Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 24 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?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The issue

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

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.

Comments #1

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)

Rjanang, please be advised that Roxy the Dog has been already several times an object of administrative actions at various articles. If you want to have more detailed information, I'd be happy to provide. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/Other

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)

What do you exactly mean by "...wording based on source" or "The text appears to be a good paraphrase of source"? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:38, 11 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)
    • I agree. We recently had a similar out of context -event with Talk:Acupuncture. User Sunrise quoted a piece of news there, which states that: "...still draws fire from traditional scientists", "Many US researchers still say such funding is a waste of time and money.""
    • It was a nice quote, but when taking look at the broader context, it seems just the opposite. Well this isn't such a good example since Nature News would not qualify as a MEDRS source anyway. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this was not out of context; the quote supported what I was using it for. Further discussion is on that page. Sunrise (talk) 03:22, 15 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)
          • Exactly, I agree 100%. Sources, sources, sources. For the evident, find an evident source. Right? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:17, 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)

• Comment: It seems to me like both readings of the source are grammatically defensible:

• "The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: (which makes sense because) it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."
• "The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: (which would mean that) it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."

In the first reading, the statement "it is largely just pseudoscience" is an explanation of why "it actually has little to offer" is an obvious answer; in the second reading, the statement is a consequence of "it actually has little to offer" being an answer.

That said, the same source also uses the term "pseudoscience" a second time, which would seem to support the first reading:

• "...it seems problematic to apply a brand new technique, largely untested in the clinic, to test the veracity of traditional Chinese medicine, when the field is so fraught with pseudoscience. In the meantime, claims made on behalf of an uncharted body of knowledge should be treated with the customary scepticism that is the bedrock of both science and medicine."

No comment on whether the statement should be included (I've been undecided for a while on whether the word "pseudoscience" should typically be replaced by other terms), but it looks to be supported by the source. Sunrise (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the first interpretation is the one intended; the article describes the research performed on this medicine as "been approached in a typically reductionist manner, with researchers seeking single compounds that might have a role in treating specific diseases."

The article lays out two possibilities for the lack of tangible results: 1) that there are no hidden cures beyond the few already discovered, or 2) that the researches are doing it wrong and "missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients". It doesn't assert that 1) is the real cause for finding few cures, only that some people think it is. Diego (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in context, that quote is talking about pharmaceutical companies trying to find new drugs, not about TCM research in general. Plus, it follows up with "success stories have been few and far between." This seems to be consistent with either interpretation. Sunrise (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WhatamIdoing. The piece refrains from endorsing the view it expresses. I agree with Doc James' above that "IMO "has been characterized as" is a reasonable paraphrasing of "the most obvious answer is"", but it is misleading to imply that the Nature piece makes that characterization itself. It just says that others have. Ideally use a strong source that actually makes that characterization itself; this one doesn't. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unnuanced wording based on decontextualized (undue?) use of a source that is discussing traditional forms of Chinese medicine almost entirely within the context of present-day medical indications and from the perspective of present-day science, whereas the Chinese medical arts have a far longer history than modern science (and therefore, almost by definition, than "pseudoscience"). 86.181.67.166 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support and Object to RFC summary - to quote from near the end of the article "...when the field is so fraught with pseudoscience." It would seem that the authors clearly intend to be read as "yes, it's full of pseudoscience" and quoting the bit objected to out of context gives it an ambiguity that is not present in the original. Adam Cuerden 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The source isn't the definitive authority nor the final word that TCM is pseudoscience, nor is it even saying "TCM is pseudoscience" but only one possibility for why we don't have more drug cures from it, yet here it is characterized as such. It is a misrepresentation of the source and the source wouldn't even be strong enough to support the statement anyway since it isn't representative of scientific consensus. If the statement "TCM is largely pseudoscience" is to exist in the article, I think RS standards dictate a much stronger source than one article in Nature which represents merely one single possibility in the opinion of its author. This source is a very bad support of this statement from every angle you look at it. LesVegas (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose What the article says clearly does not support the claim "TCM has been characterized as "largely ], with no valid ] for the majority of its treatments."" We can use a better article that states the same. Problem solved? Until that, I suppose we can nicely follow MEDSR with claims on medical efficiency, can't we?
• Ps. I think WhatamIdoing is making a really good point here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support current wording. The wording opposed by User:Rjanag is no longer in the article. The specific wording removed by Rjanag has been changed. Rather than argue over the previous wording I changed the wording to reflect actually what the source said using a direct quote instead: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." The lede should be a summary. The specific details are in the body. It would be better if editors try to improve the text rather than delete it from the lede or body. There was a previous successful DR where the consensus was to keep the wording "pseudoscience" in the lede and the body. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this comment is both inaccurate and irrelevant. As for your first point, the wording is still there. You changed it from TCM has been characterized as "largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." to TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies.". The only difference here is the change from has been characterized as to is described as (which is actually a stronger wording), the addition of "just" (which again is a stronger expression), and removal of wikilinks. For all intents and purposes the issues are still the same.
    As for consensus to keep the word "pseudoscience", again, that is entirely unrelated to this RfC. Please read the RfC text. This RfC is not asking whether we should say TCM is pseudoscience (I have already stated several times on this page that I agree that we should). rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all statements in WP's voice labeling TCM as a "pseudoscience". It's way too sweeping a generalization for a body of practice as excompassing as TCM and the sources don't support it in this way. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, but this is not at all what the RfC is about. The question is whether it's even accurate to say that that source calls TCM pseudoscience; your views on whether or not there should be "statements in WP's voice labeling TCM as a pseudoscience" are not relevant to that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose both the text proposed at the RfC and the current wording, per Matthew Ferguson and WhatamIdoing. If the source states "being pseudoscience" is a possibility among several, including it as a certainty is wrong. When there are several possible and conflicting interpretations of the same passage, assuming that we can "paraphrase" it using one of them is dangerous. Diego (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but what do you mean by "the text proposed at the RfC"? I did not propose any text. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I meant the text mentioned at the RfC: "the disputed article text is TCM has been characterized as "largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." Diego (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support use of exact quote from source, with attribution: TCM has been characterized as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." Diego has a point: paraphrasing, even though the one we use is accurate, can be problematic, so let's just use the exact quote. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion from below: "in an editorial in the science magazine Nature, TCM was characterized as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." -- Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be the whole paragraph, including the "advocates respond..." part ?

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. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies.

Diego (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, the existing text already did use the exact quote. That doesn't solve the issue, as the quote was taken out of context, as explained in te RFC text. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It was nearly an exact quote, IOW a paraphrase. There were a few words different. To avoid any questions, using the exact words in quotation marks is safer. We don't need anymore than what I wrote above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you're missing the entire point of the RFC. Regardless of how you quote it, the article does not characterize TCM as pseudoscience; it just says that it possible. There is a big rhetorical difference. The best suggestion so far is from User:Matthew Ferguson 57. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support either as-is, or direct quote. (Hasn't this already been to DR/N?) Alexbrn 05:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Notification - QuackGuru has invited editors from WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to participate in this RfC -A1candidate (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Suggestion by Brangifer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Need to look at it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • A number of other source make the same statement. Thus weak support. Needs to be attributed to an editorial in Nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Brangifer's suggestion. jps (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WAID. We should use a strong source for this. We fight strongly to have WP:MEDRS cover alternate medicine articles. This is an editorial and so we should be (1) using a stronger source, which will invariably exist, and (2) not misrepresenting the statement, by using it to support "TCM is pseduscience" per Matthew above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• support "burden of proof"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Brangifer's suggestion. Ca2james (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Brangifer's suggestion, as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose both the original and Brangifer's suggestion. The discussion on whether you can call a medicine system that predates the scientific method a pseudoscience was done extensively in the talk page on ayurvedic medicine. It's a semantic error, Nature or not. TCM could never fake science, because science didn't exist when TCM developed. We could, at best, say that "TCM is currently fraught with pseudoscience". But even such a statement is barely supported by this reference. The article imho doesn't explain in any way how contemporary TCM tries to act like it's a science, so it fails to explain why there is any pseudoscience in current TCM. It's basically just name calling. If anything, the Nature article explains why scientific experiments may be methodoligcally limited when investigating TCM in a reductionist way: because experiments can fail to account for "interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies". -- PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I would be more sympathetic to the historical argument if this were an article about the history of TCM, or if it were being labelled as pseudoscientific in some historical context; but it's not, and this article is overwhelmingly about the current-day practice of TCM. We can hardly claim immunity from the "pseudoscience" label if we're describing a pseudoscientific practice which has persisted long after it was undermined by actual science. bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use exact quote and attribution in a footnote, with the precise context:

Note: In Nature 448, 105-106 (12 July 2007), in the Editorial, the following comment was being made: "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. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies.(source)"

As it is/was stated in the article, it looks a little bit like some kind of WP:SYNTHESIS. And it's a comment; it doesn not belong int he main text, I'd say. Best to all of you, and stay cool. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the definition is of "pseudoscience", but I guess, in this context, it would mean: any investigation of TCM which looks like scientific research, but fails to meet the criteria of proper scientific research. See Big Mind Process#Clinical trial; that's an example of pseudoscience, I guess (or at least interpretation given to it before I cleaned it up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussion on canvassing, I've striked my own comments here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, if you're interested, pseudoscience is something that isn't scientific (at all), but is (explicitly) pretending to be. Something that fails to meet the criteria of proper scientific research is correctly called bad science. Pseudoscience is when what you're doing is not science, but you say that it is. These examples might help:

• I poured a big cupful of table sugar in a test tube full of cancer cells. They died. I didn't pour any sugar in another test tube, and those cells lived. I write a paper saying that sugar has the potential to cure cancer in humans, and I encourage all cancer patients to eat a big bag of white sugar each day. This is bad science: my experiment doesn't prove that eating a bag of sugar will cure cancer. It's real science (I followed a scientific method); it's just not good science (my experimental design was poor and my conclusions exceeded my data).
• I build a television out of an old kit from a hobbyist electronics shop. It works just fine. I tell the neighbor's kids that it works because there are miniature actors living inside it who act out stories whenever I turn it on. This is not bad science: I did not use a scientific method, and I'm not making any scientific claims. This is not pseudoscience: I'm not making any scientific claims about my methods. This is just silliness.
• I build a television out of an old kit from a hobbyist electronics shop. It works just fine. I tell the neighbor's kids that it works because I've created a miniature nuclear reactor that toggles the excitatory quantum states of nanoparticulate rare earth metals to produce an electromagnetic field that uses string theory to reach through the air and directly imprint neurological sensations on their brains. That is pseudoscience: I am explicitly invoking science-y sounding concepts to describe what I did.
• I build a television out of an old kit from a hobbyist electronics shop. It works just fine. I tell the neighbor's kids that it works because I'm paying a nun in a convent to pray for television shows every day. This is a paranormal claim. It is neither bad science nor pseudoscience.

Notice that "works" and "doesn't work" are irrelevant. What matters is whether you're claiming to be doing science, or if you're claiming to be doing something else. If, as an editor notes elsewhere, TCM is a matter of faith, then it cannot (by definition) be pseudoscience. It would have to be paranormal instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support wording based on source for the reasons discussed above. BakerStMD T|C 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think the Nature mag article should be used as a source to say acupuncture is characterized as psuedo science. I do think that acupuncture is hokey pokey and only gets results due to the placebo effect but I don't Nature as a legit source in this instance. The point of the fringe policy is that we shouldn't give weight to fringe viewpoints. Unless there are other sources that also express this viewpoint about psuedo science then this side comment by the Nature author should not be included in the article.--LarEvee (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Other, with attribution - use same source, different sentence, and say: According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". That avoids the grammatical caveats. Either way, attribute to Nature and do not use WP's voice. Obviously there is a significant view that TCM is pseudoscience, and we need to reflect that. But we shouldn't categorize it as such: see WP:FRINGE/PS for our guideline, and WP:RS/AC for the quality of source needed to make the claim. And there is a significant view that it's not pseudoscience (see sources & discussion here). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Full quote: "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. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."

If the quote was taken out of context, then what is in context? This is the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Notification - QuackGuru has invited editors from WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to participate in this RfC -A1candidate (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The missing context is the part about "Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies", which was not included in our article. Nature isn't claiming in their own words that TCM is a pseudoscience, it's describing it as the position of opponents, to which other people dissent. The article is exposing two sides of a debate; by reporting only about one side and failing to include the position of advocates for TCM, which constitute half of the paragraph in the source, the current wording is a NPOV violation and misrepresents the reference.

IMHO the source should be used to expand the "Model of the body" where it talks about the controversy. A large part of the Nature article is devoted to the idea that modern research may not be yielding results because it is focusing on individual active principles, yet TCM might only be effective when several therapies are used in combination, though there's no research method in place to test that hypothesis. Diego (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In the article elsewhere where it says "the field is so fraught with pseudoscience" ... that'd be in Nature's voice, no? Alexbrn 13:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The contention that Nature is treating the two sides of the argument as if they had comparable validity is ludicrous to the extreme. They actually stated that the proponents position is a classic example of special pleading. In other words, bullshit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Diego, the current article states "TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies." Let me know what can be done to the lede and body to improve the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh - yes, I see now that the body of the article contains that. The lede stops at the "no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies" bit. Thus, the lede is not neutral. I thought we were discussing the edits to the lede all along?

@Dominus Vobisdu, where does the Nature article says anything about special pleading? Diego (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Diego Moya, do you have any suggestions for the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Diego Moya, I went ahead and NPOVed the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Your version is a clear improvement, I didn't think the paragraph could be summarized in such concise way in the lede, but you did it. I've made a small tweak to better march the source. Diego (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Brangifer and anyone else who supports that: The quotation is taken from an unsigned editorial opinion piece (i.e., the lowest possible source according to MEDRS). There are dozens of editors there, and any of them could have written this. How are you going to provide WP:INTEXT attribution to that? "An unsigned editorial in the 12 July 2007 issue of Nature said, <quotation here>"? In-text attribution usually assume that we not only know the name of the author, but that the author has some relevant credentials (usually either being a famous proponent or opponent). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree this is not the best reference. However this is not medical content that is being presented. And many other sources say similar:

• 2007 Nature "Last year, Zhang Gong-yao, from the Central South University in Changsha, Hunan, published an article in a Chinese journal calling traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience that should be banished from public healthcare and research"
• 2007 Nature "Shi-min Fang, a US-trained biochemist who now runs a website called 'New Threads' that fights pseudoscience and research misconduct in China, is also unimpressed by the plan, but for opposite reasons. He is in favour of scientific research into Chinese herbal remedies, but thinks the emphasis on testing the theories of TCM is misplaced. “The basic concepts of Chinese medicine, such as yin and yang, wu xing (the five elements) and the qi (meridian) theory, are inaccurate descriptions of the human body that verge on imaginative,” he says. “The government has already spent a lot of money trying to prove their mechanistic basis, but this hasn't gone anywhere.”"
• 2011 Nature "Indeed, there has been criticism from academics and the media in China, arguing that much of TCM and most of its theories are pseudoscience and that China should bid “farewell to traditional Chinese medicine”"
• 2010 Contemporary Clinical Trials "As the world enters a new era, a series of problems and debates arise about CHM. The debates are mainly about the safety and efficacy of CHM. The lack of supporting scientific evidences always ghosts the CHM. Some even argue that TCM, the foundation of CHM, is a pseudoscience and CHM should be abolished."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I might agree, except for two serious problems:

1. A statement about whether a treatment has a valid mechanism of action is biomedical information of exactly the sort that MEDRS is supposed to cover.
2. Why aren't we using better sources? Why are editors still pushing the use of an unsigned opinion piece when there's a whole wealth of peer-reviewed review articles out there? Is the problem that you can't actually find a gold-plated source that says "the whole of TCM == pseudoscience", rather than (far more defensible) statements like, "TCM's ancient theoretical basis is just as much pseudoscience as the Greek humoral theory"? Are we sticking with the opinion piece because we're dazzled by the journal's name and don't care if it's absolutely lousy evidence?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is, is this a position from a major scientific organization, the journal Nature. As an editorial by its staff I am sure it would have had to have gotten extensive approval before publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic of this particular discussion is related to controversies surrounding TCM, and as such isn't covered by MEDRS, and it's also a matter of WP:FRINGE, where WP:PARITY applies.

The attribution matter isn't problematic (see WP:ITA). We just describe it as "in an editorial in the science magazine Nature, TCM was characterized as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."

Frankly I am indeed enamored with that statement and the source! It's a brilliantly written and very succinct summary, and the source is VERY notable. We typically don't find peer reviewed sources commenting on pseudoscientific and fringe subjects. This is a significant statement of opinion about TCM, a subject with "lousy evidence" behind it. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on TCM to provide evidence. It is not the job of critics to disprove it. Critics are just pointing out the paucity of evidence, and that what evidence we have seen is indeed "lousy evidence". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes as the journal Nature it does hold greater weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James this is an editorial from a scientific journal, reflecting the position if its 12 editors. It in no way carries the same weight as a "major scientific organisation" such as the WHO, CDC, and so on. If we want to support the statement that TCM is psedudoscience we should find a stronger source than an editorial. We should apply MEDRS here like everywhere else. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not using the statement to state that TCM "is" pseudoscience. We are using it to state that Nature has "described it...." No problem here. In this context, we don't give a flying f@#### whether it "is" or "is not" pseudoscience. We just document what RS say, and this is a very notable RS. That is our job here. This is about a controversy, so MEDRS does not apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the summarization of an entire field. We can find review articles for each element of TCM that demonstrates that each element is ineffective nonsense, but no individual study can demonstrate that all of TCM is ineffective nonsense. We rely on a journal such as Nature to state that TCM is ineffective nonsense because we have editors here that would argue that reaching such an obvious conclusion ourselves would be original research, no matter how obvious that conclusion may be.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We have this sort of support that is congruent with the Nature editorial.

Additionally we have a number of replies to the statement that it is pseudoscience such as here

That some notable positions characterise TCM as pseudoscience is undeniable. We just need to attribute it.

I will email Nature to see if this view this editorial as a position of Nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that the response by Eckman that you quote states that the foundation of Traditional Chinese Medicine cannot be evaluated as science, including such gems as "Systematic correspondence theory needs no proof as it is an axiomatic proposition that has led to the development of the whole field of Chinese medicine", which simplifies to "it's not science at all, it's faith". It's certainly not a statement that there's actual science involved.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I added my comment directly below the quote of the article because it leaves out the last sentence of the paragraph, thus creating a biased representation. Also note that in an RfC on ayurvedic medicine we came to the conclusion that a field that predates science can, per definition, not referred to as a pseudoscience. How could it fake something that didn't exist yet? PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time, the scientific method wasn't even known, so you are right in a certain sense, but a sense which is no longer relevant, because we now have the scientific method, and we also see such prescientific methods promoted now. Therefore we can judge them in their current context as pseudoscientific, because that's what they are right now, and when they persist in making unproven claims, we can boldly declare them to also be quackery.

For medical and scientific purposes, their origins are rather irrelevant. That's a historical and sociological matter. If they are effective, they become accepted by mainstream/scientific medicine and are no longer considered "alternative" or "traditional" medicine, but are simply called "medicine".

If methods are ineffective, but make big claims, they are quackery, and likely pseudoscience. Ayurveda and TCM are both pseudoscientific and quackery, and they should be abandoned. Their continued use is unethical and often dangerous. Even though that is the case, pharmaceutical companies should still investigate any methods and substances for possible usefulness. Pearls can be found in dung heaps. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was already extensively done at the ayervedic medicine talk page. If you feel you have significant new arguments to add, i propose you take them to that talk page. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That one group of editors came to the wrong answer doesn't shut off discussion of the topic forever.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww, you are correct. I have started a new thread (Talk:Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure) and asked for admin help. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The in-text attribution should be simple but should not use the word "was" which could be misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this phrase: "TCM was characterized as..."? "Was" refers to the past publication of the article. I suspect there are other rules of grammar which might allow the use of the word "is", but I'm no expert. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I'm going to tweak the lede per WP:LIMITED and add a bit of in-text attribution to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Summoned by bot. In the opening post, Rjanag didn't add the last sentence of that paragraph: "Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies." The Nature article is publicly accessible and pretty small and imho written more balanced than proposed summary. I urge everyone to read it before commenting and explicitly state you've done so. And i propose we ignore comments based on the selective quoting above, because obviously many comments didn't read the article and didn't get the context it puts the quote in. And i urge Rjanang to cite the whole paragraph, without leaving out the last sentence. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Back on the subject of whether this is the right source: I don't see this editorial as saying that the publication holds this view. I see it as saying that there are two significant POVs in the world. But even if it did, then why cite the editorial? Why not cite, for example, the actual news article, in the same issue, that this editorial is responding to?

I really don't believe that we are upholding our sourcing ideals with this. MEDRS doesn't say "use whatever's handy if it's got the right POV, because these rules only exist to get around the community's pesky decision to stick with a neutral POV rather than a scientific POV". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clear consensus to include it in the lede and body

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.

I request this RfC be closed by an uninvolved admin. Editors can continue to comment at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?.

The RfC was leaning towards keeping it in the lede and body and now the RfC was pulled. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why the RfC was terminated - it's still being discussed - but the current state of the article is in line with the consensus that has emerged in the RfC so far. So, I think we have avoided serious harm. If anybody were to revert through (or after) protection, we would have a bigger problem, of course. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The discussion is still going on, and I deeply wonder your urge to close the RfC so quickly. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to rush things. I've asked a few experienced editors who have dealt with similar pseudoscience labellings for their opinions. Whether they want to get involved or not, time will tell. No reason for hasty disclosure before that, though. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I counted all the votes, and it seems that 10 editors supported, and 10 editors opposed. One of the supports was a "weak support". There were also two votes (Yobol and Matthew Ferguson 57) that were rather ambiguous. As we very well know, "consensus is not a vote". What matters is the quality of arguments. According to WP:CON:

The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

Taking this into account, it seems there is a majority opposing the RfC (7-10). We don't give any weight for "I just don't like it". Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And the quality of an argument that says "maybe they didn't think it really is pseudoscience, it's just a possibility" when the same source describes TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience" two paragraphs later is what, precisely? It would appear to me to be an argument with no weight at all.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It also calls it an "uncharted body of knowledge" in the immediate next sentence. To me, that seems to say that parts of it contain pseudoscience, but that the whole body of Chinese medicine can't be described as such with authority - as Western science has still not researched it as a whole. Diego (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to write up a summary of the RFC discussion, but most of the comments and !votes are not germane to the question I asked (most people went off track talking about stuff like whether the source meets MEDRS or whether they think TCM is a pseudoscience, neither of which are the questions I raised in the RFC), so I don't really care what you guys conclude. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Likely best to have someone who is independent write up the summary of the RfC discussion. Is the Nature source appropriate for the content in question? With a few slight adjustments yes. This appears to be a position of a major science organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think the "Hard to swallow" reference supports the assertion that "Nature has described TCM as pseudoscience"; in fact, it seems to me that they're trying hard to avoid calling the whole field as such. If you want to include an attributed assertion that "TCM is pseudoscience", there seem to be much better sources than this one in the links provided by you at #Attribution. Diego (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, like I already said repeatedly, the question is not whether or not the represents Nature's position. Please read the RFC description. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Per "Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?" I am of the position that yes it is. We should attribute it though such as "TCM has been characterized by the Journal Nature as "largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments."" It is notable as Nature has one of the highest impact factors of any journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by Jayaguru-Shishya

Bear in mind that Jayaguru-Shishya has canvassed people likely to support their position. And Jayaguru-Shishya is diligently counting the votes and trying to reframe comments made by those who disagree. I recommend that anyone who closes this RfC bear in mind such attempts to inflate the number of "Oppose" votes and discard "Support" votes. bobrayner (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru was doing the same thing earlier on. So I recommend the person closing this RfC to bear in mind such attempts to inflate the number of "Support" votes and discard "Oppose" votes. -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a neutral notification on a noticeboard dedicated to exactly this kind of issue. If you misunderstood WP:CANVAS, striking out your comment or self-reverting might be a good way to reduce embarrassment. (I'm happy for you to remove this comment once you have done so). bobrayner (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing. The allegations by Kww has been discussed here at my Talk Page. A notification concerning the request for neutral opinions has been placed here. If making such claims bobrayner, please quote the exact policy that has been violated, and we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, I'll expect you to withdraw your comments.

The very title "Clear consensus to include it in the lede and body" is falsely suggesting that there'd be consensus - even a "clear" one. Taking a quick look though, one can see that the RfC is no way near consensus. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

One typically needs a 66% majority to change an long established wording. Looking at the entirety of the evidence I support the current wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, even one of the people you canvassed has struck out their own comment due to your canvassing.

If you want to discredit yourself further, that's your choice, of course; but don't expect others to trust you. bobrayner (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I shouldn't have responded. But let me make very clear again that I'm not in favor of pseudosciences or related issues; see the page on Big Mind Process to which I've referred before, or Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Shishy told "she was expected to have sex with Satyananda". I guess Jayaguru-Shishya knows that too, so he wouldn't have asked me to comment expecting a pre-given stance pro or contra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Nature

The Nature Publishing Group states "Thank you for your query. As this article is an editorial it can be attributed to Nature, it is unsigned as it was written by an editor so it represents the voice of the journal." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support current wording per Nature, although a more recent editorial on the subject is better. -A1candidate (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This reply clarifies that we can safely append a "Nature says that..." to any content from that editorial. Unfortunately it does nothing to solve the question whether Nature thinks that TCM is pseudoscience or not. Diego (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Thank for your contribution, Doc James. At least one thing has been made clear now, and we can use that information in the future as well. I have to concur with Diego Moya though, the source still doesn't provide an answer to the pseudoscience issue. Remember, the topic that this RfC deals with is whether the nature source says that TCM is pseudoscience or not. As far as I can see, it lists that as one of the possibilities, whereas discussing the both sides of the controversy. Anyway, I consider this as progress. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact the article does not say TCM is pseudoscience, it says "TCM has been described as mainly pseudoscience" - which is well sourced to the Nature article. Alexbrn 20:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn. When taking the full paragraph into account, the article says:

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. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not cite just a paragraph, we cite the entire article - which contains Nature's view that TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience" (as has been said many times now). Alexbrn 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then our article should say that, according to Nature, "TCM has been described as fraught with pseudoscience", not as "mainly pseudoscience". I've refined the paragraphs in the lead and body with some bold edits, feel free to further improve them. Diego (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a risk of plagiarism copying a distinctive word like "fraught"? Also, I'd have thought this could simply be asserted since there's no doubt it's Nature's view, and there's no serious dispute in good sources. Alexbrn 15:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not if it's in quotes and attributed. Fair use applies, and since it's controversial (at least among some editors) it's best to quote exactly. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It was neither attributed nor quoted when I made that comment, but things are changing fast around here ... Alexbrn 08:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The source says "it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." The source also says "But it seems problematic to apply a brand new technique, largely untested in the clinic, to test the veracity of traditional Chinese medicine, when the field is so fraught with pseudoscience." QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

When the source says "the field is so fraught with pseudoscience" it is referring to traditional therapies, not just TCM. TCM isn't a field, after all, it is too narrow in focus to be a field. Read the source. I do support attributing the source and putting it in full context in the fashion we have now (in the body) but we need to be careful of using the term "fraught with pseudoscience" because they're not describing TCM here, but rather traditional therapies in general. LesVegas (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

??? In the context of TCM, the traditional therapies in China ARE TCM. The Nature article is about TCM, and the mention of traditional therapies is an obvious referral to TCM's traditional therapies. There is nothing in the article that indicates otherwise.

For completeness, the last paragraph does include international traditional therapies in the same breath as TCM, with "the field is so fraught with pseudoscience" covering them all, and with no exclusion of TCM from "the field". -- Brangifer (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A mocking style editorial without any author signed? surely a reliable source. 219.87.224.202 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Result

User:Rjanag articulated a major issue as follows: "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 see this as correct, when the full context of the quote is supplied. Nature states that (1) TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience," (2) scientific studies are having great difficulty deriving new cures from TCM and (3) the most obvious reason for this is that it's not evidence based. It does not declare that every last field of TCM is necessarily pseudoscience (this would be an absurdly broad and, in the end, unscientific approach). I did not see any objection to this careful dissection of the quote. On the contrary, I saw many requests for proper context and phrasing to be supplied.

Accordingly, the following wording should not be employed: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies.". It was not Nature's intent to make a blanket characterization of TCM in this way.

However, the following wording is both valuable and applicable to the source: According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". This was suggested by several editors and is an accurate direct quote, which was requested by most editors. Shii (tock) 04:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Brain excitability in stroke: the yin and yang of stroke progression.

There is a yin and yang to brain excitability (Figure 2): complementary opposites interact within a unified whole of stroke progression. A key element to translating this concept to human neural repair therapies is to determine the inflection point for acute to chronic roles, from yin to yang, in brain excitability effects

Carmichael, S. Thomas (1 February 2012). "Brain Excitability in Stroke". JAMA Neurology. 69 (2): 161. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.1175.

-A1candidate (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's exciting ... isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:47, 11 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