Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 3

message: It is not about religion nor is it about western science.  If you are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to tell the difference, please take your much-needed editing skills to aticles that need your help.  There are many.  Vandalising this article is not helping much.  heidimo  03:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is about traditional Chinese medicine

message: Thank you, Heidimo! Nice work you were doing there! (just linked to your parts from Wiki) - irismeister 17:42, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
:Thanks so much for the feedback!  heidimo  02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Heidimo, we should perhaps do something in concert about vandals mixing their own POV under a spurious NPOV aegis and massacrating perfectly legitimate, deep and caring research, as you did in Chinese Medicine.
Perhaps we should complain and reverse to your version systematically when people step in and start quibbling about "religious" matterns in a system that works continuously for what - six thousand years, twelve thousand years... 
During that period we had shamanism and animism, Bon and Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and who knows what else. And yet Chinese Medicine works as good as ever.
If Dr Kim Bong Han was stupid enough to describe collagen "bodies" under some points and Swift's scientists were busy eating poems written on bread, it does not mean that Chinese Medicine has to yield some evidence for our poor minds. It means that we, in Western Medicin,e are not subtle enough to understand the marvelous human being.
As we started cutting the hair in four like we did, my feeling is that conventional medicine will never integrate Chinese Medicine, which is simply too much for everybody in the West to understand fully. Considering all this, you did a very subtle and great article by any standard. Thank YOU for doing it so fine, knowledgeable and profound. - Yours, - irismeister 21:08, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
----
Irismeister, thanks for your insightful comments on the topics at hand (tcm and vandalism).  I'm sure the vandals will be back, since tcm is such an irresistable target.  I appreciate your vigilance in these matters.  Seems arrogant to me that a few scientists seem to feel that tcm owes them a scientific explanation as to why, how, and if something works after thousands of years of success, but that is only my opinion.  heidimo  02:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Chinese Medicine article ! 

message: Do you realize that you created a new section that already exists, resulting in two sections with the same name? Please read the article before you edit it. Cheers, Jiang 02:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: RK, within a few minutes of his edit of TCM tried the same tactic on Alternative medicine.  I of course, reverted his edit.  It was about the 2nd or 3rd revert I did on RK this month.  Once you realize that RK is just full of hot air, his tactics of intimation vaporize.  I think I will check out the other articles just now vandalized by RK. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: RK's vandalism of TCM has been reported.  Please report his vandalism of other articles as well.  Thanks!  heidimo  15:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: To whom and what link should RK's vandalism be reported to? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here.  heidimo  16:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles.  Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK.  Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text:  Excuse me, but I know vandalism when I see it.  And, I would classify what RK did as vandalism. Editors like RK should be banned. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not want to have to defend everything RK has ever done, as I am not famaliar with that entire body of work.  But the fact remains that what RK and heidimo are scraping about (and what heidimo reported as vandalism), is NOT vandalism. If you are now putting your opinion in on that specific issue, you need to read the vandalism page introduction. If you have another example that I might agree with you on, then send me to it - Marshman 03:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my previous statements.  Non-"isolated instances of text deletions and replacements intentionally ... offensive .... systematic attack on several articles" (namely both alternative medicine and TCM within about one hour of each other and 3 attacks in 2004 alone in alternative medicine constitutes vandalism by the rules. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: SEE ABOVE. You are incorrect. (Fire Star thoughtfully responds): Thanks, I love you, too. Reporting behaviour that we may feel disruptive (trashing an entire subject is well meaning? There must be a better way to present a criticism) to an arbitrator or moderator is the accepted procedure at Wikipedia, I thought. Then a determination can be made as to whether what is happening actually IS vandalism. That is why I said reporting his edits is the way to go. I myself haven't been in an editing war with the guy, others here are dealing with him. This rant is just my two cents off article about scientific fundamentalists.
Chinese medicine is a huge, multifaceted subject with many side disciplines. The version of Chinese medicine that I am studying personally also involves the body mechanics of the Chinese martial arts (and their concomitant therapeutic effects) which is something medieval European medicine never approached. Basically, I can prove empirically that my "magical thinking" metaphors accurately describe a demonstrable technique because I am quite capable of knocking skeptics on their butts, or breaking their limbs, or paralysing their breathing, etc., with very little effort on my part and there isn't much short of firing a gun they can do to stop me! So, when they can actually do what I can do, physically, and demonstrate it to me, then I will accept their criticisms of what I do as valid. I don't say that to be pugnacious, rather I say it to point out that there are many ways (some of them painful, LOL) to demonstrate the depth of practical knowledge preserved by many traditional cultures that go beyond the limited semantic playing field some Westerners try to establish for what they insist is "reality" (as if they are the only people in the world who have a right to an opinion) because they have the scientifically approved jargonistically elaborate "magic spells" to describe things. This dismissive (at best) or coercive (at worst) attitude that many of these guys adopt smacks of the cultlike political behaviour associated with the religions they like to criticise. One begins to wonder if there is such a large functional difference between Carl Sagan's and the Amazing Randi's version of "science" and the medieval religions they would lump all us "magical thinkers" (sic) whom they feel the need to demonize, into. One gets the impression these types would dearly love to simply tell the people who work to preserve traditional Chinese culture to stop being so ethnic and start conforming to their technologically pure plan for the world. And we all know how healthy the polluting side effects of Western technology are, don't we? 
Rant over...
Cheers, Fire Star 20:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  RK's edits 

message: RK - one problem I'm having with some of your additions is the use of terms such as "energies" and "forces" to describe Qi and Yin & Yang.  This confuses the issue, because I think the article elsewhere avoids these characterizations (even though most New Agers do not).  Also, although I know what you are saying by describing TCM as a religious belief, I am not so sure that term is helpful. If the concepts of Qi and other elements come from religious beliefs and practices in ancient China, then that fact must be reported. But the fact that some, many, or all modern proponents of TCM now hold on to beliefs that are religious-like (i.e., beliefs, not subject to standard methods of proof) needs to be stated in a different way, because painting TCM with a "religious" label (in my atheistic mind) is too broadbrush and borders on inflammatory POV. By the same token, I do see your point about "Special Pleading" above and the relationship to religious claims - Marshman 17:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of terms like Energy, Force, and Religion 

message: This article is a bit difficult to read. I'm not Chinese, so I can't read the labels on the jars in their medicine shops. Though I see things like dead animals in jars. What is that for? The American Cancer Society report on Chinese Meds did a better job because it stuck to the focus of a few herbs that are well known: ginger, soy, ect ect. If you are going to include something like a Dried Snake and Turtle picture, why not explain what that is for? Is a gecko the Chinese chicken soup for the cold?
My advice for this article is to start with the known herbs that have been studied. Keep out the things like dried snakes and turtles until it gets studied...
When I walk into a Chinese medicine shop it's a mystery, and when I leave it's still a mystery. This article feels much the same way. Fadedroots (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify for Non Chinese 

message: As part of the wikiproject on alternative medicine, sections are being removed from this article on topics with their own article.  Removed sections are being placed in the talk page of the respective articles, for merging purposes.  Please help with the merging, if you are so inclined.  heidimo  15:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinning the page 

message: My preliminary review of the TCM is very favorable. Again, the primary problem seems to be coming from the science people.
I am referring of course to the TCM and Science and Does it work? sections.  These sections seems to be trying to duplicate the articles on the scientific method.  My suggestion would be to simply add a hyperlink.
Does it work? As a reader, reading TCM for the first time, my response would be:  What is it?  And, what is it in reference to?  Any reader, remotely familiar with science, would discount these sections as being totally mickey mouse.  You cannot test for it, unless you have first defined what it is.  And, then your conclusions about it would only be valid for a limited set of specific conditions which would probably mean specific medical conditions.  Since, it is obviously referring to 100's of different things and since there are literally 1,000's of diseases the whole premise of this section is so fundamentally flawed that a sixth grader wouldn't believe it. -- John Gohde 20:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminary review of TCM 

message: Hi, I noticed that 中医学 has a separate page from 中药学 on the Chinese Wikipedia; the Chinese one seems to indicate that the former is more general, while the latter refers to an almost scientific study of the foundations of Chinese medicine.  It seems a bit strange that we just list both as definitions without further comment.  Also, it is strange that one is in traditional characters while one is simplified - does English Wikipedia have a standard for included Chinese?  Also, I added and corrected the pinyin for both and verified it on pin1yin1.com; hopefully I did it right. Capybara 07:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: zh.wikipedia is a separate entity from en.wikipedia, so you should ask the users there. As far as I know, they used to be divided into two camps, although software translation between Simplified and Traditional Chinese has resulted in the two merging. --Euniana/Talk 19:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  &#20013;&#21307;&#23398; vs &#20013;&#33647;&#23398; 

message: There were many redundant statements as well as biases favouring one school or another that I have edited out. I tried (albeit imperfectly) to keep all pertinent information while taking out New Age and any other species of POV doublespeak I could. I apologise for stepping on anyone's toes, but TCM is such a huge subject that I believe that this central article should give mostly just a very general overview, pro and con, while specifics can go on their respective articles. Fire Star 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More page thinning 

message: By system: TCM, 5 elements, Korean hand, French Auricular, Japaneses, I Ching, others.
By History: Each step of the evolution of this medicine has been influenced by wars, emperors and famines.
By modality: acupuncture (each system puts the same points in different locations), tai qi, qi gung, moxabustion, tui na, acupressure, bleeding, purging, surgical (started about 1500 in China), sweating, cupping, gua sha, herbs and food, electrical, others
By system of diagnosis: yin yang, 5 element, 8 principles, zang fu, meridian, 6 divisions or 6 stages or 6 levels from the inner classic of the yellow emperor approximately 100 AD, 4 stages from discussion of warm diseases about 1667-1746. The 3 levels or 3  jiaos mostly from a systematic identification of febrile diseases 1758-1836. Modern diagnosis: this is not formal but in China diagnosis of acupuncture is being very heavily influenced by western diagnostic thought. 
By book: Chinese Medicine has a very rich history of books. Many of these books are still used today in modern practices.
By school of thought often centered around a person and his great book or books. The Kidney school, The Spleen school, The 5 element school, the yin yang school, etc.
--Magic.crow 23:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ways to organize this subject of oriental medicine 

message: Removed "The general distinction made by Chinese in China is that Western medicine
involves cutting or acute care while Chinese medicine involves manipulation or chronic care. Hence
medical procedures such as bone setting or chiropractic spinal manipulation
would be seen as Chinese, while surgery tends to be seen as Western." and added more detail to same paragraph to more accurately represent my observations of Chinese medicine hospitals whilst in China in 2005. Piekarnia 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that Wikipedia articles are not to report on or depend on personal research. They are to be backed up by material provided with citations to published, and preferably peer-reviewed, research. P0M 23:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now rectified (hopefully up to standard)Piekarnia 12:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes based on personal experience 

message: Why would the reader assume that TCM would be scientific?  Does every article on Wikipedia about a nonscientific topic need to have "though unscientific" inserted in its lead section?  I think a better way to address this would be as in acupuncture article. -Jim Butler 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Well, looks like there isn't the consensus there that I thought there was, but we'll get there.)Jim Butler 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: This user's only two contributions to wikipedia consist in placing this link California State Oriental Medical Association to a website in progress on  the TCM page and acupuncture page. I'd rather see it removed at this stage, at least until their website is fixed. Mccready 06:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on the acu discussion page, CSOMA is actually legit, so I think it should stay.  It would be good, imo, if someone organized the links section as I did with acupuncture.  Will try to get to that.  thx,Jim Butler 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: I've taken the liberty to delete the macro section. If anyone objects we can put it back in when the problems are ironed out. My reasons are that it:
#makes untrue generalisations about TCM (eg artimisinine doesn't fit this description)
#makes unsourced comments on other forms of medicine
#makes POV comments about "natural"
#is unsourced 
#poorly written
This seems like a drastic step but it would take so much work to improve it, I've decided on this route. Please feel free to object. 
Mccready 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't hear me objecting.  Agree, it was a mess, and whatever was of value in that section should be rewritten from the ground up.  I would if I had the time.  Anyway, good call. Jim Butler 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I STRONGLY object. Deleting the whole section IS a DRASTIC step. In that sense, many articles in wikipedia should also be deleted totally. The spirit of Wiki is not deleting when you see something not good, but incrementally improving it if you can! Therefore I put it back. Please be polite to contributions from others: improve it or leave it alone. For the case of artimisinine , I already put most diseases at the very first sentence. NO generalisations can cover ALL cases. --Leo 00:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a liberty 

message: Hi Leo, Jim and I, from almost polar opposite ends of the spectrum on attitudes to TCM, both agree that this should be deleted temporarily. If you wish please feel free to improve it before replacing. I'm happy to give some further input into why it's not acceptable in its present form. Please understand that we would welcome the section back but it needs to be rewritten first. WP policy is that if material is deleted because it is unsourced then it stays deleted until sources are provided. I look forward to some cooperative editing on this piece. cheers, Kevin Mccready 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think deleting is a drastic step, however also think that the macro section needs considerable improvement. Perhaps the section should remain until someone has agreed to rewrite it. Sjschen 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's a drastic step, but one that is supported by wikipedia policy. The material isn't lost. Anyone can retrieve it from the history and work on it. I wouldn't be happy reinserting substandard material. Mccready 08:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since this section was put back into the article, I rewrote it to be more NPOV, and merged some parts with other sections.  I don't know if it's a particularly accurate description of TCM, but I don't really have any expertise on the matter. -- Beland 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Thanks a lot. You grabbed the essence of what I wrote!! --Leo 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or improve 

message: The claim that "There are thousands of years of empirical knowledge [neutrality disputed] about TCM conceptualized and recorded in terms appropriate to that system" implies that all claims advanced by TCM are true.  This is disputed in some cases.  A NPOV replacement could be to differentiate between claimes which are generally accepted as true, versus those that are still being evaluated. -- Beland 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical knowledge 

message: I am unable to reconcile TCM model of the body with the contents of this article.  That article proceeds as if there is one, universally accepted model, but this article seems to indicate that there are multiple theoretical systems.  It would be nice if this article contained examples of diagnoses, and that article explained the various theoretical systems. -- Beland 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCM model of the body 

message: "Uses" section:
* "It has also been used to treat antibiotic-resistant infection."  This implies "successfully", but that is a very strong claim, which should be referenced, if true.
"TCM theory" section:
* What is meant by "Received TCM"?
:"Received TCM" refers to the body of Chinese medical practice, both as an oral tradition and as represented in various medical texts, prior to the system's codification by the Chinese government in the 1950s.  However, there's no reason to use that term in this context, and the sentence should probably be clarified.
Soft helion 23:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an interesting article.  It's also one part of a rather large discussion involving a dozen or more pairs of terms. Shen is the stuff that evolves from jing and means "spirit", but only in the sense used in, e.g., "My, you're in good spirits today." (By "evolves" I mean to "come out of" a liquid or solid the way some gas evolves from a mixture of chemicals heated in a test tube.) In one of the commenataries to the Dao De Jing it says: "If your shen does not roam about, your semen will not ejaculate." (Shen bu you, jing bu xie.)  There are also "spirits" that are more like our idea of souls, the hun and the po, which also form a pair, one being the earthy spirit that sinks to the Yellow Springs at death, and the other being the heavenly spirit that rises up to the sky at death. Writers speak with great confidence about these entities in limited contexts, but there doesn't seem to be a "grand theory of everything" that draws them together in a clear relationship.  To ask for such an account might be like asking a pre-modern person to explain how the conscience relates to the five humours. P0M 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the original writer had in mind.  Although they got their time periods in an arbitrary way that, to me, seem unlikely to have any real validity, it may be that some doctors thought that which treatment or which dosage might be appropriate could depend on the positions of the planets in relationship to each other.  In my view that would be an overgeneralization from a valid observation that western medicine is only recently taking into account -- circadian rhythms.  The appropriate dosage of a drug can vary according to the hour of the day. Knowing that could be important in cases when there are big penalties for not getting the dose right since the dose that would just barely get the job done at 10 a.m. might be enough to make somebody sick at 10 p.m. (That's probably too dramatic, but you get the idea.)  Anyway, that's just an idea of what kinds of connections to look for. P0M 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here I think the problem is just that the writer has not been clear. I think I remember hearing just recently that evidence of set bones and healed fractures had been found in prehistoric sites.  The question is how one is to protect the bone after it is set. We most often use plaster of paris. The cast is not only heavy, but usually (always?) makes the patient's skin under the cast become very itchy.  The traditional Chinese practice, as it was explained to me back in the 60s, is to put some kind of traditional ointment on the skin surrounding the break, then wrap the area with lengths of cloth tape (rather like the tapes that bosers use to wrap their hands and wrists before the gloves go on, I should think), and finally some kind of splint material is taped on the outside (most likely split bamboo or wood).  The patient sees the doctor occssionally while waiting for the bone to set. The doctor will unwrap everything, check the alignment, etc., put on a new covering of ointment, and zip everything up again.  On the other hand, the original writer may have had something entirely different in mind. P0M 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for clarification 

message: Hi Belend, Looks like generally a good approach. A couple of points. 1. The capitalisation of western in the victorian govt quote shouldn't have happened - if it's a quote then it needs to be exactly what they wrote. They used lower case so the quote should be in lowercase. If you really feel the need to do so you can put in a (sic), but I don't think this needs it. 2. You are also asking questions about stuff which Jim and I agreed should be deleted and properly sourced before being replaced. Some stuff has been replaced which is not properly sourced. I'd prefer it be taken out unless it can be sourced. It appears to be rather florid OR to begin with. Keep up the good work. I liked Pearle but my computer science friends wouldn't be happy to call it AI :-) Mccready 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do as you see fit.  On other controversial Chinese cultural articles, we have had problems with people adding and removing large chunks of text of disputed veracity and neutrality.  Since that has already started happening here, I would recommend justifying any removals on a point-by-point basis, so that people intending to revert the change will have food for thought, and will have something specific to reply to if they feel the removal was unjustified. For people not familiar with the subject (like me), it is unclear which portions are unreferenced but generally accepted as true, and which are unreferenced and shaky.  Putting clear citations to referenced sources from the portions of the article which are well supported would help with that. But personally I have no objections to removing anything you think is wrong or which qualifies as original research.  -- Beland 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beland's work 

message: I edit lots of stuff which deserves the label pseudoscience, perhaps not the case here, and want to alert you to my editing principles lest I be accused of too rapidly reverting. Have a look at my userpage and please make comments if you wish. Happy editing. Mccready 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to editors - monthly statement 

message: I guess my writing has some problems. So, I put a copy here in case somebody will delete it. Please refine it if you are interested in this piece of information. The key words here are: online web sites providing FREE herb prescriptions, having some positive results already. Unfortunatedly, all of them are in Chinese so far. 
With the popularity of Internet, increasing number of TCM doctors are seeking new approaches to diagnose and treat diseases using remote, non-contact methods, mostly by filling online symptom questionaires and uploading the photos of tongues. Some TCM advocates even established web sites like Folks TCM to provide free herb prescriptions to patients having Internet access. Doctors and patients can actively exchange information about symptoms, prescriptions and feedbacks via Bulletin Board System there. While limited by remote diagnosis methods, some positive cases (including cancer, diabetes,leukaemia etc) have been reported on these websites.
--Leo 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the section "TCM and the Internet" as it violates wikipedia's spam policy.  As I mention below, if you believe that the existence of these websites represents an event of historical significance, you need to provide a link to a reputable source.Soft helion 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCM and Internet 

message: The following article provides the needed information on sea horses and thier shrinking populations due to TCM. I do not know why people insist on reverting this, as 'citation needed' means 'go find an article relevant' which I have done.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/seahorse/vincent.html --168.56.111.83 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seahorse reference 

message: Shouldn't this article describe "heat," "cold," "dampness," etc., as they relate to TCM?  This seems a serious omission.  Badagnani 02:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heat" 

message: I know this is unrelated to the article, but does anyone know anything about her? She is mentioned several times as a prominant example of the effectiveness of TCM, but I cannot find much information about her, aside from that she was involved with an accident, and she was alledgedly curred by TCM 128.250.87.22 08:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled her name in Chinese. I did not find too much help from TCM for her as far as I know. --Leo 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liu hairuo" 

message: During the early 1900's, CCM developed the notion of germ theory: either oral- or food-borne pathogens. Concurrently, the West was also developing the same notion with the invention of the microscope, which provided proof of germs (bacteria) existing in food or in body fluids (mucus from a sneeze, for example). The West came to China along with the microscope in the 1930's, proving both theories valid.
Errr, "the West came to China in the 1930s"?!?! I can't even begin to express how dissapointed I am that this piece of misinformation has lasted through even one edit check. Anyone with a 6th grade education should have been suspicious. China had trade, both intellectual and commercial, long before the 1900s. And the germ-theory of disease was not developed in the 1900s, it was almost universally established and applied in the 1800s and was actually being developed in the 1700s (and was talked about long before that). 
I'm not saying anything about whether or not CCM developed germ-theory independently. But this whole paragraph is of suspect veracity due to the glaring innacuracies that surround that contention. I'm deleting it. If you put the parts that might be true, such as the independent development of germ-theory, then put it back with a cite. But please keep the "the West came to China in the 1930s" bit out--its downright silly. Brentt 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West came to China in the 1930s!?!? 

message: Someone more familar with this field than I should carefully go over the new content added by Spiritprimer. S/he appears to have "signed" the new stuff with the URL of a commercial site. I'm tempted to revert the whole thing, but there may be something of value in it.
While looking at the most recent edits I also noticed that the English grammar in the article is poor. P0M 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough to evaluate them, but I've tagged the additions with citation tags to assist other more knowledgable editors to find them. A Ramachandran 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiritprimer's contributions are spam.  The paragraph added to the end of the "Branches" section is non sequitur.  The only support offered for the assertion that the Jingfang school is experiencing a comeback is the existence of the two websites that Spiritprimer is promoting.  If those websites represent a phenomenon of historical importance, then this claim should be backed up by an outside source, not a link to the websites themselves.  Moreover, the websites are in Chinese and are of no use to readers of the English wikipedia.Soft helion 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent multiple edits by one new congtributor 

message: The recent additions to this article all seem to be advancing the agendas of individuals, and seem to have been added by people who did not read the entire article.  If the information in these newer edits is to be retained, the sections themselves ("TCM and the Internet," "Branches," etc.) need to be merged into the history section.  More importantly, the numerous unsourced statements added to this article seem to support minority positions.
The section about "CCM" and TCM needs to be reconciled with the rest of the article.  First of all, it should be established that the term CCM is in general use, and not just by this Jeffrey Yuen person.  Also, those two paragraphs should be merged with the "uses" section below, which contains many of the same pieces of information.
Soft helion 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in need of major cleanup 

message: === Lack of detail ===
If more details are added, then the entire article needs to first be simplified (or hyperlinks should be applied). This article is disorganized and WAY TOO LONG. June 24, 2010
The article has been written by a lamer, who does actually know anything about TCM. He just draws general conclusions. The article needs detailed prescriptions and explanations of real procedures. Btw, this applies to most of the Wikipedia. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General style and structure 

message: If more details are added, then the entire article needs to first be simplified (or hyperlinks should be applied). This article is disorganized and WAY TOO LONG. June 24, 2010
The article has been written by a lamer, who does actually know anything about TCM. He just draws general conclusions. The article needs detailed prescriptions and explanations of real procedures. Btw, this applies to most of the Wikipedia. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of detail 

message: HuangDiNeiJing source-work for early Chinese medicine exists as textus receptus only from the 11th Century, C.E. Mythic tradition dates it to 26 or so centuries B.C.E. Consensus among scientific historians, East and West, is that it was collected from preexistant fragments in 1st Century B.C.E., or later. Tomb finds from the 3rd to 2nd Centuries B.C.E. reveal only fragmentary similarities. The historical evidence doesn't support the now popular claim that the book was substantially from the Warring States period. Source: Paul Unschuld's books, esp. the recent volume on the SuWen.
Signed Cjmacie 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Documentation 

message: I've found a page in relation to the use of seahorses in TCM. Perhaps someone would be able to sum up the information on this page, ? I am unsure in whether some information about the effects of the seahorse in TCM is valid in this article or another listing all the various ingredients should be created. Thank, Aeryck89 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seahorses and their effect 

message: isn't it a good idea to mention the training TCM doctors and the procedure of obtaining licenses in certain countries, e.g. Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan? Avis12 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  licensing bodies 

message: Cleaned up this section for readability and content.  Fixed the link/quote from the 1997 NIH consensus, clarified conclusions of Cochrane/Bandolier reviews.  Tried to edit for a more 'neutral' tone.Splendide 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of efficacy 

message: Removed text:
The basic mechanism of TCM is akin to treating the body as a black box, recording and classifying changes and observations of the patient using a traditional philosophy.  In contrast to many alternative and complementary medicines such as homeopathy, practically all techniques of TCM have explanations for why they may be more effective than a placebo, which Western medicine can find plausible.  Most doctors of Western medicine would not find implausible claims that qigong preserves health by encouraging relaxation and movement, that acupuncture relieves pain by stimulating the production of neurotransmitters, or that Chinese herbal medicines may contain powerful biochemical agents.  However, the largest barriers to describing the mechanisms of TCM in scientific terms are the difference of language and lack of research. TCM concepts such as qi and yin and yang are used to describe specific biological processes but are difficult to translate into scientific terms. Some research is now beginning to emerge explaining possible scientific mechanisms behind these TCM concepts.
This is a personal opinion piece.  Phrases like 'which Western medicine can find plausible', and 'Most doctors... would not find implausible' are unsubstantiated (and questionable) assertions.  And the passage 'However, the largest barriers to describing the mechanisms of TCM in scientific terms are the difference of language and lack of research. TCM concepts such as qi and yin and yang are used to describe specific biological processes but are difficult to translate into scientific terms.  Some research is now beginning to emerge explaining possible scientific mechanisms behind these TCM concepts' begs questions of scientific evidence and efficacy of TCM practices.   This doesn't really belong under the 'Scientific view' heading; perhaps parts of it can be integrated elsewhere in the article.Splendide 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of 'Mechanism of action' 

message: Merged relevant content in to other sections, removed redundant content, and performed general article editing for readability.  Criticisms of Western medicine belong under "Scientific view" or "Relationship with Western Medicine".  This article has a long way to go; there are still too many unreferenced assertions, and a lot of redundant content.Splendide 18:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging of "Uses" and "Macro approach to disease" content 

message: I have no problem with having an Opposition section.  What I find misleading is this claim: 
"Starting from late 19th century, politicians and Chinese scholars with background in Western medicine have been trying to phase out TCM totally in China. Some of the prominent advocates of the elimination of TCM include:..."
The section goes on to list POLITICIANS/WRITERS and SOCIAL THEORISTS.  Who in their own respective biographies list hardly any experience in Western medicine.  While the quote does mention that these are politicians and scholars.  
I find the entire section misleading (as it is already unsourced) and irrelevant.  I propose Refocusing it toward either Western medical experts or known Chinese doctors (Western medicine) voicing opposition would be more effective.  I find it disturbing on why we should care that a politician with hardly any background in either Traditional Chinese Medicine (or Western Medicine for that matter) voices an opinion against Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Selfexiled 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Thank you. Jim Butler(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: It says that TCM developed "over several hundred thousand years". Someone having a laugh? Otherwise the timeline further on is severly lacking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.190.147 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it does, removed hundred. If you've got some good sources, feel free to improve timeline. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Intro 

message: It would be nice if someone could make a clera distinction between TCM and CCM in this article.
I dont know why your guys so emphasize at these two words, actual, as a pharmacy worker, i dont know the different of it. and i couldn't find any clear different in your word.
maybe you think Mao Zedong hate Classic Chinese Medicine? why? even medical could be a political tool to anti Mao Zedong? you think Mao is a idiot?
Yes, recent years(after Mao), someone try to reform TCM to based on modern science, but they failed, now, researcher acknowledged, TCM is TCM, it couldn't base on western medical theory. this is not a political movement, it's just a matter of scinece and philosophy. 
In TCM school, ancient medical book is still a important part of study, many researchers write report based on ancient medical book. No one try to forbidden ancient Chinese medical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.95.5.81 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic Chinese medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine 

message: This article is missing a critical peice of the theory. Not only does TCm differ in how it describes the body, it differs in how it defines the nature of disease. User:Badagnani has been complaining about this for years apprently, and they've got a point. Someone needs to step up and write a blurb about what it means when TCM adherents talk about "cold," "heat," "wind," "damp," etc. This information is important as hell to this topic and should be made a priority by the folks that regularly contribute to this article. --Shaggorama (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathology 

message: It may involve pseudoscientific claims by modern day quacks, but the topic as  a whole isn't any more "pseudoscience" than Aristotelism or Alchemy: it's a historical tradition, or perhaps protoscience. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Some editors are unfamiliar with WP:PSCI, which says when we should and shouldn't use that category.  (I removed it.) --Jim Butler (t) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Added a rewrite tag to this section. The section reads like it came out of a translator bot. I read it 5 times now and still don't get what it is saying. Content may be ok (I can't tell) but it needs to be aligned with 21st century English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.234.0.2 (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern TCM History rewrite 

message: This is English Wikipedia. As such, any topics discussed here should be understandable by the average English-speaking reader who is not familiar with the topic. Well, the section I commented out is absolutely NOT understandable to an average (or above-average!) English-speaker unfamiliar with the concepts of TCM. (What is a newcomer to TCM to make of "*Li Dexin: The Qi was material and the function unification Lysenkoism" ??? I could substitute "Shannon Hoon: The eggplant and the overarching bucket of marble drumsticks mozzarella" and it would make precisely as much sense to the uninitiated.) What is needed here is admittedly going to be difficult to find: an editor fluent in English and Chinese, who also has the requisite knowledge to summarize and explain these concepts of TCM in a brief, comprehensible manner. Til that particular superhero arrives, however, this section is going to stay commmented out, for the good of the article. Thank you. Gladys J Cortez 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On my reasons for commenting out section 10/31/08 

message: There is something a little bit "off" with the in-line citations -- not merely a matter of format regularity, but also something askew in the relationship between the text and its presumptive support material. In the process of tweaking in-line citations, my primary goal was to create external links to to an on-line version of the source; and at best, I hoped to identify a link to the pages being referenced.  At the same time, I was checking in a superficial manner to see how the gist of article text and the reference sources might -- or might not -- match, e.g., in the "Ancient (classical) TCM history" section
: In his Bencao Tujing ('Illustrated Pharmacopoeia'), the scholar-official Su Song (1020–1101) not only systematically categorized herbs and minerals according to their pharmaceutical uses, but he also took an interest in zoology.Wu Jing-nuan, An Illustrated Chinese Materia Medica. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 5.Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China: Volume 3, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth (Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd., 1986) pp. 648–649.Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China: Volume 6, Biology and Biological Technology, Part 1, Botany. (Taipei: Caves Books Ltd., 1986), pp. 174–175.Schafer, Edward H. "Orpiment and Realgar in Chinese Technology and Tradition," Journal of the American Oriental Society (Volume 75, Number 2, 1955): 73–89.
:::Tentative revised citations:
::* Wu Jing-nuan. (2005). An Illustrated Chinese Materia Medica, p. 5.
::* Needham, Joseph. (1959).  Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth (Science and Civilization in China, Vol. III), pp. 645, 648-649.
::* Needham, Joseph, ed.  (1989). Botany (Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 6, Biology and Biological Technology, Part 1) Botany ... in a version identified as being published in Taipei by Caves Books Ltd. three years before Cambridge edition was first published -- in 1986 at pp. 174-175?
::* Schafer, Edward H. "Orpiment and Realgar in Chinese Technology and Tradition," Journal of the American Oriental Society (Volume 75, Number 2, 1955): 73–89.
:The system's development has, over its history, been analysed both skeptically and extensively, and the practice and development of it has waxed and waned over the centuries and cultures through which it has travelledNeedham, Joseph; Lu Gwei-Djen (1980). Celestial Lancets. Cambridge University Press, pp.69-170, 262-302. . - yet the system has still survived thus far.  
:::Tentative revised citations:
::* Needham, Joseph et al. (2002)  Celestial Lancets, pp.69-170, 262-302.
:It is true that the focus from the beginning has been on pragmatism, not necessarily understanding of the mechanisms of the actions - and that this has hindered its modern acceptance in the West.  This, despite that there were times such as the early 18th century when "acupuncture and moxa were a matter of course in polite European society"Needham et al[1980], p. 296
:::Tentative revised citations:
::* Needham,  Celestial Lancets, p. 296.
These small changes in the citations might be helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations 

message: At some point, I found this page very helpful for finding TCM schools around the US. Now I find this list is gone. Does anyone mind if I recreate it? Or, better yet, add an external link to a source that already has this? thanks Admiralblur (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for others, but I think it would be much better to insert a link than to add this kind of content to the wiki. Reason: this should be an encyclopedic article, not a place where TCM advocates and practitioners come to find insider's information. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to relevant english language schools for TCM 

message: Hi everyone. I just added tags requesting a clean-up and improved copyediting. Why the article needs editing:
*It is full of well-meaning but still POV language from advocates of TCM, mixed with equally POV critiques of TCM from the point of view of "Classical Chinese medicine."
*The structure is egregious: for example, the sections called Medicine overview and Treatment have the same content with different words; same problem with TCM basic theory and Model of the body. These sections should not be allowed to develop in parallel.
*The language is a mix of English and something else I can’t understand.
*Many links in the "Timeline" and most links in "Modern TCM basic theory" don't exist.
*The historical roots of TCM are either poorly explained, or simply asserted on the basis of some editors’ imagination. We have statements like "Mao Zedong's Chinese Communist Party toppled the Qing Dynatsy Imperial rule" (which I erased yesterday) and "Since 1200 BC, Chinese academics of various schools have focused on the observable natural laws of the universe." Etc. There are actually excellent scholarly books on Chinese medical history. Among many others, I strongly recommend Chinese Medicine in Contemporary China - Plurality and Synthesis, by Volker Scheid, a TCM practitioner who turned anthropologist and historian. It's based on both fieldwork and textual studies, and it explains the emergence of modern "TCM" very well.
*Whatever sounds more balanced and encyclopedic is almost completely unreferenced. A rare exception is the beginning of the section called Scientific view.
I will start working on the article myself in early December, but I will keep an eye on it until then. Cheers, --Madalibi (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clean-up and copy-editing 

message: I only recently took a look, but this article is a mess. It needs to be completely rewritten by an actual TCM Doctor or medical historian. Some suggestions:
* Main article detailing known history, basic theory, and modern practice in China and the rest of the world.
* Other articles describing various theories and concepts in more detail (5 Elements, Zangfu, The 5 Pathogens and 6 Environmental Factors, 6 Channel Theory, etc.), including links to the articles on Acupuncture, Tui Na, Moxibustion, Cupping, etc.
* Measures against opinionated vandals.
Pbfpfoss (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Over 

message: In the section about TCM's relationship with western medicin the term western should be changed to something more appropriate or left out altogether because: 
:1.there is only one medicine which is a holistic science of healing the people with different subcategories (among which CTM would not fall). 
:2. it implies that chinese traditional medicine is also medicine or a subcategory of it which it isn't because it falls more in to the category of pseudoscience. Though may or may not be efficient and even share some aspects and views on the human body with real medicine.
:3. it would imply that it is something that belongs to the west which it doesn't since no one can claim a science for himself
:4. it simply does not show properly what we are talking about (is it medicine as practiced in the west? to my knowledge it is practiced just the same everywhere)
Therefore it should be replaced by something like conventional medicine, scientific or evidence-based medicine (as opposed to chinese traditional). Rokpok (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest removing "Western", and wikilinking the first occurrence of medicine in the section. Verbal chat 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  western medicine? 

message: Ariedartin's tag was correct, so I moved it down to the section needing attention. As pointed out above, the section title is not really appropriate. The section also seems to consist mostly of OR with a strong slant in favor of TCM. Beach drifter (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with Western Med 

message: Hello everyone,
I just posted a message on the talk page of the wiki on Classical Chinese medicine, in which I propose a simple solution to the current POV fork and content fork between so-called "TCM" (traditional Chinese medicine) and "CCM" (classical Chinese medicine). I propose the following modifications:
*Change the title of the current wiki to the simple and neutral "Chinese medicine." The advantage of this title is that it can accommodate TCM and CCM, as well as medicine as it was practiced in China before the 20th century.
*Work toward the following structure:
:#A solid historical section
:#An explanation of the modernization of Chinese medicine in 20th-century China, especially after 1950 (these are the reforms that led to the formation of what we now call TCM); mention somewhere that "TCM" is a quasi official translation of the Chinese term "Zhongyi" 中医/中醫, which means "Chinese medicine."
:#A presentation of the main tenets and practices of "TCM" (since TCM is more mainstream and has more secondary literature on it)
:#A shorter section explaining that some people working under the banner of "CCM" disagree with "TCM" approaches and claim they want to return to some more authentic precepts and practices. This section will resonate with section 1, on the history of Chinese medicine.
:#Scientific view, etc.
This simple structure (1. complex history; 2. 20th-century reforms and institutionalization; 3. current TCM precepts; 4. CCM protests) under a neutral title like "Chinese medicine" would help to present a more historically accurate picture of the development of Chinese medicine, and would get rid of the current "POV fork' and "content fork" between TCM and CCM. Any suggestions?
Madalibi (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCM vs. TCM: proposals for solving the current [[WP:content fork|content fork]] 

message: I don't think this is suitable for the article (too minor paper), but when I was reading on structure learning in Bayesian networks today, I bumped into this paper and was much amused: Statistical Validation of Traditional Chinese Medicine Theories (apparently published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine). Might be amusing (and good) reading for someone else too, so I'm mentioning it here.
This paper was written by people who certainly know their statistics, but my guess is that they aren't TCM experts (just guessing from the fact that they also published a similar paper in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series). They applied learning latent tree models to some TCM data sets and (quite cursorily) looked at whether the structure matches what TCM says. They "found that the resulting statistical model matches the relevant TCM theory well". Essentially there was some latent variable and conditional dependencies that matched with some yin-yang explanatiomajig or whatever. IMO it's an interesting (and a good) approach, but the data set is way too small, making it something of a proof of concept. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing paper 

message: ‘’Supporters of TCM say that this functional approach makes it possible to treat the entire mind and body, rather than one or the other.‘’Sounds like unnecessary POV to me. I'd rather leave this sentence out.Mallexikon (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, since no one seems to object, I'll just delete it. Mallexikon (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary sentence 

message: I'll try to streamline the text a little in order to make it more accessible. This will mean I'll have to delete some sentences (there's overabundance of irrelevant/redundant information here). Comments are welcome. Mallexikon (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makeover 

message: Streamlining the lead and history sections wasn't so hard as there are plenty of useful facts there that mainly had to be re-arranged a little. I'm moving to the ‘’theory‘’ section now and this seems much harder. At the present it contains:
* a pointless hint at the buddhist/daoist/confucianist roots of tcm
* a hint at the I Ching which also doesn't seem to say anything of substance
* a very long quote from Porkert which I can hardly understand and which seems to mainly be apologetic in nature (regarding the conflict with western science)
* an overview of Shen Nong's Herbal Classic (???)
* a short chapter about lingzhi mushrooms (???)
I recommend deleting this whole section. Please comment. Mallexikon (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory section 

message: Alright, since no one seems to object, I'll delete this section now. Mallexikon (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete theory section 

message: I went through the commented-out section regarding post-50s new developments in tcm. None of the discoveries mentioned here did have any effect on the system of tcm (to my knowledge). The only exception might be the development of ear acupuncture by Nogier. Then again, ear acupuncture doesn't have anything to do with meridians, qi etc. but is based solely on the theory of reflex zones. I know a lot of chinese acupuncturist do use ear acupuncture, but since the whole theory is not anchored in the tcm system, I recommend to delete the whole section. Please comment. Mallexikon (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. Mallexikon (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented-out section 

message: HkFnsNGA, you got my full sympathies for trying to warn against the dangers that come with TCM. However, this is an encyclopedia, and it should be neutral in tone. Trying to lace every bit of information about tcm with a warning is not neutral. Please try to look at this from a mere cultural-anthropologic point of view: we have to try to give the reader a detailed picture of this ancient medicine. I'm not saying the medicine is of any use (in my experience, it's not). It's definetely not scientific. Then again, the shamanism of Siberian tribes isn't, either - it still has to get its place in an encyclopedia.
I tried to structure the criticism you voiced in the appropriate section. I think it needs more structuring, more material, and more citations - maybe you can help with that? But please stay within the given organizational structure. In medicine, we stick to a strict system of overview / history / theory / diagnosis / treatment. I think it's best if we apply it in this article as well.
This article is still a stub. It still needs a lot of work, especially the "concept of disease", "diagnosis", "therapy" and "efficacy" sections. Any help is greatly appreciated - particularly if it comes from scientific minded users. Mallexikon (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mallexicon, I'm not sure I'm liking all of your changes.  for example, your revisions to the lead really mucked up the reading flow - it reads like bullet points now, not like an encyclopedia entry - and also changed some things that I disagree with (you removed the statement about the model of the body, located the origins in China even though the practice predates the unification of China, and etc).  do you have an objection to my reverting some of your changes?  --Ludwigs2 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, tiger's penis was already in the TCM article when I came to it, and was about the best sourced content in the article, so I did not really touch this RS'd content. While it has stopped being promoted, it is still about the most widely known TCM medicine, because of all the press coverage. Now if you will excuse me, I am about to have a sip of tea made with human placenta, lead, mercury, arsenic, asbestos, and strychnine, because I have to wash down the raw flying squirrel feces I just chewed up. (I own a business in Shanghai, and I actually have had to drink some of these mystery mix teas, in politeness, and of all times, when I was sick! You haven't tasted anything yet if you have not done so yet.) PPdd (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Dear All,
I logged on to read about TCM today, and this page is in desperate need of some moderation.  It reads like it's been written by someone with a personal vendetta against Traditional Chinese Medicine!  I'm a western person and see MDs like the rest of us, but these articles are supposed to teach objectively, providing a balanced portrayal of a subject.  Instead, every paragraph follows with statements attacking the credibility of TCM or bringing up controversial issues that may or may not be true (because they don't have citations), and re-using old stereotypes that everyone knows are not true (ie, "Snake Oil" isn't even used by TCM practitioners, according to my acupuncturist!)
Anyway, my problem isn't just that things aren't cited.  The big problem here is that even the things that ARE cited are simply very slanted or misleading, highlighting only one side of controversial issues that, ultimately, really only ought to be in ONE of the later sections of the article.  Why doesn't this article begin like a history book, explaining the origins and practices of the medicine, rather than begin with attacks on whether or not TCM holds up to scientific rigor, etc?  For example, why would the oldest and the planet's single largest medical system contain these sentences in the INTRODUCTION (!) (one being in the first paragraph!): "TCM is subject to criticism regarding a number of issues," "It uses metaphysical principles that have no correlates in science based medicine, and would generally be rejected by it", "...found to be ineffective...contain dangerous toxins," "ineffective medicines" etc?  These things may or may not be true--this is beside the point.  They're just extremely biased, and I, furthermore, challenge the neutrality and organization of this article.
Finally, how is it that 7 of the 8 photos on this page are of grotesque or controversial animal substances yet some basic internet research reveals that the VAST majority of substances used in TCM practice today are simple PLANTS (most of which seem to also be native to north American traditions).  Obviously there are also some definite controversies that should be mentioned, in this article, but that ought to be put in a section to deal with skepticism and criticisms.  This article is just so very misleading in layout and organization.  It seems odd that the medicine that lasted 3,000 years of practice (something you don't learn reading this article) would have endured all the cultural and political invasions it did if this article were representative of its merits.  I'm not asking for a pro-TCM page, but let's seriously organize this thing like adults...
New to wikipedia talk, please advise,
Zoop  
Zoopeda (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If someting has no source, then you can delete it using this guideline WP:Bold. I, for one, will back you up, and then try to find a source if I think it likely has one. Before you bash snake oil (which is still widely used in China, accoring to my Chinese friend and former busines partner in China), you should check this Scinetific American article - Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something:Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression. PPdd (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Entering the discussion briefly to note that I have reverted IP 71.237.181.49's two most recent edits to the article, which removed much wheat along with chaff (e.g., NIH and Lancet citations). Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Neutrality Dispute 

message: A  tag was added to this sentence I wrote - "Those that have been scientifically analyzed have sometimes been found to be ineffective, have sometimes made contributions to science-based pharmacology, and sometimes have been found to contain dangerous toxins.""The contribution of traditional Chinese medicine to modern pharmacology", Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Volume 4, 1983, Mei-ling Shen, pp. 496-500
:I.e., sometimes nothing, sometimes good, and sometimes bad. Why is this POV? PPdd (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of POV tag 

message: The article says: “Western medicine documents the efficacy of its pharmaceuticals through controlled, double blind experiments. Yet this is rarely applicable to TCM. It is impossible to create an effective placebo for acupuncture, for example.” – this is completely wrong and also directly contradicted by other passages in the article which cite such placebo-controlled studies using sham needling. Furthermore, the way in which that review by Ernst et al. is cited suggests a conclusion which is actually quite the opposite of what the review found: namely, that most applications of acupuncture (with some notable exceptions) are ineffective. The article makes it sound as though the opposite were true. The sentence stating that clinical studies cannot test the efficacy of  combination treatments (taking multiple herbs at the same time) is also wrong. At most such studies are more complex than studies for a single factor, but by no means are they impossible.--94.223.90.171 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, "impossible" is wrong wording (I didn't put that in, and overlooked it in my reading of the article), "difficult and sometimes unethical" might be better. I am working on some other articles right now, but I will come back and fix that today, if someone else does not before. More relevant to your assertions is that the article needs to be fixed all over per the to-do list at the top of this talk page, in which case most of your "points" would vanish ("Meridians are no more real than the Greenich Meridian" - Mann; "I see nothing" - Alice in Wonderland; "You must have good eyes" - Cheshire Cat), e.g., since "acupuncture" is often used to mean "nonTCM acupuncture", which you just called "sham treatment". The most recent systematic reviews seem to concluded that nonpenetrating sham treatment is as effective as acupuncture, for at least one specific point, as RS cited in the article. Please suggest alternative wording that consistent with the MEDRS in the article, and which does not have ambiguities. PPdd (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feasibility of placebo controlled studies 

message: PPdd please stop deleting this material again and again. I added lots of citations (all English), even though the level of citation was already fine. Please remember that a citation can refer to a whole chapter, not just one sentence. If you have any specific objections, let's talk about it. Mallexikon (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that here, here, and here, I put the content at talk and made a call for others to help me find RS, since I could not find any. I got yelled at for doing this, because it is not standard practice to put posts at talk with content in it, and I was told to move it to my own userspace, but I kept it on this talk page. This is not required by any policy or guideling, but if you could add quotes from the sources in the ref citation, or find online citations, it would make it much less likely to be deleted ever again by anyone, and would be helpful to the readers unfamiliar with this theoretcial stuff (like me). PPdd (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical superstructure 

message: Working on the history section I came across the information that the Huangdi Neijing "states that to be a master physician, one must master the use of metaphors as they apply to medicine and the body". That's fascinating (and well sourced), but - as far as I can see - it's also insignificant. Would the editor who wrote this mind if I deleted it? Mallexikon (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is significant, but needs a secondary source to explain why, which is lacking. When I was trying to move unsourced things out of the article and onto talk to call out for finding sources, I left that one in the article. You are correct in failing to see significance, given the lack of an interpreteive text. HOwever, I suggest that if you delete it, that you move it here to talk for others who might know of an interpretive secondary source. PPdd (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Wiki is viewed with skepticism by many, who think they may find junk information hidden in it. Skeptical readers like to be able to verify everything. A problem with Chinese language sources, and even with hard copy sources, is that they are difficult or impossible for most readers to verify, making the article essentially useless. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources –  It is best in a footnote, since it will be hard for average future non-editor users to find in the talk page archives, if they even know what a talk page or its archive is. PPdd (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If such a source is provided on the talk page then the editor who provided them has met their obligations. That's not to say that you aren't welcome yourself to add such a foot note to help future non-editors. By all means go ahead.70.15.191.119 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not required to put it in the footnote. But it is best for readers, and best to make sure nobody deletes it if they did not see the talk page before it gets archived. PPdd (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No translations have been provided in footnotes or at talk. Yet after deletion and requests for such, WP, and no response was given in any way to this second request for translation. Instead edit warring began, WP:BURDEN was ignored, and mainstream MEDRS sources such as Biocommunication and the American Cancer Society were declared NRS, with sources removed and wording replaced using Chinese language sources, without establishing reliablity or providing translations as requested. I was called a "vandalism" for deleting after two weeks under WP:BURDEN, and my deletions were edit warred. PPdd (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PPdd, please pay closer attention. I replaced most of my Chinese sources with English ones. There are now exactly 8 Chinese sources remaining. 4 of these are sources only document the correct use of a Chinese term/character - how do you want me to further translate or replace that? In 3 of the 8 sources, I provided English translation in the footnotes. I apologize for taking my time with the remaining one source (8-4-3=1), but what's the big problem here? --Mallexikon (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wasn't what I meant. But to put this discussion behind us once and for all, I gave translations for all 8 Chinese sources now. Mallexikon (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Chinese language sources and hard copy sources.