Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

can't understand why delete the content I added

Look at the section Drug research. In this article "Huperzine A" was labeled as "poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" and "Huperzine A" was the "one of the few successes" in content. I tried to add the Ephedrine which is from the research on traditional chinese medicine and Kampo, and it was deleted because of Tangential and trivial. I don't know why Ephedrine was considered as Tangential and trivial but Huperzine A is "one of the few success"? I added the regulation in United Kingdom but was also deleted for Tangential and trivial. Then I see the regulation in Canada,Indonesia and many other countries was in this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• After I checked the source [1] for Huperzine A. It seems a misrepresentation for sources (I am not sure). The conclusion of this source is "Huperzine A appears to have beneficial effects on improvement of cognitive function, daily living activity, and global clinical assessment in participants with Alzheimer’s disease. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the included trials," but the article rephrase this like "a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" . I don't think they are the same meaning so I changed the words to cite original words from source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TCM

Why TCM is not under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions? At least the template is missing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)(Original comment. Comment moved from my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

User:Bladesmulti, this article is under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions. Every article does not need to be in a list. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your "clarification" on Traditional Chinese medicine

Moved from QuackGuru's talk page.

There are still problems with your 'clarification'[2]? Take a look at the new grammar. After your 'clarification', it says:

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM; simplified Chinese: 中医; traditional Chinese: 中醫; pinyin: zhōng yī; literally: "Chinese medicine") is a broad range of medicine practices sharing common concepts which have been developed in China and are based on a tradition of more than 2,000 years, including various forms of herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage (Tui na), exercise (qigong), and dietary therapy. TCM is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine approach. TCM is widely used in China and it used in the West.

"TCM is a broad range ... TCM is primarily used ... TCM is widely used..." Frankly speaking, that sounds like: "The dog is blue. The dog likes food. The dog enjoys walking outdoors." QuackGuru, are you a native English speaker? It'd be important to know since we could pay better attention to your problems with the content once we knew. Oh, and do not remove this message before you have given me a proper answer. So far, I have pointed out and corrected your poor edits. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to criticise QG's english in that para above, you'll have to be more specific. I am a native english speaker, and I cannot see anything wrong with it at all, certainly nothing to warrant any changes of grammar. If you cannot specify the problem, I see no problem with QG removing this message. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The problems have been fixed now, and I am satisfied with the current version. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit was OR. This text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research in the lede

The source says "In spite of the widespread use of TCM in China and its use in the West, rigorous scientific evidence of its effectiveness is limited."[3]

It is not also widely used in the west. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The source does not say it is in widespread use in the West. But the source says "and its use in the West".[4] This summarises the body to include it in the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Article in South China Morning Post about TCM

This article might have content we could use:

• Traditional medicine faces challenge from upstart Western ideas

Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a news paper that first interviews you, and then asks you to pay for publishing the story? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Our article South China Morning Post indicates this is an old and well-established newspaper, and at one time (1997) was "the most profitable newspaper in the world on a per reader basis." It's not some fly-by-night operation. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Review in Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics

This meta-analysis might have content we could use:

• Wang, W; Xu, L; Shen, C (15 November 2014). "Effects of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients After Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis". Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics. PMID 25398591.

A1candidate (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What the Nature citation does not (and does) say

This is in response to this revert. I am aware that this Nature piece has been discussed before (it comes up several times in archives 8 and 9), but my point is not about its quality as a source or anything like that, but simply that it does not say what the article is suggesting. The Nature article does not say that TCM is pseudoscience, it just lists that as a possibility (albeit the most obvious and likely possibility). Given that TCM absolutely is pseudoscience and we already have plenty of more in-depth sources that make that assertion even more directly, there is no need to attribute that assertion to this, one of the few sources that doesn't make that assertion. And the article isn't really losing anything because 1) we already have plenty of other sources in there pointing out that scientific consensus is that TCM is pseudoscience; 2) this Nature article is already cited elsewhere in the article, for things that it actually does say (e.g. the dearth of clinical test results that support TCM). So those are the reasons why I think that particular sentence should go. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I restored the edit of Rjanag and quoted the article in my Edit Summary. Also when it comes to paraphrasing, I know users might be willing to stick to the source as much as possible, so anyone can't take some "excess liberties" with respect to the source. However, our job in Wikipedia is to paraphrase the sources, and many times we are moving in the borderline of plagiarism (even though that might be done "bona vides"). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed. We don't have plenty of other sources in the drug research section about this and it should be summarised in the lede that it is mostly pseudoscience. I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced. Claiming that TCM absolutely is pseudoscience not true. It would be a weight violation to keep the drug research section without this text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)