Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 5 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traditional Chinese medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traditional Chinese medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dietary Supplements Top‑importance Traditional Chinese medicine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Taoism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Traditional Chinese medicine. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Your "clarification" on Traditional Chinese medicine

Moved from QuackGuru's talk page.

There are still problems with your 'clarification'? 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."

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". 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Disagreed

On what grounds?

We don't have plenty of other sources in the drug research section about this

Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they're not there. See PMID 23552514 as an example of a recent review of drug research.

I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced

That's a textbook case of ownership of articles. You're here to collaborate with editors, not to own an article.

-A1candidate (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nature Publishing Group is a highly reputable publisher and their review articles are of high quality. However, this citation is not a recent medical review (it's an outdated 2007 editorial) and it fails WP:MEDRS by a long shot. I suggest we replace it with the following review instead: http://www.nature.com/hr/journal/v36/n7/full/hr201318a.html -A1candidate (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru. I think we all agree on the science here, this is just an editing issue. I never meant to suggest that we should not stress in the lede that TCM is pseudoscience. I just meant (as I thought I had made clear several times both here and in edit summaries) that this is not the right reference to do that. There are way better references out there (not in terms of the source, but in terms of them actually saying what you want them to say, which this reference does not). I don't think the Hypertension Research article A1candidate links above is the right reference for that either, since it's focused specifically one one condition. But there are certainly better review or meta-analysis articles that can be used for this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't agree on the sourcing here. According to your edit you don't agree to include it in the lede or the drug research section. You have not shown there are better references out there for the drug research section on pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Who don't agree, exactly? When the current one doesn't say it, we shouldn't force it to be used. Please find a better source. Sure you will find plenty of reliable sources to state that, right? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rjanag and QG - If you want a general source about drug research, I would recommend the following:

• PMID 23600379 in Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

We could paraphrase one of the key findings of the review ("Intestinal absorption is of utmost importance for the drug action of TCMs, which are usually taken orally"). If you're looking for a good MEDRS source that specifically states that TCM is pseudoscientific, you won't find it . -A1candidate (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not seeing clear consensus for removal from the lead here Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. Whether or not there are better sources available is not the issue here; the quality of this source is not the issue; the use or non-use of quotation marks is not the issue. The issue is that the source does not say what you are using it to say in the article—it does not actually say TCM is pseudoscience. Finding a better replacement is an entirely separate issue; the bottom line is, if a source is being misused, it should be removed. And as you can easily see from my diffs, I never suggested removing the source entirely from the article (there are still other places where it is used), only taking away the one or two sentences that attribute to this source a claim that the source itself doesn't make. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This all comes back to this edit, which has been subsequently reverted back and forth by several editors. In this edit I removed a statement that I feel the source does not actually state (see immediately above for further discussion). On the other hand, other editors' viewpoint is that the source should stay, and at this point almost everyone involved here has reverted twice, so I thought I would protect the article and request outside comment. Please note that this is not a discussion of whether TCM is pseudoscience, whether the source meets WP:MEDRS, or anything else like that; the question is whether the article even says what it is being used to say. To be specific, the disputed article text is

TCM has been characterized as "largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments."

and the relevant text from the source is

So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are imagining a problem where none exists. I cannot follow your reasoning at all. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained this multiple times above. The Nature article does not say TCM is pseudoscience, it says that is one possible (and likely) reason why it hasn't yielded cures. I also would appreciate it if you didn't call me a pov pusher over a non-POV-related editorial issue; I don't think you even know what my POV is, this is about good writing and good use of sources, regardless of what my own POV is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Support wording based on source. Came here via RfC notice at WT:MED. The text appears to be a good paraphrase of source, and I do not understand the object to it. Yobol (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from Rjanag. The phrasing of the source (read only your quote) might be more precisely represented on wikipedia by something like "TCM has failed to demonstrate beneficial effects in scientific studies. It has been suggested that the most likely reason for this is that TCM is largely pseudoscience, with ..." Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The citation clearly supports the article text: other readings would appear to constitute sophistry.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see an issue, the previous statement is a direct quote; we can't get any less ambiguous than that. Sam Walton (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not really—a direct quote can still be taken out of context. When the source says one explanation is that TCM is "largely pseudoscience", and then our article says "X characterizes TCM as 'largely pseudoscience'", that's not the same thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EtNw5yfN1M rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, do you mean to argue that "has been characterized as" does not mean the same thing as "The most obvious answer is"? Sam Walton (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • • Obviously it does not mean the same thing. Consider for example: "Why is the sky blue? The most obvious answer is that someone threw blue paint at it. But that's not actually true." If you carefully read the Nature article, it doesn't seem to really be making a claim about the pseudoscience issue (whereas plenty of other articles actually do), it is just saying there is not much evidence for it and we should be skeptical. By grabbing such iffy references and insisting on including them here, you risk giving uninformed readers that the article is biased against TCM and not giving it a fair chance. And that's a shame, because an unbiased treatment would still show that TCM is nonsense, so why fuel the trolls by playing fast and loose with sources? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, pedantry - that explains it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• IMO "has been characterized as" is a reasonable paraphrasing of "the most obvious answer is". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose wording: "Rational" has a different meaning from "valid". A validated treatment (e.g. Mindfulness for GAD) may not necessarily have a logical theoretical basis because nobody knows completely how it works. -A1candidate (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: A very close and accurate paraphrase of the source in full compliance with our policies. If anyone objects, we can just use the quote itself. Burden of proof is on TCM to prove that it is not pseudoscience, not the other way around. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, but I don't see what your last sentence has to do with this RFC. As I already explained, this is not a question about whether or not TCM is pseudoscience (we all know it is). It's a question of how to use sources appropriately. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

    The source is used correctly, appropriately and in full compliance with WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this phrasing. The problem with this quotation is that constructions that begin with "the most obvious answer is..." usually follow it up with "However, the obvious answer is wrong/incomplete/oversimplified". Imagine this phrase in a completely different context: "He killed himself on the same day that his mother yelled at him. So why did he kill himself? The most obvious answer is that he killed himself because his mother yelled at him." What do you think the next sentence is going to be? Something that sounds like (1) "We conclude that the cause of his suicide was being yelled at" or something that sounds like (2) "However, I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that"? For exactly the same reason that statement #1 seems implausible after that setup, I'm nervous about quoting it as if this is the whole meaning.
  Our bar for declaring something to be pseudoscience or to have been characterized as being pseudoscience is, and should be, high. If you really can't find a source that actually says, with no weaseling at all, that TCM == pseudoscience, then (a) you're not trying and (b) such a statement shouldn't be in the article. Matthew's slightly more precise language seems to me like it matches the source better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Dietary supplement articles
• Top-importance Dietary supplement articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment