagnating" or otherwise fouled up, it all being "palpable", and overtly visible via paleness, etc., and a "map" of the body organs being on the toungue, anatomy matters. PPdd (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What is lacking in the article is tying tiger's penis to a penis with all this. Using the theory, why the penis of a tiger for the penis of a human, and not some other tiger part? PPdd (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for problems of the penis, TCM practitioners generally do not use any tiger parts at all! TCM practitioners, meaning those who have gone to an established TCM college and are certified to practice, generally use plant-based water decoctions or granulated powders. Although this statement is not cited with RS here, it is not POV. The article as a whole should conform to the reality of the subject, not to just which particular POV articles you happened upon. Jdaybreak (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation to English request

• Please establish that these sources are "reliable" secondary sources, and not just some book that is not based on a secondary source demographic study for the assertion. (It is highly doubtful that a scientific survey was done in China during WWII when the book came out, showing that the source is NOT reliable. But the WP:BURDEN is not on showing a source is NOT reliable, it is on showing the source IS reliable.)
• Please provide better supporting quotes for the foreign language sources under WP:V, and document that they are reliable under WP:RS. PPdd (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• "plants are by far the most commonly used" ingredients. This comes from a Western botanical researcher who published at least two other books and a TCM professor from Beijing (you can check on the back cover of the book online at google books). This is a hard-cover text book. it's not self-published. This is a RS. It doesn't have to be based on a demographic study to be one. I know it doesn't fit into your worldview that in TCM, human placenta and squirrel feces and tiger penis are fringe phenomenons, but please apply some common sense here. Mallexikon (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to put "the King of herbs in TCM", which is also called "the Queen of Poisons" in the rest of the world, at the very beginning of the article? Did you say you are a student of allopathic medicine, not TCM? PPdd (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:) I thankfully never heard about the King of herbs in TCM. And I'm not a student, I'm a Family Practitioner. Why, need a doctor? Mallexikon (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"need a doctor?"... only if they went on to specialize in psychiatry after getting their MD. :) PPdd (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:) no psychiatry here but I'm a little crazy myself, does that help ...? Mallexikon (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you said, or someone here said, you knew about allopathic medicine, so wanted to know what language to speak. PPdd (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I think you're moving too fast. This is all very complex. If you do too many things at the same time, things get lost. Mallexikon (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on Ban Xia states one thing and cites a source which says something different.

The page here refers to Sheng Ban Xia, and cites a page talking about Fa Ban Xia and it's toxicity, stating that if not prepared it can be toxic. I think this page should be corrected to provide the information that ban xia is only toxic if not first prepared. Most all Ban Xia given to patients in the US is Zhi Ban Xia, which is the prepared, non-toxic, form.

As it stands, the entry on this page is misleading and does not have proper citation to support claims. Calus (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article is confined by WP:MEDRS. MEDRS does not allow alt med articles to be used as sources for claims of toxicity since it is a scientific claim. MEDRS only allows alt med articles to be used to state what they believe. There would have to be not just one scientific study (called "primary source") but a meta-analysis or a systematic review, which are called "secondary sources". Another problem is that the encyclopedia is international, and not just about the US, which seems to have tightening restrictions on preparations. PPdd (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

History

I am writing a new independent article on Chinese medical history that will have no crticism section (sorry skeptics), since it will not be making medical claims, and only have historical information, although it may be contrasted a bit with other historical systems, or with current knowledge. (There may be criticism of historical methodology, however, and history skeptics are more than invited to go at it there.) So far, it is mainly about the Han Dynasty period of about 200 B.C. to 220 A.D., e.g., Neijing (Suwen, Lingshu), Shanghan Lun (& Jingui Laoyue), and Shennong Bencao Jing, and the Jin-Yuan period (e.g. Zhang Jiegu and his descendants, 1100 to mid 1300s) when the four schools of thought about disease causation and treatment strategies were developed. I wrote it off the top of my head and am trying to find RS for each line (which is leading to correcting my errors), and will not have it ready for a bit. It will need additional info on modern history, and other periods. It is way too long to put in this article. If anyone would like me to post it without sources, before I track them all down, so others can work on it, please let me know, but it will likely contain NRS based errors. PPdd (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know many people who are very knowledgeable in regards to classical Chinese medicine. I would be happy to forward a link to your posting. I'm sure they could be a big help in finding sources and pointing out errors. Calus (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Endangered plants

Brangifer made a good point in an edit summary. Not just animals are endangered, but plants too. In fact many common plants are having problems only because of TCM. TCM practitioners might especially want to help find stuff on this, since the TCM medical community has been very responsible in looking for alternatives to protect the ecology. In fact, just last week, in a similar but not identical vein (or "vessel" or "channel" as you may prefer), the head cook I know at a Veitnamese restaurant in SF (that you can't get into. I tried, but who wants to make reservations months in advance?) was just quoted in the NYT, that although he grew up on sharks fin soup, he supported banning it in SF because of the devestation of the shark population. (That NYT article should probably go in the sharks fin soup section. The upshot is that the middle class in China is growing so fast that they all can now afford what was previously considered only for rare occasions, and the growth is causing a huge decline in the shark population, which in turn, as the top predator, is expected to wreak havoc on the 'entire marine ecosystem, not just shark populations.) PPdd (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM as lifestyle

TCM's medicines, and some practices, play a role in Chinese society that, in terms of prevalence of use, is more akin to teatime in Britain, or the role of coffee, alchohol, or going to church or to excercise class in western society, than it is to prescription drugs from a pharmacy or getting surgery. Even the photo at top reflects this (no "doctors" there). There is nothing in the article about this. Does anyone have any RS on this? PPdd (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

TCM is considered serious medicine in China, and not, Teatime, or something done for social convention. While, I would agree that the prevalence of use is much higher, that does not mean it is taken any less seriously than western drugs or surgery. To equate it with "teatime" or recreational drugs like caffein and alcohol as well as social conventions like church and exercising would be misleading.Calus (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is "tea-time" (e.g., like both Chrysanthomum tea and ginger/ginkgo/ginseng drinks, both of which I use at "tea-time", or like sharks fin soup is for some, or just basic diet-health use). Some things, like offering ginseng to guests, is a social tradition in some areas, like some parts of Korea. Some is highly self diagnosed complex prescriptions, unlike in the west. Some is esoteric knowledge based prescription by TCM doctors that only they can do, and this prescription accounts for 75% of the practice (some non-herbalist new-age hack-trained pseudo-"acupuncturists" try to gloss over this fact, that seriously trained TCM herbalists dominate them in terms of prevalance within TCM). PPdd (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

RS needed for safety content

I deleted this material as NRS -

Several cases of pneumothorax, nerve damage and infection have been reported as resulting from acupuncture treatments. Dizziness and bruising sometimes result from acupuncture. Several cases of pneumothorax, nerve damage and infection have been reported as resulting from acupuncture treatments. However, these adverse events are extremely rare especially when compared to other medical interventions, and were found to be due to practitioner negligence. Dizziness and bruising sometimes result from acupuncture.

There is such specificity, the editors who put it in likely had some source (RS or not), so instead of simply deleting it, I moved it here to talk so the contributing editors can find RS and put it back in the safety section. PPdd (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Environmental factors"

Brangifer added a good observation about environmental factors as disease causes in evidence based medicine, e.g., exposure to asbestos, lead, or mercury (not outright taking it as mineral ingredients in a medicine), stress, noise causing a lack of sleep, a break up, fattening fast food always all around, etc. But TCM also emphasizes the environment, e.g., a person may be belived to have gotten sick because a factor is that their door was built on the wrong side of the house, or in a case I actually observed, a famous TCM doctor scolded a young woman (in broken English) who I had driven to see him (at her insistance), that he had warned her about the arrangement of furniture in her living room not being feng shui, or something like that. These two kinds of "environmental factors" are entirely different, one empirically based on scientific studies, the other on astrology, but both might be called "environmental factors". I thought of adding to the EBM line "non-astologically based environmental factors", but it looks sarcastically POV when I write it. Anyone have a suggestion? PPdd (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Feng Shui should be left out entirely from an article on Traditional Chinese Medicine. Perhaps there is page on Feng Shui? However, it is not part of any modern TCM curriculum. Calus (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It has RS. Our personal cirricula experience does not count at Wikipedia. PPdd (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think Feng Shui is better left out. It is hard for someone without TCM training to separate out Chinese cultural phenomena from Chinese medicine. For example, Taijiquan is actually taught in the curricula of many TCM schools here and in CHina. But it is not really a central feature of the medicine, just a healthy practice. But Feng Shui isn't even in the curricula of TCM training here or in Shanghai U of TCM. If a TCM doc knows something about Feng Shui or Astronomy its a bit like a Botanist knowing how to write a sonnet. I don't see poetry on the page "Botany".Herbxue (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

" just as chemotherapy is used to treat cancer in western medicine"

I put this clause at the end of the sentence in because I thought I had RS for it (and it seems pretty obvious). But I can't find the RS, so I deleted it. PPdd (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I added that sentence, and would have preferred you added a need for citation rather than delete it without any cause given.Calus (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't add it in, I wrote almost exactly the same thing in an argument somewhere. We are on the same wavelenght on this one. When I reviewed the sources for the whole article, I could not understand why I let my own POV be exposed in public, or how I let my own OR slip into the article like that. We can't put it in because although it may be true, but it is OR, so our own POV can't be put in via OR. I don't even like anyone knowing what my real POV is; all I ever try to expose is what a source or policy says. Please read WP:OR. PPdd (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I now know where the confusion of authorship of that claus came from. It was in the article twice. I put it in a while back thinking it was sensable and that I would come back with RS for it. (I should have tagged it the first time.) But I could not find RS for it, and it is highly OR. So, wanting to preserve my credibiilty on this highly watched page, I came back to take it out, and took out your version, not mine. I still think it is possible to find RS for something similar. It is basically the same idea of Hippocrates, and of Samuel Hahnemann's law of similars, "let like cure like". In fact, I don't know if you looked at it, but when I did the POV test Traditional Western Medicine article, chaning TCM->TWM, east->west, qi->"vital energy", etc., I changed Zhang to Hanemann. See Traditional Western medicine and see for yourself. :) PPdd (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a whole philosophy behind the way herbs are processed, referred to as Pao Zhi. I a starting to develop a section on that which may help provide further reference. Calus (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Red linked refs

Please exercise care when removing refs. There are currently two red linked refs. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

human parts, licorice in feces, urine sediments and oral hygiene, placenta, metaphysics of the soul, breath

Very briefly I would like to open this to discussion. The only human part I can think of being used by TCm is placenta, although that is rare. Most likely when you purchase what you believe to be human placenta, i t is pig or some other animal. I think we are unable to specifically mention human placenta, and so my question is; is the placenta a part of a human, or a bi-product? To say TCM uses human parts seems in my mind to be akin to cannibalism. Placenta, at time of use is certainly not part of any human. By using a word like by-product instead we may be able to more accurately define use without bringing about bad or misleading imagery. I apologize if this seems picky, but I have a great respect for semantics.Calus (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find MEDRS and RS since you bring it up. PPdd (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought of another herb; charred human hair, used to stop bleeding. But again, I would not consider hair a "body part", body parts are something like fingers, toes and organs. Animal body parts are certainly part of the materia medica, but not human parts. Calus (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the statement to "human derivatives" I figured this was an accurate assessment. Something derived from humans, but not a part of humans. Calus (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your editing has become WP:DE. Please stop trying to introduce POV or you will be banned from this topic or blocked.

• The RS says "parts" over and over again in the article. Fingernails, bone, blood... While charred human hair is a processed derivative, the others are not processed. The article already describes processing in the alchemy section which only exists because you suggested it. The human parts section only exists because you and Hans objected that there were not enough human parts listed in the article.
• You are constantly trying to introduce your own POV into the article and on the talk page. "Parts" is the word in the many WP articles when you came here, and is the words used in the MEDRS and RS. You are the one who broght up that there are no other human parts used, and on investgation at your request, there were large numbers of RS found that disagree with you. This happens constantly on alt med pages. Pleaes stop. PPdd (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaking my good faith editing and adherence a NPOV as being an alt POV. Quite frankly all your accusations are making want to leave this endeavor for ever. If that is your aim then you are succeeding. I did not see human parts mentioned once in the RS. I am changing the phrase back to human derivatives per common sense. Please do not engage in an edit war over this. Per WP disruptive editing, you may be mistaking your own voice as being the voice of a consensusCalus (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you now have claimed to have access to the article, please provide a quote from it that is not on the free page. If you cannot do so, I will seek action and withdraw my cave-in on the SP/MP abue and 3RR violations. The article says "Daoist mythical understandings of human body parts", and repeatedly refers to parts, like the penis. Almost all of the relevant sources on animal parts say "parts". Please stop deliberately trying to introduce POV wording. Stop edit warring and threatenting to do so. You will be blocked. PPdd (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are attempting to engage in Wikilawyering. can you provide a single quote that says TCM uses human body parts as medicinals? Referring to human body parts in theory is NOT the same as ingesting human body parts. I will apologize with my whole being if you can provide a single quote. Calus (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says "Daoist mythical understandings of human body parts" and then goes on to discuss the use of those parts in medicine, like the penis. There is nothing else in the article except this. What are you talking about? Maybe you call your own penis a "derivative" but most others consider it a "part", including the RS. Please provide a quote to show your claim of "good faith", since you claimed to have read the article, and are not just being pure DE, or you will be topic banned or permanently blocked. PPdd (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find any mention of ingesting human penis. It is not my burden to prove a negative. If you have a quote where it says ingestion of human penis is a chinese Herb please provide that.Calus (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to find anything, just quote any sentence at all about anything. You said you are not being disruptive and that you had read the article and could not find the word "parts". I am just asking you to produce any full sentence about any topic from the article you claimed you had and that you were in good faith that you could not find the word "part". How about producing the first sentence in the tenth paragraph if you don't want to randomly pick one yourself? PPdd (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess I do owe you an apology. You managed to find one reference which mentions an anecdotal use of a human's own penis to cure the bleeding from when his penis was cut off. Prescribed by a taoist magician no less. I guess human penis really is a TCM herb. How could I accuse you of unfaithfully representing Tradition Chinese Medicine in calling the human penis a medicinal used in chinese medicine. Calus (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty ridiculous now. Human penis? This is POV cherry picking of a source. PPdd do you really think that article justifies listing human penis as substance used in Traditional CHinese Medicine? TCM is a subject taught in universities with a clearly defined curriculum. Human penis is not used in "TCM" period. It may have been used by a CHinese guy once and described by some Chinese scholar, but it is not TCM. How is that editing in good faith? Please stop pushing a POV agenda and abusing WP policies to justify making a mockery of this page. You should not be editing something you obviously have contempt for. It is all too clear you are manipulating policies to make a POINT.Herbxue (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold your horses. Please AGF. That's a pretty important policy here. There is nothing "all too clear" at all, except that you've just violated an important policy.

Here we follow the sources. TCM is far more than some university courses. It's also a form of traditional medicine which isn't always governed by such courses. It's a mixture. This article covers the whole spectrum, from ancient, modern, traditional, university, as practiced in China and elsewhere, good, bad, sensible, ridiculous, as long as it's from RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer, anyone familiar with the subject of TCM can recognize the absurdity of the current state of this page, and if anyone is responsible for that it is PPdd's disruptive editing, disregard for other editors' contributions, and threats of blocks and bans. Does PPdd "own" this page? I don't believe that is the intention of WP. And to define "Traditional CHinese Medicine" as anything that has ever been attempted to heal something in CHina ever is a disservice to WP readers who are seeking reliable information. "TCM" does refer to a currently taught system of healing in the PRC and elsewhere. Human penis is not in the curriculum. Many substances are "taught" but the lesson, such as in the case of cinnabar, is "don't use it". To continue to maintain that human penis and souls of hanged criminals are currently part of TCM is disingenuous. At best.Herbxue (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I came expecting an article. What I got is a list of random shit. There's 1 line on how TCM doctors diagnose patients, and there's multiple paragraphs about using shit and animal penises. You gotta be shittin me. (unsigned)

Editor interactions

PLEASE STOP MISREPRESENTING RS

I have been accused of introducing POV with rewording of entries, WHEN in FACT, all i did was go to the RS and Copy and Paste a line. This needs to stop, if human penis continues to be called a TCM herbal medicinal without proper RS (and not just mention of one anecdotal use from the 16th century) I will appeal to higher authorities. This blatant skeptic POV and unfaithful treatment of the subject matter has got to STOP! One cannot cherry pick from RS, if you post something from a source then all other information in that source should be fair game. Calus (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to undoing your removal of content and its source here[1]? PPdd (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went to your RS, Paid the $25 to download the article, and quoted directly from it. You then reversed those changes. Please, do tell, why are you allowed to paraphrase from the RS and make outlandish claims, and I am not allowed to make direct quotes from the source?Calus (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please put back my revisions or I will open a ticket for mediation. Calus (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what the article you have says, among other things. "in contemporary China, some such as placenta, nails, child's urine, ashen hair, licorice in human feces, and urinary sediment are still used and included in recent textbooks and handbooks". It also lists penis, blood, flesh, and bone, as well as pubic hair, earwax, menstrial blood, ... all clearly human parts. Don't pretend you call a penis or bone a "derivative" of a human body and you do not think it is a body "part".
• So you were well aware that "human parts" was in the article, and not only things derived from them. Yet you wasted a huge amount of my time being disruptive and pretending there were no human parts ever used.
• Then after you admited that these are body parts after a few hours of disrupion on your part, you were well aware that human parts are in current use per the article, yet you POV changed clear language and tried to make it look like this was not true and only a historical usage in TCM (as if TCM does not honor the past texts and uses the scientific method to choose its drugs instead... that's the meaning of "traditional"), and again you wasted a huge amount of talk page time pretending something was true (historical usage only) when you knew it not, i.e., human parts are currently taught and used. There is a word for people who say something is true and pretend they think it is, when they know it is not. PPdd (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I never denied that a penis or a bone constitues a body part. You are being very disruptive and argumentative here. I merely stated that hair and placenta are the only substances of human origin currently considered to be medicinal in Traditional Chinese Medicine. You did not have this Historical chapter (article) cited prior to this discussion. When you added that citation, I spent the money to read the ENTIRE thing, not just cherry pick a line or two. Since you added the article as a source, i have clarified what it says since you obviously have an agenda. Calus (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have access to the source in question so I can't comment on its wording (or its reliability), but the diff PPdd cites doesn't show any removal of content/sources. Which wording represents the source better I cannot tell, but if Calus correctly cites the source, his wording isn't more POV than PPdd's, nor is it “vandalism”. I only started reading this talk page, and as I'm not very familiar with TCM I won't be of much use in content disputes, but the hostile environment you two are creating doesn't help and will only lead to more trouble. One more thing: as always, competence is required, so input from TCM practitioners should be seen as a good thing. --Six words (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any problem created by the diff Calus says is the one he is referring to either. Calus repeatedly POV deleted the "currently in use" material replacing it with only what is not used, POV deleted the "cannibalism" and the RS for it, and POV deleted the content on "Licorice in human feces" which the RS lists as one of the few human things still used and being kept in textbooks and handbooks. PPdd (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't see any problem with it I wonder why you reverted it. Your edit summary (“restoring source and content removed by vandalism by Calus; please stop disruptive POV editing”) wasn't OK and may be the reason why Calus later called your edits vandalism when he undid them. --Six words (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide links for the edits you are accusing me of, PPdd. I never intentionally deleted anything with a source. I also think the problem here is that you act out of ownership for this page. You have been editing this page for 3 months with 686 edits, By far and away the most out of anyone, and the time between edits is LESS than 2hrs. I don't even know how one person can do such a thing. Again, correcting your POV entries to NPOV is NOT POV Calus (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

After quoting the source for Calus above and on his talk page -

"in contemporary China, some such as placenta, nails, child's urine, ashen hair, licorice in human feces, and urinary sediment are still used and included in recent textbooks and handbooks"'

I added this edit -

Human parts are currently taught to be used as TCM medicines, such as licorice in human feces, dried human placenta, finger nails, child's urine, hair, and urinary sediments.

Calus reverted it with edit summary "vandalism"[2]. PPdd (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are vandalizing this page to try and make a point. Cherry picking quotes. Please quote the whole sentence.Calus (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, let me do it for you to illustrate how you are not being NPOV "While most human drugs have been abandoned in contemporary China, some such as placenta, nails, child’s urine, ashen hair, licorice in human feces, and urinary sediment are still used and included in recent textbooks and handbooks on traditional Chinese pharmacology." now, Why woudl oyu leave out the part of them been abandoned in contemporary China. Also, inclusion of herbs in a textbook does not mean they are currently taught. Materia medica's often include outdated and extinct medicinals for historical reference; see Bensky's materia medica 3rd edition. Calus (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you to defend your addition as NPOV, especially since you mentioned including inflammatory words like cannibalism because I expressed concern that the WP article seemed to imply such a practice. You are not operating in good faith. Please challenge this, as if you do not, I will file a mediation request tomorrow. Calus (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The content is supported by the source. PPdd (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source says that "... most human drugs have been abandoned in contemporary China..." Since this has been clearly established now (thanks, Calus), maybe we can treat this whole TCM-uses-human-parts thing as the fringe phenomenon it is? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --Six words (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed "many" are not used to "most" are not used per above comments. PPdd (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, enough is enough

PPdd, it's time I put my foot down and did some major revisions of this article - I'm doing that this weekend. I don't want to diss the work you've done, but you are putting a horribly negative spin on the article through selective focus on minor-but-disturbing elements of the practice. It's time to bring it back into balance. Is that ok with you? --Ludwigs2 17:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to deliberately introduce POV into this wholly RS based article??!!? I didn't put any spin on it, only what is in the RS - I actually use some TCM stuff daily (ginkgo/genseng/ginger/cryshanthomum drinks, etc., and believe some meds may be useful for something). Here is what happens when no one comes in and intentionally tries to introduce their POV[3], [4], and the article is left alone for a month now[5]. The situation here is entirely different with SP/MP SPEs disrupting and edit warring; I believe when I began to edit acupunture and TCM, at talk here or at acu you publicly advised one of the pre-SP/MP gang to wait and then delete as a strategy to introduce POV to acu/TCM, and now here they are. PPdd (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop throwing the SP/MP label around without justification. I know you tried to build a case on that, but again, I believe each editor is an individual trying to make reasonable improvements. There is one person who has been trying to make good edits that you keep disruptively reverting. I am only commenting on this talk page to give some much-needed subject matter expert input, and I think anyone who reads my entries will see them as reasonable and not disruptive. The other editors seem to have been around for awhile. Everyone has a POV, but I don't see how anyone is making edits that are more POV than PPdd's.Herbxue (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the SP/MP/SPE/3RR/DE investigation led to multiple blocks, including of you, and a continued watch by admins keeping it open even after I asked them to close is AGF, Herb, after which 3RR was removed from the talk page of the new edit warring SP/MP/SPE and he continued to disrupt and edit war after removing it. See the diffs provided here. PPdd (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment According to their block log, Herbxue isn't and has never been blocked, and if they were topic-banned it would be mentioned on their talk page. --Six words (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) After the article was semi-protected Herbxue couldn't edit it because you have to be autoconfirmed for that - that's probably what they meant. What does “he was multi-SP/MP/DE/SPE/3RR” mean? --Six words (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Reply to comment - After his own 3RR violation, 5 of Herbque's SP's continued to edit war and 5 of Herbxue's SPs were blocked, and I then requested that he not be blocked AGF. Herbxue said he is blocked from editing at TCM - "traditional chinese medicine page, which I am already blocked from editing" He was multi-SP/MP/DE/SPE/ with an addional 3RRviolation, so maybe he was referring to one of those other accounts that were blocked, or something hapened to the log when name changed. I withdrew my block request after some number of them got shut down by an admin. PPdd (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, please don't play politics with me - that may work with other people, but my only concern is creating a neutral article, and I don't have a lot of use for or interest in talk page word-games. All I asked is whether this was OK with you, and I only asked that to sample the emotional climate of the page and open a door for discussion, so that I could best judge how to approach the revisions. I'm really hoping that your response is not a signal that you're going to fight to retain this version as-is; that would be unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, see note I left at your talk page. :) PPdd (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for saying something, I have felt myself being abused and bullied by PPdd in my attempts to improve this page. I am not as adept in Wikilawyering, but I can spot bad faith when i see it. When I corrected his bias and misrepresentation of sources I was accused of trying to introduce POV. I ask you, how can correcting POV to NPOV constitute adding my own POV? I stand by all my corrections as NPOV and in good faith. PPdd has admitted to introducing language to this article specifically because I felt it would be a bad representation of TCM. TCM endorses Cannibalism!!! how Absurd. It is possible to give PPdd a time out from editing this page, and allow rational individuals a moment to correct his admited slandering of the subject matter?Calus (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Calus, please apologize for accusing me of bad faith. PPdd (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my accusation, and will not let myself be bullied and wikilawyered by you anymore. Calus (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would really prefer if everyone would stop discussing other editors and focus on content changes. If you need to discuss other editors, please use user talk, or open a process in dispute resolution. I'd suggest wp:wikiquette for a start, where you can talk about each other all you like and get feedback from other users. --Ludwigs2 23:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for being a voice of reason. It has helped alleviate my frustration with the process and I look forward to seeing the changes made. I think a lot of the confusion can be alleviate when TCm is viewed as being a contemporary practice beginning in communist China, which came about from classical sources. The word "traditional" as it is understood by the laymen, does not encompass contemporary reality. I hope to provide enough sources for this, so that it is irrefutable. Calus (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I agree that user discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, PPdd has started a thread about me and that seems like a good enough place for comments. Calus (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Can you take care of adding that to this article? Thanks.

Calus (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What RS says it is used in "TCM", as opposed to "Chinese integrative medicine"? 14:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Artemisia Annua is the latin name for Qing Hao (sweet wormwood) which first appeared in "Divine Husbandman's Classic of the Materia Medica" and is found on page 219 of Bensky's Materia Medica 3rd edition. Calus (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help provide with more specific information: "This herb [artemisia annua] is often used for ... Malarial disorders with alternating chills and fevers." Bensky Chinese Herbal Medicine Materia Medica 3rd edition pg 220. Calus (talk) 00:32, 13 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)

Definition of and scope of "TCM"

• RS on medicines used[6] –

  ” Whether individual doctors are using them can be determined only by field research.”

• One TCM vet on defining “TCM”[7] –

  “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”.[8] (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[9]
• (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)

Thank you for that comment, I have been trying to say that for awhile. Please log in and sign your comments with 4 tildes after your last sentence.Herbxue (talk) 14:45, 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

  "just because the theory is hocus pocus, does not mean that effective medicines were not gradually discovered by a slow trial and error process".

  Does anyone have any RS on the distinction Herb made?
• 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, [10]. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

+ 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)

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'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, [11]). 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)

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)

Scraping (Gua Sha)

Gua Sha, although it looks painful, it is not

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)

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[12] to this article. I had tea with camillia[13] last night, and had a ginger[14]-ginseng[15] 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)

There may be some reference to the "why" in the historical records. The ancient Chinese were the best of record keepers. PPdd (talk) 14:11, 9 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)

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)”.[16].

This[17] 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

This is a brain map of the body, is there an available TCM 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[18] 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)

P.s. Not free - [19] --Ludwigs2 01:45, 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)

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)

Here[20] 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)

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.[21] by Carla Nappi.[22]

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)

Just a comment - I'm not familiar with this topic in general, but Nappi's writing is fabulous for the casual reader and the book well worth reading. –SJ+ 21:32, 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 - [23] 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

Yes, that's how you find the best sources available, by entering neutral search terms like cannibalism "typical of traditional” Chinese" medicine. There goes my assumption of good faith on your part. --Six words (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Six words, from your frequent comments all over WP, I'm not sure you ever had AGF toward me. My recollection from reading the hard copy of the book was that there was a sentence that said cannibalism was not "typical of traditional" Chinese medicine. My friend and colleague at Stanford is Paula Findlen, the reviewer on the back cover of the book. And Carla Napi was out here at Stanford to write the book. I do metaphysics, history and philosophy of science, xerophytic field botany, and I work with a chinese integrative medicine conglomerate based in the eastern Gobi desert. So I read the book when it came out. In my mind, when I first read it, I thought this was a book about encyclopedias, taxonomy, and ontology. I had the e-page open to that search term because of arguments and false claims on this talk page, which contradicted my memory from the book. So I just copied the web address from that discussion, not thinking it had the search term, and that web address was open to that search term because of the context of the discussion above. So you should work on your constant assumption of bad faith, a sort of wiki version of Dulles' inherent bad faith model. PPdd (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note to others: PPdd changed the link so it no longer shows these revealing search terms. This was his original link: [24]. AGF doesn't mean I have to assume good faith when confronted with proof to the contrary. I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care who you are or who you know, but I do care what you do here. In the section above you imply that the practitioners trying to work with us here in covering TCM in an appropriate way are only practicing “lip service TCM” and don't know what TCM really is, and right after that you provide such a link. I'm not going to bother and read your comments any more. --Six words (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Did you really read the book, PPdd? Based on the preview, it actually doesn't seem to support your thesis. For example, page 130: "Modern accounts of Chinese cannibalism tend to generalize the practice of eating human body parts as somehow typical of 'traditional' Chinese medicine, but the practice was a heated source of debate among naturalists and medical scholars in the early modernity", and then goes on to discuss on page 131 that only human hair was included at one important point in time, and then how a major scholar in the field denounced human parts as medicine. This makes your emphasis of human parts look even more like undue weight. II | (t - c) 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC) II, that's what I just said, which you would have noticed if not for the incessant attacks on me and nonAGF by others, which is the editing environment you came in on. I just said, "My recollection from reading the hard copy of the book was that there was a sentence that said cannibalism was not "typical of traditional" Chinese medicine." PPdd (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Please make personal attacks on my talk page, in the section I started, and not here. PPdd (talk) 15:33, 15 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)

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)

Content, organization

Unacceptable tagging

I think that whoever put all these Citation Needed tags everywhere is being disruptive and pointy. Whatever anyone thinks of Traditional Chinese Medicine, this is not at all an acceptable way to handle your disagreement. I am tempted to just remove all of them, but that doesn't solve the problem of bringing the article's citations up to an acceptable level. On the other hand, neither do the damned tags. The policy do it yourself comes into play here. There are 17 tags on the page, only about half of which, at most, are legitimate. Would the person or persons that made this unnessacary mess please fix it? Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Almost all lines now have citations. PPdd (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous version with inline citations for most lines, has now been replaced with uncited lines. PPdd (talk) 14:11, 17 March 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)

Well, It was to be expected. That's the very same behavior that lead to my frustration last week. Although when I was doing it the person doing the reverts remembered to sign in first. Please don't give-up, this page is in desperate need of some neutrality. Calus (talk) 23:45, 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[25] is the TWM article. Here[26] 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[27]. 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, [28]). 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)

• 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)

Thanks for trying, you are the second editor today who has been defeated by the IP's. I would undo their work, but given my heated involvement with the article this last week I'm going to hold off for now. Calus (talk) 05:43, 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)

I did mention that human hair is taught to be an herb that stops bleeding, but NOT pubic hair! Plus, it was taught more as an oddity, or triage method, than any herb one should actually use. Calus (talk) 05:22, 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)

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)

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):

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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)
3. I don't think Korean/Japanese/etc. regional practices belong here.
4. 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)

Inclusionism, Exclusionism

• Inclusionism[29] & Eventualism[30].
• Exclusionism[31], Deletionism[32], and Immediatism[33]. 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)

• 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)

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)

A number of the longer term editors here have suggested first letting you make the changes you want for a while, then see where you end up. I have no problem with that. :) PPdd (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Ludwigs2 18:52, 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)

Yes, I saw that, and I'm thinking of putting everything back to “your” version, I just have to figure out how to safe the edit you did in between of the two reverts. --Six words (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to wait a few minutes anyway, to see if the semi-protection goes through. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, good idea. --Six words (talk) 22:57, 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)

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)

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)