Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 9

Definitions: traditional Chinese medicine, pseudoscience, and actual science
Traditional Chinese medicine, I'd suggest, is most usefully defined as the concepts and practices in China before significant contact with post-Enlightenment ideas. This is convenient because it more or less excludes any actual scientific method as a basis for either the concepts or the practices. Now, this is an article about Traditional Chinese Medicine. I suggest that we need to say clearly, at least in the lede and quite possibly elsewhere, that the concepts have no value as guides to reality, and that only a very few of the practices have actual value demonstrated by science. RS for this seem to be abundant and the lede already makes these points in fairly good English.

We are getting hung up on the word pseudoscience, as our article describes it, a "claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method", a word "often considered inherently pejorative". Now, nobody likes their treasured ideas being insulted, and I apologize to anyone whom I may be offending, but TCM practices and ideas fit into the definition of "pseudoscience" to the extent, and only to the extent, that TCM is presented as scientific. "Pseudoscience" may be pejorative, but it has a narrower definition than "straightforward rubbish" or "quackery". Personally I'd argue that traditional, that is pre-Enlightenment, Chinese medicine was a nonscientific system of thought (as were, for example, miasma theory and humorism) and was not presented as scientific, that genuine science as applied to discerning any value that TCM practices may have is simply genuine science, and that the word "pseudoscience" is applicable to TCM only insofar as valueless TCM concepts and practices are presented as science, including those occasions where obviously-inadequate studies mimic scientific method. (I note that obviously-inadequate studies are found in every school of medical thought, as are valueless concepts, and that this doesn't condemn all schools to the status of pseudoscience, rubbish, or quackery.) In short, to use the word "pseudoscience" as a straightforward descriptor, we would need multiple good-quality reliable sources saying exactly that TCM is a pseudoscience, and of course we'd also need some sort of consensus / !majority that the term is useful in the article. I'd quite like, in this context, to request academic RS that discuss pseudoscientific status, rather than examples of the use of the word as pejorative. (Indeed, if the matter is actively discussed in enough academic RS we might usefully have a little section on the extent to which TCM is, or isn't, pseudoscience.) I'm happy enough with the present direct quotation in the lede that TCM is "fraught with" pseudoscience.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You claim to use the word "pseudoscience" as a straightforward descriptor, we would need multiple good-quality reliable sources saying exactly that TCM is a pseudoscience. According to what policy we need multiple reliable sources for the obvious fact according to reliable sources that it is a pseudoscience. Unless there is a serious dispute among reliable sources there is no rationale reason to violate ASSERT. The serious dispute must be with the sources not when someone on Wikipedia objects to word "pseudoscience".
 * But we do have other sources that say generally the same thing about TCM. Some editors may feel it is unnecessary. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost all of TCM is valueless, or, if you prefer, quackery. I suspect we'd agree on that. This is not the same thing as pseudoscience, which has a specific definition - despite its pejorative overtones, we should not use it purely as a definitionless insult. To the extent, and only to the extent, that valueless concepts and interventions are presented as scientific, TCM is also pseudoscience. And if reliable sources and consensus dictate, we may include the word "pseudoscience" with appropriate caution. To make my argument clear, I am hoping for the proper use of the word "pseudoscience". I am not trying to dignify a set of nonscientific concepts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, now you're overreaching with the rest of them. Your assumption that TCM is without value is not the same as observing that it does not use scientific method. While scientific findings on substances like ginseng or ganoderma do not validate TCM concepts, TCM has used those substances for purposes that align with the scientific understanding of their effects on the body. TCM is not a science, but its treatments are based on a rational application of a theory, with results that are predictable according to that same theory. While you are more careful with responsible wording than QG is, you are still trying to "make a case" that TCM is without value. That's POV pushing.Herbxue (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Herbxue, if you have a problem with the source's view, that's not something to be resolved on Wikipedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Richard Keatinge, we should avoid WP:WEASEL wording, which is a vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as"), especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of a "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be.
 * The text in the lede is misplaced. The pseudoscience sentence is about the treatments. The lede is intermingling two issues together which are separate and distinct. The text should be clearer to the reader.
 * Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was extracted from a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[3]
 * It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[3]
 * The two sentences above should be next to each other which are from the same source. The text can be tweaked and improved without the vague attribution. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so is this edit useful? It does unify both the concept and the source. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit is fine with me. QG if you are worried about vague attribution, just state "an editorial in Nature has described it as...". I don't see others complaining of "weasel wording". Herbxue (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit is not fine with me. Now we're stating the same thing (that TCM is fraught with pseudoscience twice in the lede. --Mallexikon (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the proper place to follow the sentence about that successful results have however been scarce. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So far so good. I have now removed the duplication - hadn't intended to leave it, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I previously explained the two sentences using the same source should be next to each other. They were next to each other until you deleted it. You deleted the wrong sentence and you originally misplaced the sentence out of context. You agreed to unify both the concept and the source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, a draft edit would probably help us to understand what you're trying to say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You already made the edit previously. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what would your suggested edit be? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We're having a similar discussion at acupuncture; have a look: Talk:Acupuncture --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Original research?
Artemisinin is not extracted or derived from a fever treatment. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source says "artemisinin, for example, which is currently the most effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herbal treatment for fevers". Perhaps I am missing something, but please respect other people's time by being clear and accurate in your objections. II  | (t - c) 07:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Artemisinin is not derived from the herbal treatment for fevers. That's not how the drug is made. The part "fished out" does not mean Artemisinin itself is derived from the herbal treatment for fevers. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better-written source will help us to provide better encyclopedic text. Although I wouldn't usually provide a lede with two references for an uncontentious fact, at this edit I have added an extra reference which I hope will meet whatever your objection is. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The extra reference does not verify the entire sentence. I don't see your point to adding an extra reference. The word "derived" still failed verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 12:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm left deeply puzzled by your problem. Are you having trouble reading the sources given, do you mean that we should only use the exact words of a source, or what? Please clarify. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked both of the sources and can't really understand why it wouldn't verify the sentence? Actually, can it be any more clearly expressed? This is not the first time you keep playing with tags, QuackGuru. Please stop it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The extra reference does not verify the claim. See diff. The source does not say artemisinin was "derived" from an herbal treatment. Fished out does not mean that the pharmaceutical companies uses the herbal treatment to make the drug. See the definition for fished out. Fished out is not a synonym for derived and the lede should not make a claim that is misleading. Do you think the wording can be improved and the extra reference that failed verification can be removed? I don't think we have to use the exact words of the source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)( Jayaguru-Shishya did not respond to my comment. My comment was misplaced out of context.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) )
 * QuackGuru, I have moved your comment from my talk page to above, in chronological order and into context. I still don't understand what is bothering you. Can you suggest a better form of words? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to think of a better word that won't suggest that the drug is "made" from the herbal treatment for fever because it was not "derived" from the traditionally used herbal treatment. It is misleading to suggest pharmaceutical companies used the fever treatment to make the drug. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The body of the article says "artemisinin [is] a processed extract of Artemisia annua, a herb traditionally used as a fever treatment," citing the Nature editorial and PMID 21907397. The Artemisinin article uses "Artemisinin is isolated from the plant Artemisia annua, sweet wormwood, a herb employed in Chinese traditional medicine" and "Tu Youyou discovered artemisinin in the leaves of Artemisia annua (annual wormwood)."  Sunrise    (talk)  19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Best source?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html is being used to state in the lead " The TCM theory and practice are not based upon modern scientific knowledge, and its own practitioners disagree widely on what diagnosis and treatments should be used for any one patient.[3]".
 * Question: a) is this the best possible source? It is certainly a biased source.  Are there no peer reviewed reviews available on PubMed or MEDLINE?  b) This statement casts a very broad net, stating simultaneously that TCM theory and practice are 100% not based upon modern scientific knowledge.  This implies there is no legitimate scientific research into mechanisms underlying TCM, or research re: effectiveness, etc.  Thoughts?  DVMt (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything but opinions, in my opinion. The statements are not only inaccurate, but poorly sourced. Saying that practitioners disagree widely on what diagnosis and treatments should be used is a casual observation that should not be used to make a definitive statement in an encyclopedia.Herbxue (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that Quackwatch is at the low end of reliability; we should certainly not rely on it for over-generalized statements whose semantic content is disputable. We do need, and we have, quite well-framed statements to the effect that TCM theory has very little to do with a modern science-based understanding of the body, and that very few TCM treatments have any scientific evidence of effectiveness. But we don't need repetitive and dubious statements rejecting TCM theory and practice. For an example of how to write a good article in the face of analogous problems, see Astrology. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Richard Keatinge, Herbxue and DVMt (providing that DVMt was actually making a statement there). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 6. There is WP:CON that the Quackwatch is reliable and we can use it for this article. Please read the previous comments made by User:Roxy the dog, User:BullRangifer, User:CFCF. It is not repetitive to say "its own practitioners disagree widely on what diagnosis and treatments should be used for any one patient.[3]" This statement is not repeated twice in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Quackwatch is recognised and accepted as a valid mainstream view on such subjects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There may have been consensus on QW one day when the quack crusaders were the only ones commenting, but I don't believe there is consensus now. QW is not objective and while its notable opinions should be included, they should be stated clearly as opinions on an opinion-pushing website. I think Richard states it clearly - you just don't need to keep piling on negative rhetoric when other sources already support the text that TCM is not based on contemporary science. You guys (particularly QG, PPdd, DV, Roxy and Tippy) are just full of blood-lust and a desire to bury any alt-med subject. Why? Let the article just state the facts.Herbxue (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement is a notable opinion on the subject. It's accurate, and says nothing about research or the future. Whitewashing isn't allowed here, especially when it comes from practitioners of TCM. Don't let your COI affect your editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What's COI? If doctors are commenting on medicine, isn't there a COI already? On the same logic, shouldn't economists be prohibited from commenting themes related to economics? The idea is absolutely absurd. No COI there. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks JS - I agree, or should we tell editors like Doc James they are banned from all medicine-related articles? Herbxue (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey ya'all, WP:NOTFORUM. Please recall that the topic of pseudoscience has been addressed at Arbcom and TCM is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. There is a looooong road to travel to change that basic stance at Wikipedia. To the point of this section, if there is a question now about QuackWatch, those questioning it should bring the source to WP:RSN and note that posting here. I doubt that will get far. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is final - especially an agreement of like-minded people about using a pejorative term about another group of people. Saying that TCM is among the list of topics considered pseudoscience by the people that are looking to call things pseudoscience is weak and unconvincing. I can start a group agreeing that religion in general is bs and that catholicism is among the topics considered bs. That wouldn't be hard. But stating, as fact, "religion is bs" would not have an encyclopedic tone and would assume that a truly conclusive consensus had been met. In this case, people who actually do science are careful enough to not use such broad labels, because they actually respect fact rather than a cynical, political need to discredit one group or another. TCM is not pseudoscience if the definition demands that TCM holds itself out as a science. Also, you'll have to do a little better Original Research to convince me that the "scientific community" is of one mind, or even close to consensus, on the value or validity of TCM (or any traditional healthcare system).Herbxue (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is true that nothing is final. What I am trying to tell you - and please hear me - is that this is not an issue for an article Talk page.  The issue of pseudoscience has indeed gone all the way to arbcom, and currently, TCM is considered pseudoscience on WP.   It was decided a long long time ago in WP that anything health-related goes under the rubric of science here, since diseases and conditions manifest in the physical body and interventions can be and are tested with the scientific method.  To the extent that TCM makes health claims, those claims and the basis for them, are evaluated and discussed under the rubric of science.    As near as I can tell, the root of this is the policy/pillar WP:VERIFY, and what the community accepts as reliable sources for health-related content, as per the two sourcing guidelines that stem from the policy, namely WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:FRINGE.  So my sense, is that if you want to make changes about what kinds of sources and therefore what kinds of content can be in this article, you have to go to the root, to WP:VERIFY, and this would likely end up back at arbcom.  It will be a long haul.  This article's Talk page is not the place to work on these fundamental issues.  It is not productive.  And again, Quackwatch has been brought up repeatedly at RSN and at Talk:MEDRS and at Talk:Project Medicine and has been found just fine; I understand that the key set of discussions that you will likely find most relevant, being at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this one, Herbxue. Wikipedia should strive to be an encyclopedia; if one saw the article of Britannica over traditional Chinese medicine, I am pretty sure one would get the point. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you, thanks for taking the time. I still don't accept Quackwatch as reliable but will take that complaint elsewhere. In the article talk page however I believe it is appropriate to discuss whether certain sources are being given undue weight. Herbxue (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and thanks for hearing me. Talk pages are always appropriate places to talk about specific content and sources, but (to risk beating the horse) those discussions need to remain grounded on the policy/guideline foundations of Wikipedia, where TCM is pseudoscience and its health claims and view of the body are subject to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. WP:CON can be painful sometimes, I know. It is much bigger than what you or I necessarily like. What is great is that one can work to change consensus in this ultimately democratic space.  btw, if you do bring up Quackwatch as it is used here on RSN or another board, please do us the courtesy of posting notice of it here.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post Jytdog. Commenting about the reliability of QuackWatch, as far as I understand, it is by no way a peer-reviewed source and therefore I find it at least very problematic to be used. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please see the many discussions of Quackwatch that I linked-to above. Please engage with the community's past discussions; if you don't like them, the place to bring it up is one of those boards.  Saying "no" here is not sufficient to overturn WP:CON... thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There might have been earlier discussions and I don't disacknowledge that. As stated above, nothing is final. I'd suggest that let's keep it simple though: whether the source is peer-reviewed or then it is not. I don't mean to sound rude but I think that will serve Wikipedia the best and save us from any unnecassary speculation. Neither does the science world speculate on such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to fight consensus established on notice boards on an individual article page, and that is not how we operate as per WP:CON. As I said, the source has been found reliable for statements on pseudoscience on several notice boards, several times. Please see the discussions there. You are not the first to question this source, not by far.Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean. Whether a source is a peer-reviewed one, or then it is not. I am not commenting about what has been discussed at the notice boards here; as far as I understand, Wikipedia has no say to what is a peer-reviewed source and what is not. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice boards are where the community applies policies and guidelines to specific issues to establish a consensus judgement. That is the purpose of noticeboards.  You are coming very close to WP:IDHT and this is the last time I will respond to this. If you want to re-open discussion of this source on any grounds please bring it to the boards where it has already been found to be reliable for statements on pseudoscience.  When you bring it to the boards, the people there will expect you to have already done your homework, so I suggest that you read the extant discussions, which it appears that you have not done yet.  If you do generate a new posting, please provide notice here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism spans the whole article
I edit a wide variety of topics, rarely anything to do with medicine and possibly I'm just not used to the science critics. This article is littered with criticisms, so much so it's difficult to follow the subject being presented. A separate article or a rewrite with a section devoted to the western medicine/science critics would be most welcome.Dougmcdonell (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * it's harder than it looks. WP is strongly based on science and science cannot be shunted to the side. For example, when there are statements in Wikipedia's voice about "qi", those statements cannot imply that "qi" is real. And statements cannot be put in quotes that imply it is real, as this is just coatracking.  Yet the article should indeed communicate clearly how the idea of "qi" works in TCM.   This is not easy to accomplish.  And there are POV-pushers on both the pro-TCM side and the anti-quack side that make it very hard to craft careful language.  It's not easy.  Come try if you like! Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I protest, TCM is not a science, it makes no claim to the scientific method why not shunt science to the side as might be appropriate for religion or art. Science does not own all knowledge or truth of the human body. The use of science in parts of western medicine does not automatically make all other systems subject to the god of science. "qi" is not an object, therefore no objective scientist needs to discuss it. Couldn't TCM be the "art of medicine" and skip the conflict, oh maybe in a different world. I read the WP:MEDRS where it explicitly states that science owns the medicine topic, and by extension the TCM topic, bummer. Thank you for your insight and invitation.Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks!!! whew. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Dougmcdonell. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia's alt-med articles ;) ! The lede jumps into criticism as soon as in the 2nd paragraph, and if you compare this to real encyclopedic articles like traditional Chinese medicine of Encyclopedia Britannica, you'll see a huge different (in favour of Britannica, unfortunately). I just hope that this very article will never get chosen in these comparisons between different encyclopedias.
 * In my opinion, the lede should be more of an introduction of the article. This is of a bigger question though, and should be discussed at forums like WP:LEDE. Some dominating editors in alt-med articles such as QuackGuru, however, usually arguments his edits by saying:  WP:LEDE is summary of the body (a description which cannot be found from WP:LEDE though). Anyway, I find it highly unprofessional that the lede jumps straight away into rather detailed research results, and that is usually result of extreme POV pushing by certain editors. There are some quite cynical editors who reject absolutely everything that contradicts their own negative views.
 * Anyway, your opinions and efforts would be the most welcome in editing this article, so welcome! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you really have to put the axe down. Please get grounded on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It is not criticism to clarify the relationship between TCM and science - it is a statement of fact and it is what we do here. We need to do that neutrally and (IMO) respectfully but we have to do it.  Really, you are going to get terribly frustrated and burn out if you keep trying to fight policy battles at the article level every step of the way, and you are going to upset a lot of other people who make the mistake of actually trying to argue policy/guideline at the article level.   I have tried to warn you repeatedly that pseudoscience topics are under Arbcom discretionary sanctions- please please stop fighting battles in the wrong places.  It is unpleasant for everybody involved and not productive.Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * JYtdog, maybe you didn't read my post in full accuracy, but I actually said the very same that you are now telling to me here: these things need to be discussed at appropriate forums, not here. ;D User Dougmcdonell told us that he isn't really editing that many articles and is new to TCM as well, so I guided him to proper forums (such as WP:LEDE). On top of that, I told him what I think, both about the current state of article and WP policies.
 * JYtdog, I am not fighting WP policies at article level, I hope the above-mentioned cleared my point. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is good to hear, that this is where you are coming from. However, when I read " The lede jumps into criticism as soon as in the 2nd paragraph", what I am hearing is that discussing the relationship between TCM and science is something negative  - "criticism" -  not statements of fact that follows WP's policies and guidelines.  I tried very hard to gather the scattered statements on the relationship in the lead and edit them together neutrally so that they didn't interrupt the flow. Please help me understand how to read your remark differently. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry! JYtdog, I am not attacking against the edit you made (which I find pretty good even). I am participating the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic at the same time, and I guess I left out some arguments here that I brought up at the other forum. What I meant by jumping into criticism right away in the lede, it was related to neutrality and bias of the lede. "...positive stances on chiropractic should be summarized in the lede as well..."
 * Summa summarum: if the lede will jump straight away into the criticism (which could be handled in a separate section as well), it would be neutral and balancing to the article to also include the "positives" of TCM. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You will do as you will, but I recommend that you get more solidly grounded and understand that stating the relationship between TCM and science in Wikipedia in a neutral way is not criticism - it is what we do here. I know it is difficult when you are dealing with hard core anti-quack people, but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own head. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticism is fine, but the positives should be given an equal weight with the negatives in the lede. Or are you arguing that lede should only contain criticism? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When the positives are rooted in pseudoscience, providing them with an equal weight in the lede is prohibited, Jayaguru-Shishya.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean, 'rooted in reliable scientific sources, providing them with an equal weight is more than welcome? We base things here on reliable sources, am I right? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is about medicine, WP:MEDRS is the standard for sources. Jim1138 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

we are not talking about the article anymore. done here. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of text without discussion
I restored the text that was in the article for a long time and I added in-text attribution as a compromise. User:Jim1138 thinks consensus has not been reached for its removal in the first place. The text is currently in the Traditional Chinese medicine section. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of discussing here at the article Talk Page, QuackGuru ran immediately to Kww's Talk Page. It seems he has not learnt anything from his most recent ban for edit warring at electronic cigarettes -article. Anyway, it has been all said in the edit summary already, I don't see the reason for ranting about it here, especially since Jim1138 already made a further edit.
 * According to WP:Consensus Flowchart, since the revert made by QuackGuru over the edit of user Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article still keeping User Bexgro's edit. This per WP:CON. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * According to WP:CON:

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." This happened over several editors before QuackGuru's revert. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only edit made by Bexgro to Wikipedia was one edit to this article. I don't see your explanation as a rationale explanation for deleting the text, especially after I added in-text attribution. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even think WP:FRINGE allows us to remove it without replacing it. Without that, the paragraph becomes very WP:WEASEL-y. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Couple things:
 * 1. The compromise wording that QG finally agreed to (thank you) is a minimally acceptable compromise, and the statement is very close to elimination altogether by consensus.
 * 2. The wording is repeated in the article and so is redundant, and as such is not an attempt to improve the article but rather an attempt to get the most "bang for your buck" by using one source to justify using insulting terminology twice. I'm not sure this text is really a good faith edit.
 * 3. @Adam: "allows us"? Give me a break. And if I hear "weasel wording" one more time, please really mean it (addressed more to QG than Adam). Making things more accurate with appropriate attribution is not weasel wording, its responsible writing. Herbxue (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I do mean "weasel wording": The actual edit made and reverted removed all mention of it from the article. This changed the argument: Because the section uses a very detached writing style, it turned a paragraph that was within NPOV into one where the detachment basically served to distance the reader from any need to consider the facts as a problem for TCM, which I would say was weasel wording, albeit accidental. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Broke formatting?
I undid your edit to the header on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine as you broke the formatting, leaving a floating curly brace under WikiProject Alternative medicine [show](Rated B-class). Also, you didn't explain why you removed the "start new discussion". Anyway, I didn't understand what you were trying to achieve. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I moved this paragraph from — Lentower (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I undid your revert, except I kept your move of New discussion and deletion of that errant "}".
 * Apology about the floating curly bracket. Other than floating there, the formatting was not broken. You could have just deleted that one character. Please note that BracketBot did not report it.
 * Assessing WikiProjects is appropriate. Please read up on both WikiProjects and assessing them, if you don't understand what either is about.
 * My additions to the parameters of several other templates improves their usefulness.
 * I didn't delete the New discussion template. I agree that it's more noticeable to the reader closer to the bottom of the header section.
 * I personally don't add this template, New discussion:
 * The problem happens rarely, and there are more important things to teach new editors.
 * It is easily corrected.
 * There are two other links and a third mention on this page to add new discussion sections at the bottom.
 * If you don't understand any of this, please be as specific as you can here on this talk page, about what part of my edit you don't understand and why. Discussion is much better than endless reverts about these changes. — Lentower (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. The New discussion disappeared with this edit. I would have otherwise just removed the errant brace. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality POV ?
I start this thread to explain why I add POV template, I don’t intend to argue or debate with others.

Here is why I add POV template: This whole article seems littered with negative criticisms and opinions about TCM and they scatter around all over the sections, I can see some criticisms accuse TCM as “pseudoscience” right in the 2nd paragraph(as far as I know, TCM never really claims itself as modern science, so it’s a bit extreme to label it so negatively) ,I feel like I’m reading some sort of a biased report or criticism rather than an encyclopedia which introduces objective knowledge in neutral way, I presume this article probably has been heavily edited by some extreme editors with negative views against TCM.

I know someone will still try to reverse my edit and insist their negative or subjective opinions,but it doesn’t really matter since I don’t want to spend too much time on these kind of things,I just want to leave some records to tell people that this article has some neutrality issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.157.74.169 (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length, including the pseudoscience label. Please review the this talk page and its archives as to how this came about. What is WP:NPOV and WP:DUE is based upon WP:Reliable sources and, for medical claims, WP:MEDRS. Given that, I have removed your POV template. Please discuss this further here before replacing the POV tag. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and other meanings
I'd like to suggest that the discussion above may have wandered somewhat off-track. It may help to consider another term that combines pejorative with more objective meanings: I imagine that we could find sources, possibly even reliable ones, that describe TCM as "a load of bollocks". In colloquial language this simply rejects the utility of the entire concept of TCM. More meaningfully, it might be applied to the occasional use in TCM of the private parts of rare animals. I hope I don't need to underline that the term is therefore likely to be inappropriate in an encyclopedic article, and if a consensus based on RS compels its use, this should be done very carefully so as to make absolutely clear which meaning is intended.

So also with "pseudoscience"; the term can mean either an emotional rejection or a specific claim about imitating science. The issue is further complicated by the two meanings of "science", either the scientific method and its results, or a learned art or craft. I note that TCM is a typical pre-Enlightenment school of medicine in being a nonscientific, but certainly learned, art and craft; to say otherwise would be merely silly. I also note that some work using good scientific methods has been done as part of TCM - skeptics may like to reflect upon the various studies of TCM approaches that have come up with negative results. Important features of TCM are that its remedies haven't in general been found to work, that its theoretical basis has no useful resemblance to modern science-based ideas of how the human body works, and that modern TCM includes quackery and jibberish by people who do know about the scientific method and who should know better. Those features could usefully be clarified, but they are in the article already and the use of the word "pseudoscience" isn't making them any clearer.

I suggest that use of the term "pseudoscience" in this article should:

1) be based on definitive sources reliable for this purpose (having looked through Jytdog's references, it seems that Quackwatch may be accepted with caution, but I note it's also been described as "simply Stephen Barrett's blog"). An invited editorial in Nature is more or less unimpeachable.

2) make the meaning clear, either "rejected nonsense" or "imitation of science"

3) if we mean "imitation of science" then we should make clear that RS mean that TCM is or includes an imitation of the scientific method, and we should be clear what element or aspect of TCM we are describing.

4) benefit an encyclopedic article by making things clear to the reader. In our present lede "pseudoscience" is merely used as an insult that then has to be explained by the remainder of the sentence. This is not a good use of space in any lede.

I propose to remove the word "pseudoscience" from the lede, and I hope that editors will then use their time more profitably to make the lede, and indeed the rest of the article, clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "An invited editorial in Nature is more or less unimpeachable." NONSENSE! First of all, it is an editorial, not a research article. An editorial by definition is an article that reflects the opinions and interpretations of its author, and regardless of the prestige of the publication, its statements should never be cited as fact. Secondly, Nature is a scientific journal that publishes mostly primary sources (primary investigation journal articles), which according to WP policy we are highly discouraged from using, except in rare circumstances, and with proper language that makes it clear that the cited research is a primary source with no implication of scientific consensus or certainty. 207.204.255.83 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * focusing on the lead is a bad bad sign. Fix the body, then fix the lead. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Rejected nonsense? I'd found that even more insulting. :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why insulting? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to discuss this really, is there? Did you use terminology as nonsense in your thesis? I think not. End of discussion. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to help with the specific issue brought to DRN, and I don't really have sufficient interest in the subject to spend a lot of time on the main body. I propose to edit the sentence "Nature found it to be largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[10]" to read "There is no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[10]" Does anyone think that this would make the article worse? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If we would have a very good source stating that TCM is pseudoscience, I would recommend to include it in the lede, however, the source we have is too ambiguous. A Nature editorial of course is a reliable source, however, the wording it uses is not as clear as it should be. The correct text summarizing the Nature source should be something on the line of: "Nature argued that the most probable reason why pharmacologists have only been able to develop such few effective therapeutic substances from TCM medicinals, is that TCM is just pseudoscience" (please cf. the source's original text). A complicated sentence like this is ok for the body of our article's text, but IMO not appropriate for the lede. And shortening it in the way we currently do is changing its meaning since it makes Nature's speculation sound like an unambiguous verdict.
 * I find it remarkable that reliable scientific sources have been so careful about calling TCM pseudoscience - this Nature editorial is a good example, as the wording it uses seems to hazard a very complicated sentence structure in order to avoid a clear verdict. Why is that? The most probable answer I can come up with is that the term pseudoscience automatically implies lack of efficacy in terms of treatment. Since research about TCM efficacy (both for herbal treatment and acupuncture) is ongoing, I guess everybody is afraid that there might actually some evidence of efficacy be found in the future (I personally think that's unlikely, but not fundamentally impossible), and thus be proven wrong.--Mallexikon (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting kind of forum-y, but briefly.... the problem with TCM is that there is no scientific basis for it.  It comes down to vitalism.  This is one of these things that is so obvious that scientists just don't say it over and over.  It is very true that specific interventions used in TCM can be tested with the scientific method.  As you know, many oppose putting money into investigating whether those interventions work because there is no plausible basis for them (see for example here).   Think about witchcraft and spells.  We could definitely investigate whether a given potion or spell works or not, to ....say, transform a man into a frog, using the scientific method.  But why would we?  That is the argument that some make.  Arguments like that aside, yes, absolutely we can test TCM interventions using science.   Starting with vitalistic ideas of the body and disease, one can derive specific physical interventions (just like magic or alchemy) - this is exactly what makes TCM pseudoscience.    If any of those interventions are validated, they become empirically validated, yes.  But they still have no mechanism of action....no scientific basis. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog I think you have a quite naive view of how modern "scientific" drug/treatment development and clinical trials work. There are MANY, MANY, MANY drugs and treatments that are widely used in Western biomedicine where our scientific community has no consensus on any definitive mechanism of action. I would even venture to say that most molecular compounds used in modern medical treatment, particularly those that target the brain and central nervous system disorders, are quite poorly understood, and that most proposed mechanisms of action for these compounds/treatments are tenuous and shaky at best. (If you look carefully at your prescription inserts, you'll probably often notice language that says "xxxx is thought to work by...") If you have any background in organic chemistry or pharmacology, then you already know that many extremely common reactions that have been observed and then used for decades in industry and medicine do not yet have any definitive mechanism of action, only hypotheses. For translational medicine, what matters is not necessarily the strict mechanism (although, of course, as scientists, we would love to have this!). What we care about is the statistically significant EFFECTIVENESS and SAFETY of the treatments, ascertained through the scientific method in controlled double blind trials. There is absolutely no reason that this same scientific method cannot be applied to researching treatments proposed by TCM, and indeed many studies have been performed this way, with rare but non-negligible positive results. 207.204.255.83 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, I find that harsh to compare TCM with witchcraft and spells but ... in general, science also studies phenomena where the mechanism of action has still remained unknown. For examples, some herbs might have been found to be efficient in treatment of certain diseases long before the mechanism of actions has been understood (e.g. cinchona bark). I say this just as a general comment, not as a plea for witchcraft or alchemy here. ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys are all making bucket loads of assumptions, and trying to use sources to make a point. There is evidence of efficacy for both acupuncture and herbs. As an outsider you can CHOOSE to interpret that to mean it was an accident that had nothing to do with traditional theory, but people choosing to use that herb (the reason we want to know if it works) did so based on that traditional theory. Of course this does not mean it is scientifically validated. As Mallexikon points out, real scientists do not make generalized sweeping judgements because that would be unscientific (and in the case of efficacy, clearly premature). Just because you think something is obvious does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Herbxue (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We are very much in forum territory now.... Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think Richard and Mallexikon are both advising caution with loaded words like pseudoscience and I agree that that caution improves the article.Herbxue (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As we discussed above, this is a way way bigger topic than this article. It comes down to how Wikipedia handles health claims and science.Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to make the article more neutral, per many discussions on this page
I'm going to attempt to make the lede take a more neutral tone, as many of you on this talk page have invited editors to attempt to do, and try to improve the sentence flow and writing style.

Please do not automatically revert/vandalize my edits without clearly documenting your specific disagreements here, and trying to achieve a consensus first.

Thank you for your diplomacy and consideration! 207.204.255.83 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the strange changes to the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing those changes (not mine!) 207.204.255.83 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't neutral to misrepresent the cited sources. For example, the cited source states TCM "is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies," yet you deleted "TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments" from the article. That simply isn't a neutral edit. You also called artemisinin a 'notable' exception to TCM's poor record of documented successes, but the cited source does not refer to it as notable. So that appears to be original research, and I'd argue undue weight on the single success that the source mentions, especially for the lede. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the pseudoscience references. You can see it is still there, just with more neutral tone. However, it is not neutral to represent an editorial opinion article as fact, without quotations. (Actually, we probably should not be citing an editorial article at all, and certainly not passing it off unequivocally as fact). So yeah, I agree that the sources/citations for this needs some fixing. Will try to get better citations for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.255.83 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a 'more neutral tone' is what I'm saying. (And others evidently agree with me; I'm not the only one to revert you.) It is neutral to reflect the tone of the cited sources; your wording does not do that. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you could provide specific reasons why you think the current tone is not neutral. Like I said, I agree that the citation needs work, and that article should not be cited at all as is! (Also, thank you for putting quotes around that sentence that you referenced, and attributing it to the editorial! If this were the way that it were presented in the actual article, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the neutrality).
 * Fixed the citation per your comments 207.204.255.83 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source What is Pseudoscience? is not specifically about TCM.
 * This source is definitely unreliable. I deleted the unreliable source and adjusted the wording for another sentence. See: "The effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine remains poorly researched and documented.[5]"  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that you found a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) review article to be unreliable? 207.204.255.83 (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, some of the information in this statement is likely to be out of date." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, some of the information in this statement is likely to be out of date." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Mao's fraud invention of TCM as "traditional" not in the lead first sentence?
This source is used in the article - Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine. Many other reliable academic sources on the history say the same thing. It is used incorrectly in the sentence purportedly cited by it, which is then incorrectly used in the lead first sentence. FloraWilde (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The text in history is accurately sourced using that source. Not sure what the issue is? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article says -


 * Those are weasel words masking that Mao invented TCM and faked it was "traditional" using his propaganda machine. The RS says Mao and the Chinese Medical Association knew TCM was nonsense and they were making the rest up using propaganda and fraud. No one reading our Wiki article could know this because of the weasel wording used in our article. FloraWilde (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You read the part staring with: "Mao’s support of Chinese medicine was inspired by political necessity."... Would you like to add anything more specific to TCM? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about Mao and the Chinese Medical Association knowing TCM is nonsense, but making it up as a form of propaganda and fraud. The source does not say it was "politically necessary" to commit fraud. It is never polictically necessary to commit health fraud crime. The Wiki article says nothing about the massive TCM fraud perpetrated on the world, which is the main point of the article. Look at the word in the title - "invented". Here is a rewrite by the same author - 'Chinese Medicine': Chairman Mao's Giant Fraud. The author's main points are these historical facts - "invention", "fraud", and "propaganda", as he makes clear in the article titles and bodies. Yet the words "fraud", "invention", and "propaganda", the three main characterizing historical facts about TCM, occur nowhere in the Wiki article. FloraWilde (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This links to the same article when you click on Read Full Article ››. 'Chinese Medicine': Chairman Mao's Giant Fraud.
 * The current text starts with: "In 1950, Chairman Mao Zedong made a speech in support of traditional Chinese medicine which was influenced by political necessity.[20]"
 * Do you have a specific suggestions? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is something from the source:
 * You can expand the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will do so after allowing time for comments as to why this should not go into the article. FloraWilde (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus per WP:Silence on adding the content from the quote cited by Quackguru. I made the WP:SILENCE-consensus edit. Then it was immediately reverted. The edit summary saying "Mass original research". Reverting editor, what is an example or original research that was not in the sources? FloraWilde (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why were RS content and sources just deleted with vague "WP:OR" and no talk page discussion before revert?
 * There was no consensus for the changes. There was only a previous discussion and possible wording. The changes were OR and not neutral. There was a discussion about the recent changes. Two editors disagreed with the changes. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quackguru wrote that the RS said, ""The reason so many people take Chinese medicine seriously, at least in part, is that it was reinvented by one of the most powerful propaganda machines of all time and then consciously marketed to a West disillusioned by its own spiritual traditions,", then wrote "You can expand the article." There was silence for several days and therefore consensus under WP:SILENCE. I put the content in the article per the cited quote by Quackguru, then Quackguru immediately reverted my edit without any discussion at talk, and an edit summary that said "mass original research". What are specific examples of "mass original research"?
 * There was never any specific proposal. I did discuss the recent change. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence that you were attempting to support with that citation stated that TCM was "invented by Mao Zedong and promoted as being based on tradition by using Communist Party propaganda methods." The source you gave provides no such statement, or even any statement that remotely resembles that *topic*, nevermind the specific claim. The citations that are referenced must actually provide support for the text that they follow.207.204.255.83 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @207.204 - It is clearly in the source as just quoted.
 * @Quackguru - This[ is not a "discussion". It is a notice you deleted content and called it "strange". What is one example of "mass OR"? [[User:FloraWilde|FloraWilde]] (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mao did not invent TCM. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was National Science Foundation removed as a source?
This recent edit removed National Science Foundation? FloraWilde (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not say much that is relevant to TCM. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It says it is in a group of practices that have "not been proven effective using scientific methods". How is that not relevant? It is especially important to disambiguate it since the word "medicine" would lead most educated encyclopedia users to automatically think it is based on science? FloraWilde (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "Alternative medicine is another concern. As used here, alternative medicine refers to all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods." That is completely to TCM. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you make a typo when you wrote, "That is completely to TCM"? If TCM is a kind of alternative medicine, then it is certainly essentially relevant, especially when TCM has a word, "medicine", that implies it is based on science to many readers. FloraWilde (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I wrote it is completely irrelevant to TCM. The source is about alternative medicine in general. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Being alternative medicine is not irrelevant to TCM. FloraWilde (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not verify the claim you added to the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not verify the claim you added to the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does the lead first sentence contain an entire line of Chinese characters?
The lead first sentence should be in plain English that any English speaker can read and understand. If Chinese characters must be in the article, they should be elsewhere. FloraWilde (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede sentence should contain the Chinese wording. This is done throughout the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS says use "Plain English". What policy or guideline says the lede first sentence should contain Chinese characters? FloraWilde (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in plain English (with some Chinese characteristics). QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure with the Chinese specifics with respect to MOS, but at least in the Japan-related articles there are included 1) the English translation, 2) kanji/kana, and 3) romanization. It seems there is some sort of guide for Chinese as well. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead first paragraph should have info about Mao, that TCM is alt med, and that it is not based on science
The lead sentence should say TCM is alt med. The lead first paragraph should say it is not based on science and that Mao invented much of TCM as being an ancient tradition, using fraudulent Communist propaganda, and even admitted to doing so. FloraWilde (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two editors disagreed that Mao invented TCM. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever Mao did, there's no question that Chinese medicine is as ancient as Greek or Indian, maybe moreso. See Huangdi Neijing etc. etc. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added text to the history section but kept it out of the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

US National Library of Medicine sources on Traditional Chinese Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/chinesemedicine/chinese.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/chinesemedicine/books.html

Rajmaan (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

can't understand why delete the content I added
Look at the section Drug research. In this article "Huperzine A" was labeled as "poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" and "Huperzine A" was the "one of the few successes" in content. I tried to add the Ephedrine which is from the research on traditional chinese medicine and Kampo, and it was deleted because of Tangential and trivial. I don't know why Ephedrine was considered as Tangential and trivial but Huperzine A is "one of the few success"? I added the regulation in United Kingdom but was also deleted for Tangential and trivial. Then I see the regulation in Canada,Indonesia and many other countries was in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After I checked the source for Huperzine A. It seems a misrepresentation for sources (I am not sure). The conclusion of this source is "Huperzine A appears to have beneficial effects on improvement of cognitive function, daily living activity, and global clinical assessment in participants with Alzheimer’s disease. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the included trials," but the article rephrase this like "a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found poor quality evidence that huperzine A seems to improve cognitive function and daily living activity for Alzheimer's disease" . I don't think they are the same meaning so I changed the words to cite original words from source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.240.216 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TCM
Why TCM is not under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions? At least the template is missing. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)( Original comment. Comment moved from my talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC) )
 * User:Bladesmulti, this article is under pseudoscience arbcom sanctions. Every article does not need to be in a list. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your "clarification" on Traditional Chinese medicine
Moved from QuackGuru's talk page.

There are still problems with your 'clarification'? 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: Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Traditional medicine faces challenge from upstart Western ideas


 * 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:



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. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I restored the edit of Rjanag and quoted the article in my Edit Summary. Also when it comes to paraphrasing, I know users might be willing to stick to the source as much as possible, so anyone can't take some "excess liberties" with respect to the source. However, our job in Wikipedia is to paraphrase the sources, and many times we are moving in the borderline of plagiarism (even though that might be done "bona vides"). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. We don't have plenty of other sources in the drug research section about this and it should be summarised in the lede that it is mostly pseudoscience. I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced. Claiming that TCM absolutely is pseudoscience not true. It would be a weight violation to keep the drug research section without this text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On what grounds?
 * Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they're not there. See as an example of a recent review of drug research.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * -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. r ʨ anaɢ (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: 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)
 * in Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology
 * 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&mdash;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. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue
This all comes back to this edit, which has been subsequently reverted back and forth by several editors. In this edit I removed a statement that I feel the source does not actually state (see immediately above for further discussion). On the other hand, other editors' viewpoint is that the source should stay, and at this point almost everyone involved here has reverted twice, so I thought I would protect the article and request outside comment. Please note that this is not a discussion of whether TCM is pseudoscience, whether the source meets WP:MEDRS, or anything else like that; the question is whether the article even says what it is being used to say. To be specific, the disputed article text is "TCM has been characterized as 'largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.'" and the relevant text from the source is "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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. r ʨ anaɢ (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.&mdash;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&mdash;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 r ʨ anaɢ (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? r ʨ anaɢ (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. r ʨ anaɢ (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)

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). <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 12:08, 7 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 (talk) 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 pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action 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."[10] 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 Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92. 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.
 * 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support either as-is, or direct quote. (Hasn't this already been to DR/N?) Alexbrn talk 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; 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&#124;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)
 * LarEvee, can you please be more specific as to why a Nature piece would not be an acceptable WP:RS in this matter? Nature is regarded as one of the world's premiere publishers of peer-review research, with additional large roles in secondary treatment of topics and literature reviews.  The piece in question is an editorial, meaning it is both a secondary source and independent of any particular work in the field.  It makes straight forward claims that seem to be accurately reflected by both proposed edits, in different ways, and it regards an interdisciplinary examination of the issue.  Personally, I'm having a hard time imaging a source that would be more appropriate to this particular context.  S n o w  talk 08:44, 24 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)
 * 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 talk 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."[10] 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, "? 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:
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * @ 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.&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kww, you are correct. I have started a new thread (Talk:Ayurveda) 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
I request this RfC be closed by an uninvolved admin. Editors can continue to comment at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine.

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.&mdash;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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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 . 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. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (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. 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 [edit: as an example of attributing a view directly to Nature] 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)


 * To clarify, my comment as an uninvolved admin is meant to close the RfC and determine the consensus wording, but not stop any ongoing discussion. Shii (tock) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify once again, this RFC close is only meant to establish what views should be attributed directly to Nature, and not to determine what larger discussion of science and pseudoscience should exist in the article. Shii (tock) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It was not an issue as follows: "The Nature article does not say TCM is pseudoscience because the wording in the article never said TCM is pseudoscience.
 * The exact wording TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." was changed.
 * Many requests for proper context and phrasing was supplied and the wording was updated. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the lede and body  to according with 's closing above. However I notice that both these edits have now been reverted by Quackguru with the ES "restore previous consensus", which I don't understand in light of the RfC result. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording was changed while there was a RfC. It was attribute to Nature as editors wanted. Middle 8 split the sentence up and deleted part of the sentence which altered the meaning of the sentence in the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The closing admin wrote: "Accordingly, the following wording should not be employed...." You're acting (rather brazenly imo) as if the RfC were never closed.  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The text is attributed to Nature. You were warned to not make changes like that. You failed to explain why he deleted the part "with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments" from the lede of TCM. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked not to make further changes without consensus, which we have above -- you just don't like it and are IDHT-ing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 03:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to avoid explaining why you deleted "with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." from the the lede and body of acupuncture on 08:53, 26 January 2015 and from the lede of TCM. on 08:33, 26 January 2015
 * You did roughly the same thing against consensus before on 11:55, 12 May 2014. I fixed the wording with in-text attribution without deleting text that altered the meaning of the sentence. More than one editor worked on improving the wording. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't quote me to justify your revert. That edit was an improvement over what was there before, but it's still far from perfect. The sentence "with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments" in particular has the same problem as the "described as largely pseudoscience" part, namely that Nature keeps it under a conditional, but Wikipedia asserts it as an absolute. And Middle 8 is right that the current previous version in the body is directly against Shii's conclusions in the RfC closure. Diego (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the body it does explain the part about "with no logical mechanism of action" so I went ahead and summarised it in the lede. This is different than the previous wording. It is better to improve the wording as was done in the body. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been invited here by the RfC process. I do not understand why I have been invited to take part in a closed discussion. FWIW I disagree with the consensus: I happen to believe that TCM is "largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments"; but the Nature article does not say that it is. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are so many closes wrong at the moment? I've seen three or four recently in my areas of interest and this one has left me gobsmacked, and supporters of the pseudosciences rubbing their collective hands with glee -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I determined a consensus as an uninvolved administrator and closed the RfC, but I am not shutting down further discussion. If you think this was "wrong" please go ahead and state your counterargument. Shii (tock) 23:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the consensus reading since the few supports were "I don't like that" arguments that were missing the point. Rjanag had to constantly bring those individuals back to the topic at hand, "herding cats" as he called it. Frankly, I don't think it should ever need to be this difficult to take an out-of-context source and make it relevant and in-context. Wikipedia editors all have their POV's but when it comes between good editing, that becomes a problem. LesVegas (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Proper context and exact phrasing were being supplied by editors editing the page

Was the exact wording According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". suggested by only one editor? See Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine. While the RfC was underway editors were busy editing the page and giving proper context and adding exact quotes from the source rather than in Wikipedia's voice.

User:Shii, you wrote "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." Please list the "several" editors who specifically suggested to only using this wording (According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience".) as an accurate direct quote while not allowing anything else from the source to be used such as "with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." As far as I can tell, one editor wanted to use only that very specific wording. According to the RfC, several editors supported in-text attribution but most editors who supported in-text attribution did not indicate the exact wording they wanted in the article. The source said a lot more than just "fraught with pseudoscience". For example, the source also said there is "no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies" which is the "most obvious answer" as a reason its study didn't provide a "flood of cures", while advocates responded that "researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies." It is better to properly summarise the source rather only state "fraught with pseudoscience". Stating only the part "fraught with pseudoscience" with in-text attribution does not tell the reader much when the source said a lot more than that. Again, please list the "several" editors who wanted to use the wording According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". while objecting to include anything else the source said. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You or anyone else can hit ctrl+F on their keyboard and type the word "fraught", and you will see how many times this came up in the discussion for yourself. Shii (tock) 18:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. The word "fraught" came up in the discussion but I can't find evidence to support your opinion that "several" editors only wanted the wording According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". One editor suggested to use only that wording during the RfC. Again, please list the "several" editors who wanted to use only the wording According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". while objecting to include anything else the source said. The page does include "fraught with pseudoscience" with in-text attribution and editors did include a lot more than just stating TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience" with in-text attribution. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that other quotes from Nature should not be used at all. I said that because a number of editors requested proper context be supplied, a specific wording -- TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." -- should be avoided as removing a statement from its context.
 * If you want to quote the entire sentence -- "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." -- or some reasonable paraphrase of that, I don't see the problem with that. But Nature does not say that the "most obvious answer" is "the right answer". It specifically sets this up as part of a "many would say X, but proponents say Y" back-and-forth. Shii (tock) 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that it explicitly agrees with the proposition that TCM is fraught with pseudoscience two sentences later, rendering that whole line of reasoning invalid by answering their own question. I was planning on letting the dust settle on this, but it does surprise me to see you defending an obviously fallacious line of reasoning. You didn't seem to give much weight to the fact that the person opening the RFC neglected to mention that Nature described TCM as fraught with pseudoscience just two sentences later. The "most obvious answer" part is just a rhetorical device, not a serious statement that there are other plausible alternatives.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the RFC put your opinion that this is a mere rhetorical device in the majority, unless if you are arguing from silence. Shii (tock) 23:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point was raised multiple times, Shii. The key issue is that the RFC phrasing omitted the key fact that the sourced characterised TCM as pseudoscience a couple of sentences later, and you don't seem to have factored that distortion of the problem statement into your close.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kww, this all has already been brought up in the RfC. The whole paragraph 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."


 * Therefore, it's quite obvious that the article is bringing forth both aspects. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any better, I think. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Shii, thank you for being more clear with your response. I hope we can continue to move the conversation forward.
 * The lede says "Nature described TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience", and said that a possible reason why it hasn't delivered many cures is that its treatments have no logical mechanism of action, yet proponents argue that it is because research has missed key features of the art of TCM, such as the interactions between different ingredients.[10]"
 * The body says "A Nature editorial described TCM as fraught with pseudoscience, and stated that having "no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies" is the "most obvious answer" to why its study didn't provide a "flood of cures", while advocates responded that "researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[10]"
 * The specific part fraught with pseudoscience is included in the page and I and others updated the page while listening to the comments others made during the RfC.
 * User:Shii, is the current wording reasonable for now and does it have consensus according to the RfC? Do you have any suggestions for improving it according to the comments from RfC or the ongoing discussion? The previous wording was just a bit ambiguous. Editors did continue to edit and tweak the text after the RfC. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The current wording is satisfactory. For future reference, I am pasting it here:
 * While Nature described TCM as fraught with pseudoscience, and said that a possible reason why it hasn't delivered many cures is that its treatments have no logical mechanism of action, proponents argue that it is because research has missed key features of the art of TCM, such as the interactions between different ingredients.
 * A Nature editorial described TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience", and stated that having "no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies" is the "most obvious answer" to why its study didn't provide a "flood of cures", while advocates responded that "researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."
 * Shii (tock) 23:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and agree with the closing as well. It's important to separate personal beliefs from what the sources say, and in any case the Nature article is likely worded carefully on purpose to avoid controversial taking sides in the semantic and philosophical debates around the definition of science and pseudoscience. II  | (t - c) 00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous suggestion: According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". could be misread by an editor as the "consensus wording" and someone could replace the current wording with only the part According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience".
 * I just clarified it in the lede it was an "editorial" rather than claim it was Nature as a whole.
 * User:Shii, you said the wording is satisfactory but which wording is the actual consensus wording? It is important to determine the consensus wording according to the RfC otherwise the debate over which wording is the consensus wording will continue. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC was disorganized, as they often are, and did not establish a specific sentence that must be used in either the lede or the body. I don't think at the moment that it's necessary to set this in stone, since the current wording seems fine.
 * My point in setting out that example sentence was to show what views could be attributed directly to Nature and not to say that only three words could be used and the rest could not be mentioned. Shii (tock) 03:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". does not explain much from the source. I hope no editor will claim that this sentence with no context is the consensus wording and delete everything else the source said. The example sentence ended with a period and did not allow for any context or phrasing. I think the RfC closing could easily be misread. User:Shii, I recommend you redo the RfC closing since any editor could mistakenly delete all the other text from the source. What should be done if an editor replaces the satisfactory wording with only According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience".? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a second clarification which I hope addresses your concern. Shii (tock) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is still a period at the end of the sentence which could be misinterpreted that only three words are allowed and the rest of what the source said cannot be mentioned. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)