User:PPdd/Sandbox2

SARS section?
What does this SARS paragraph have to do with TCM? I don't want to mess with something that is being worked on by others. But would someone whose already involved with this please just delete it already rather than just commenting on it? D?ugosz
 * Its removed. PPdd (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Picture of Tibetan Medicine?
I'm not trying to start any argument over the political status of Tibet, but it seemed a little strange that there is a picture of Ancient chinese medical chart, Wu Xing, and then "Ancient Tibetan Medicine Poster." Please do not take this to mean some political argument, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to be putting something about Tibet/Tibetan medicine in this page. Why not a poster about Hindu medicine and the chakra system? Tibet/Tibetan medicine is quite unique, as well as its history, it isn't merely a sub-branch of Traditional Chinese medicine. Perhaps if there was clarity about why this picture is here, that would help (maybe to show comparison of traditional medicine systems). Without this, i would suggest removal of the picture; it can imply the wrong message.
 * (Please remember to sign. Its removed. PPdd (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More than just alternative medicine, excludes science based medicine
TCM goes way beyond most alternative "medicine" systems in that it includes many occult beliefs that have more to do with religeon than medicine. It also does not include science based medicine. This information should be in the lede.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its in the lead. PPdd (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Occult
Please scrutinize the sources. I am not sure they accurately support things. A thousand pardons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow - that's pov-pushy language (makes TCM sound like they cut the heads off chickens and dance around their patients naked).  'Occult' is a hold-over term from orientalism, and shouldn't be used without good cause (it really only applies to 19th century mysticism in the European world).  I haven't read this article over in a long time - guess it's time to go in and do some house cleaning, vacuum out stuff like this.


 * ok. in order:
 * An annotated bibliography, which is useless in itself to support any claim.
 * A dissertation (primary source that lacks a degree of credibility) focusing on a specific practice (zhuyou exorcism) not on TCM as a whole
 * I don't know what this is, since the publication information (if that's what it is) is written in Chinese. It might be an academic paper, but if so, it's an incautious one. for instance the transition from 'Art of Numbers' to 'Occult Arts' in the first paragraph is suspect, though the author does not himself make the bonehead move of associating it with western conceptions of the occult (as the wikipedia editor who inserted this information did).
 * Not only are these unreliable sources, but they fail verification (they do not support what they are meant to support in this article). I'm removing the phrase now.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Ludwigs2 gets this one right. Traditional medicine is in the lead right where it should be to provide context. Metaphysical gets at some of the same ideas, and does not carry the inaccurate connotations of occult; while this term also requires some context, it appears to be in common use as a descriptor for such concepts as yin and yang. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna Frodesiak, the links in the sources you refer to do not work for me. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All issues have now been addressed. PPdd (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM - "inconsistent with modern science", or merely "not accepted by modern science"?
TCM is flat out inconsistent with modern established science, not merely unaccepted by it. The existence of a nonphysical mind is "not accepted by" behaviorists. While some concepts such as "yin and yang" are not accepted by the scientific community as being unmeasureable, the TCM correlation of the human body with the number of rivers of a particular Chinese empire and number of days in the year is outright inconsistent with modern science. (What counts as a river, and what the boundaries of an empire are, is arbitrary; The number of days in a year is NOT 365, that is only an approximation; even if the previous problems were to be somehow corrected, there is no correlation of rivers and earth spin cycles per revolution about the sun with the human body.) I have undone Ludwigs2's pro-TCM POV lessening of the wording. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * HkF: are you talking theory or practice here? Obviously the theories are radically different - no western medical doctor is going to make diagnoses based on the principles of yinyang - but in practice TCM and regular medicine are not contradictory.  No one offers TCM as competitor for western medicine, sometimes TCM and western medicine are used in a complementary fashion, often they are simply separate, with TCM focusing on things that western medicine doesn't have much to say about, and vice-versa.  TCM does not exclude western science (most practitioners in the west will direct patients to GPs where appropriate), nor are the practices inconsistent with each other; the fact that the models they use are different is an important point, but hardly hardly turns them into oil and water.


 * More to the point, the statement seems to be based on your own particular (somewhat stawmanish) perspective on TCM. at least, it doesn't seem to be sourced to anything.  so I'm going to tag it now with 'citation needed' and give you a couple of days to provide a reliable source before removing it again.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RS is always good. The RS should be on content in the article body, with the lede summarizing this RS material.
 * I meant both theory and practice. For example, TCM says that there is a map of the body in the tongue.  (There really is such a map of the body in the brain.)  If a theory or practice uses just some things inconsistent with science, it is a pseudoscience, whether or not it has some other components that are incommensurable or use scientific methodology.  My friend once insisted on going to a well known TCM doctor in our city's Chinatown to find out if she was pregnant.  The "doctor" examined tongue, and declared her not to be (she was).  His practice, and the theory on which it was based, is "inconsistent" with science. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you're claiming that TCM is incommensurate with western medicine because a particular practitioner didn't diagnose your friend's pregnancy correctly? so if I came up with an example where TCM worked as advertised, then TCM is good again?  Or how about if I found an example where a conventional doctor misdiagnosed a patient - would western medicine then be pseudoscience?


 * arguing from personal experience has a place in the world, but that place is not here.


 * Find a source, and we'll argue over the proper use and interpretation of the source in the article. Your personal knowledge of TCM seems to be heavily skewed towards funky examples (like if all someone knew about western medicine was that it used to use leeches and frequently cuts off diseased body parts).  It's not a fair assessment of the practice, and there's no sense getting into a long dialog about it, so let's just see if we can find a source that says something we can both agree to.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolved with RS. PPdd (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Need to add inconsistencies to science section; too much focus on efficay studies, not enough on inconsistency with anatomy
Much can be added to the science section. For example, ideas about maps on the tongue correponding to the body is flat out inconsistent with, and contradicted by, knowledge of human anatomy and physiology. Similarly with locatoin of meridians and acupuncture points. Focusing on efficacy studies is irrelevant if the model itself is known to be wrong. That would be like bothering to test efficacy of a 10-60 dilution in homeopathy. Studies would be a waste of time, and positive effect would more be like evidence of randomness, or a flaw in the study, not evidence that there is something showing anatomy is wrong. Does anyone know RS already at hand (avoid duplicating finding RS if they are already found) regarding the toungue not having a map of the body on it, and for meridians and points being inconsistent with sciences of human anatomy and phsyiology? There is also not enough matrial on occult numerological basis (whether or not those words are in the RS, the bases should be in the science section). Also, the inconsistencies section should come before the efficay study section, since it makes the latter redundant for some readers. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you're hung up on this. no one actually claims that there's an actual physical 'map' on the tongue - it's just a diagnostic tool, much the way that a doctor will look at your pulse and blood pressure and make assertions about your general health.  there's no conflict with anatomy here, because (as noted) TCM does not use the same reductionistic anatomical model that western science does.  just as an example, TCM puts the skin as part of the same organ system as the lungs; western medicine notes that the skin (like the lungs) allows transpiration of gases with the environment.  same basic idea, cast as one organ system in TCM and cast as two distinct organs with related functionality in western medicine.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, Ludwigs2, that is getting into not even wrong territory - TCM anatomy is not simply another basis set that can be used to describe the body to arbitrary accuracy. This is a shame, as I basically agree with what I think is your gist, that in some ways TCM is in conflict with medicine in the same way that philately is in conflict with the BCS theory of superconductivity. A more apt comparison might be the old bifurcating system of taxonomy that is gradually being replaced now that we can actually measure genetic relationships.
 * I would also like to talk about this edit, which added a couple cn tags to the lead (edit by Ludwigs2, I think made instead of reverting again). The first of them I like - baldly stating that TCM excludes science based medicine I think is actually incorrect without defining our terms. Specifically, do we mean the protoscience only (in which case the statement is misleading, as its development was not informed by proper science), or do we mean what people in China who describe themselves as traditional healers actually do (in which case the statement is wrong often enough to be misleading, as referrals do occur; whether they occur in proper proportion to the patient load is a separate question).
 * The second cn tag, though, I would like explained. Ludwigs2, from past experience I have found that you are usually a great deal more reasonable than you at first seem to me. I suspect that is indicative of vastly different styles of thought; you strike me as using the humanities-philosophical mode, while I prefer mathematics and experiment. Having identified the problem, I believe it should be possible for two rational human beings to work together in its awareness. The statement [TCM] is based on beliefs about the body that are not consistent with established science, to my reading, would be absurd to source because that is the whole point of this article - the beliefs of TCM practitioners. Reading your statement above, I believe that the conflict arises in your interpretation of consistent.
 * Proposal: delete that sentence. Part of its utility is encapsulated in the link to traditional medicine in the preceding sentence, and the rest is covered by the second paragraph. Replace first (overly long and convoluted) sentence of the second paragraph with: Anatomy in TCM is organized according to metaphysical concepts. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your taxonomy analogy is pretty much what I was aiming for: the TCM model is an old way of conceptualizing the body that lacks access to modern analytic techniques but is still (within its limitations) functional - it would not have lasted several thousand years if it did not have something positive going for it.


 * Don't read into the CN tag. the first one I debated tagging with POV assertion because (as you note) it is a bald misstatement.  the second one, however, I really was just asking for a citation we could discuss.  the problem as I see it is in the word 'inconsistent' - inconsistent to my mind would mean either
 * That TCM consistently tells patients to ignore or avoid western treatments
 * not the case in the west, where practitioners are often licensed and interact with conventional medicine on 'best treatment' principles
 * the converse in Asia where doctors often steer patients to western medicine but patients refuse
 * That TCM engages in practices which western medicine considers dangerous. the only arguments I've seen in that regard are
 * moxibustiion, which physicians object to because it may cause minor scarring when done badly
 * worries about unknown interactions between modern medicines and herbal medicines
 * worries that patients may choose TCM over conventional medicine in cases where conventional medicine would be better for them (which isn't a criticism of TCM, but rather of the priorities and intrinsic rationality of the patients)
 * Since neither of these really pertains, 'inconsistent' strikes me as a bad word choice. so either we discuss better word-choice or we find a source that gives us a clear description of how the word is being used (so that wikipedia isn't saying something potentially damaging to the topic in its own voice).


 * With respect to your specific proposal: I rather like that over-long first sentence of the second paragraph. To my mind it captures the captures the difference between TCM and scientific medicine well.  Yes, it has a colon and several clauses, but I think readers are up to the reading challenge, scarred by twitter as their brains may be.    can we do a gentler rewrite?


 * As an aside, I actually have a handful of different conversational modes I use, depending on the tendencies of the person I'm talking to. this is in my preferred mode (reasonable discussion aimed at resolving conflicts over differing perspectives); the others I use to short-circuit, derail, and refocus degenerate forms of communication (of which there are several distinct kinds on-project).  that annoys people, the way that people get annoyed when they throw a punch at you and smack their fist on a lamppost instead. I keep hoping that people will learn that it's not a wise idea to throw punches at me like that, but for some editors degenerate communication is such an ingrained habit that I suspect they may never get it.  c'est la vie.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re - "It would not have lasted several thousand years if it did not have something positive going for it", are you making the same claim about bloodletting or the cammandment "thou shall have no God other than me" of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which was started by Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago when the world was created with fossils of nonexistent species built into the ground. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * bloodletting actually does help with some illnesses, and the first commandment was a fairly unique sociological move that allowed the Jewish people to persist as a unified culture for thousands of years (well past contemporaries like the caananites and the philistines, and even longer than major empires like the egyptians and romans). Monotheism has a whole lot wrong with it, as practiced, but it's a damned effective social tool.  and please don't confuse modern Christian claptrap with ancient Judaic tradition.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes a great deal of sense, thank you. I would not call the first sentence of the second paragraph really bad, it just reads like something I might have written . This one appears to be the fault of someone else, but I am trying to get better at writing for a general audience, particularly people who use English as a second language. Looking further, I think that the lead goes into too much detail in some places, and omits important points covered in the body of the article. First, though, the article needs to be reorganized, starting with ditching the first section: Traditional Chinese medicine; the section title is inconsistent with the MoS, it reads like an old lead, uses no sources, and the points are already covered in the appropriate sections. Look for a proposal concerning logical section order, coming soon to a talkpage near you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No more "science" section. Specific scientific info was merged into specific topics, so as not to generally apply to whole article when it does not. PPdd (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to clean up (pseudo)-medicine articles
Pursuant to the above post:

I recently removed a lot of content from Chinese herbology. I encourage editors to remove all unsourced claims from such articles with extreme prejudice. False claims in BLPs are removed because they might be libelous. False claims and unsupported content in articles about (pseudo)-medicine can cost lives. Wikipedia must do no harm. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna (cute pun-name by the way), wikipedia is not a medical text, and is not subject to the Hippocratic oath. Wikipedia should not be telling people to partake of cures which are a direct threat to their health, at least not without appropriate warnings (e.g. we should not have a page outlining the 'rat poison' cure for scrofula without some notice that oral ingestion of rat poison is generally fatal).  However, wikipedia does not go out of its way to determine for itself which practices are effective and which are not; we simply present pertinent and complete information about various practices, and leave readers to make judgements on their own.  Unsupported content is one thing, but trying to excise 'false claims' often strays into the 'nono' region of using wikipedia as an advocacy tool.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points indeed. All I'm really saying is that we should adhere to Wikipedia's policies, but with a little extra vigor. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "false". As we pursue "verifiabily" and not "truth", we should simply do what we do with all articles. But, as we take extra care with BLPs, so as not to do harm (getting our butts sued off, and trashing the subjects' lives), we should take extra care with articles such as these. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anna Frodesiak, false is false, so there is no error in your using that word. That there might be some isolated cases where TCM cures have a minimal effect should not be used as an advertisement for TCM, just to isolate the rare substances that do a little bit of what they are supposed to do and incorporate these in science based medicine.  TCM is false, and its tongue diagnosis and 12 rivers based acupuncture are false.  That there may be a very slight analgesic effect of randomly sticking needles in the body causing a minor release of some alangesic produced by the body is a reason to duplicate the analgesic and use it, but this is not an argument supporting acupuncture.  TCM is false and dangerous, and an encycopedia should call a spade a spade. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, polemics, I see. HkF, that is patently unencyclopedic reasoning.  If you feel it's necessary to engage in the basic research necessary to demonstrate that TCM is somehow 'false', 'bad', 'evil', 'monstrous', 'ugly', 'socially inappropriate', 'mean to pets and small children', or whatever other derogatory phrases might be running around in your head, I suggest that you go publish something and become a reliable source, so that less ideologically motivated editors can cite your work in this article.  trying to do your basic research here is a nono'; that's not what wikipedia is for.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory link to Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Obligatory disclaimer that the standards outlined therein apply to the medical aspects of this article, while the sociological aspects are treated using sources appropriate to those statements. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Massive unsourced or nonMERS claims have been reworded, or inline RS cited. I also put a giant BIG BOLD warning about this regarding it possibly costing lives below. Resolved. PPdd (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed organizational structure
I propose an organizaional structure based on prevalence of common usage going from This improves readablity for laypersons worldwide, who might just want to know what is the use of ginseng, or what kind of doctor to go to, and not that there are 365 acupuncture points, or that it is believed that the toungue contains a map with the vagina on it to use as a basis for diagnosing a staff infection. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) traditional Chinese medicine (a medical substance) most commonly encountered and sold in local grocery stores worldwide for health and well being, home remedy, or by prescription. Used daily by many.  Prescibed by TCM practitioners from acupuncturists to "doctors".  Claimed uses can be gone into a bit.  Common encountered medicines, such as ginseng, can have slightly more detailed subsections than more obscure ones.
 * (2) practices of TCM (a set of alternative medical practices) for well being or treatment of illness commonly encountered like acupuncture and herbology. For laypersons, knowledge of practice should come before knoweldge of theory.  No one needs to study the theory of neurolgoy before being referred to a neurologist.
 * (3) the highly esoteric theorical underpinnings (among people going to an acupuncturist, who really cares what a meridian is, or worse still, that there are 365 acupuncture points based on some correlation of number of days in a year and the body.
 * (4) linking theory to medicines to the medicines and practices.
 * (5) medical and scientific opinion last.


 * Ok, I think I'm beginning to understand part of the problem here. You seem to equate TCM with grocery store medicinals (a bit like equating western medicine with condoms, cold medicines, and bandaids).  Tiger penis is to Chinese medicine the way that facebook is to computer science: an item with a certain unfortunate popularity that is loosely based in the same principles, but not something that one should measure the field by.  People (being people) have a knack for reducing everything to the stupidest common denominator.  Should we criticize western medicine because one of its best selling products is Viagra?  Granting that viagra works and tiger penis doesn't, we still don't want to criticize an entire area of knowledge because part of it panders to the masses.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Traditional Chiinese medicine (substance) is widely available all over the United States. Traditional Chinese Medicine (pratcice and theory) is not.  But all should be in the article.  There is only one clause in one sentence in the lede about medicine, which contradicts most common usage for an English language encyclopedia.  There is no reality based/science based in formation in the first lede paragraph at all any longer.  Nothing in the rest of the lede either.  There was only two sentences I put in it in the first place, which you called POV, since one of them was the scientific opinioin.  How can you call my edits POV, for including just two sentnces, one of which TCM should have no problem with, that it is based on two observable principles, the number of days in a year, and number of rivers in a Chinese Empire?  How can you call this a "problem"? HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. people buy over-the-counter drug store medications far more often than they visit the doctor to get prescription medications, but we do not equate western medicine with drug store medicines simply because the later are more frequently used.  Nor should we do so with TCM.  and I'm not sure what you're saying about the POV bit, either.  I thought those revisions were POV; I don't necessarily think that all of your revisions are POV. what are we talking about here? -- Ludwigs 2  17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a usage thing. Western medicines are usually called drugs or medicine, a kind of plural.  But medines of TCM are usually called Traditional Chinese medicine. Your recent edit fixes any problems. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * RS found for "75% of TCM is use of medicines". Resolved. PPdd (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for NRS "theory" section material
I deleted this NRS material. Instead of just deleting it, I moved it here, so editors can help find RS for it. "'''"TCM's view of the human body is only marginally morphologic, i.e., concerned with anatomy, but primarily focuses on the body functions (e.g., digesting food, breathing, keeping a certain temperature etc.). -   - As a first step of systematization, certain body functions are identified as being connected and ascribed to a common functional entity (e.g., nourishing the tissues and maintaining their moisture is seen as connected and the functional entity identified to be in charge is: xuě/blood). The terms used for those functional entities are usually very illustrative (blood, essence, liver, heart etc.), but don't claim to be anatomically correct. -   - The most important functional entities stipulated are - * qì  - * xuě (‘’blood‘’) - * the five zàng organs - * the six fǔ organs - * the meridians"'''" PPdd (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mallexicon found RS. PPdd (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for NRS material in "zàng-fǔ" section
"'"The zàng-fǔ (zh s 脏腑, t 臟腑) constitute the centre piece of TCM's systematization of bodily functions. Bearing the names of organs, they are loosely tied to (rudimental) anatomical assumptions (the fǔ a little more, the zàng much less). As they are entities defined by function'' first and foremost, however, they are not equivalent to the anatomical organs - to highlight this fact, their names are usually capitalized.

The term zàng (脏) refers to the five entities considered to be yin in nature - Heart, Liver, Spleen, Lung, Kidney -, while fǔ (腑) refers to the six yang organs - Small Intestine, Large Intestine, Gallbladder, Urinary Bladder, Stomach and Sānjiaō. By citation from the Huangdi Neijing's Suwen: ‘’言人身脏腑中阴阳，则脏者为阴，腑者为阳. ‘’[Within the human body's zang-fu, there's yin and yang; the zang are yin, the fu are yang].

Since their concept was developed on the basis of Wǔ Xíng philosophy, each zàng is paired with a fǔ, and each zàng-fǔ pair is assigned to one of five elemental qualities (i.e., the Five Elements or Five Phases). These correspondences are stipulated as:


 * Fire (火) Heart (心) and Small Intestine (小肠) (and, secondarily, Sānjiaō [三焦, ‘’Triple Burner‘’] and Pericardium [心包])
 * Earth (土) Spleen (脾) and Stomach (胃)
 * Metal (金) Lung (肺) and Large Intestine (大肠)
 * Water (水) Kidney (肾) and Bladder (膀胱)
 * Wood (木) Liver (肝) and Gallbladder (胆)

The zàng-fǔ are also connected to the twelve standard meridians - each yang meridian is attached to a fǔ organ and five of the yin meridians are attached to a zàng. As there are only five zàng but six yin meridians, the sixth is assigned to the Pericardium, a peculiar entity almost similar to the Heart zàng."'''" PPdd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mallexicon found RS. PPdd (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help find RS for "tequniques" section material
Please help find RS for "tequniques" section material - "'''"Techniques - PPdd (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Palpation of the patient's radial artery pulse (pulse diagnosis) in six positions
 * Observations of patient's tongue, voice, hair, face, posture, gait, eyes, ears, vein on index finger of small children
 * Palpation of the patient's body (especially the abdomen, chest, back, and lumbar areas) for tenderness or comparison of relative warmth or coolness of different parts of the body
 * Observation of the patient's various odors
 * Asking the patient about the effects of their problem.
 * Anything else that can be observed without instruments and without harming the patient
 * Asking detailed questions about their family, living environment, personal habits, food diet, emotions, menstrual cycle for women, child bearing history, sleep, exercise, and anything that may give insight into the balance or imbalance of an individual."'''"

RS has been found. PPdd (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture from Erotic photographer
I'm curious how the picture of moxabustion in what appears to be a brothel taken by a self-described "erotic" photographer is in any way an unbiased view of TCM. The photographer obviously staged the scene, which is evident if you check his bio and look at his gallery. Can someone please help to clarify how this photo is appropriate, or what steps need to be taken to get it removed for good. I'm leaving it up there for now, and looking forward to hearing others weigh in on this matter.

Calus (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In principle it makes no difference who took the picture. That being said, that photographer's work is pretty awful, and the picture likewise. We don't have to have a picture there, much less this one.


 * The use of meatpuppets and sockpuppets is totally forbidden here and the way they have attempted to remove the picture is wrong. A picture of this type isn't worth edit warring over. Reasoned discussion should be tried, then dispute resolution if that doesn't work.


 * To save going into dispute resolution (a very disruptive and time-consuming process) over a picture of such poor quality, I'm going to remove it. We don't need it or ANY picture there! Let's just use a bit of commonsense and end this matter here and now. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Calus, can you upload another pic you like of acu/moxy to WP:Commons? PPdd (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope to take pictures of a modern clinical setting on Thursday. If all goes well with releases I should have a suitable image shortly.  Calus (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * if you can figure out the legality labyrinth of WP:Commons and get the pic in there, I will help you stick it in the article if you need help. A horizontal orientation pic would help break up the verticle column of pics at the right, which is kind of a necessity since 75% of TCM is the medicines, and the medicines are inherently list like. The medicines are ordered roughly biologically, from "higher" land animal life forms to lower, to marine, to fungi, to plants, to minerals, in order to help optimally break up the inherent list-like situation for readability and appearance. it was once suggested to put the "king of herbs" and "queen of poisons" at the top, or "snake oil" followed by "ginseng" as a list by common awareness in English language countries (its an English language encyclopedia), but the former was rejected since the plant list was longer and the list was top-heavy (although it served as a good warning with aconite listed first), and the latter became infeasable and arbitrary. I made the subsectoins alphabetical, moving snake oil way down, which likely made skeptics unhappy. PPdd (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I'm somewhat familiar with Creative Commons. I also have many sensationalist photos from a herbal market in China if that floats your boat.  I have one of an entire table of placentas.  However, I don't think any were human in origin.Calus (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more the type to like a boring picture of a person lying on a treatment table getting moxy or acu with moxy. There is already a good pic of acu (the one of the two hands), but not a very illustrative one for moxy. The one that was removed would have been good if the woman was wearing doctor's cloting. It would also be nice to have a more horizontal pic to help break up the visuals in the article. PPdd (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Flagged
This article's opening section has an unambiguous and inappropriate value bias against Traditional Chinese medicine. I am new to this, please tell me how to pursue flagging this article. Thank you. Hollerbach (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You will find something helpful to you about this in WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:Article creep, WP:WFTE, or WP:AGF. PPdd (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article has been hijacked by Skeptics lumping all sorts of things under the heading of TCM in order to discredit it by making it sound crazy. Erroneous views held by western doctors in the past are not used to discredit modern MD's.  However,  I do appreciate their dedication and thank them for working to improve this article, even if they are unable to separate their bias from editing.  Overall, I agree that this article should be flagged so random viewers know it is being challenged for bias, and don't take all in here as statements of fact. Calus (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged it. PPdd (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural mushroom
This is most commonly know in the US and other parts of the world as Reishi mushroom. Perhaps that should be the title, or at least mentioned. Calus (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I added this in. I should have caught that, since I collect conks, mostly from the field or from Korean and Japanese herbal medicine stores. PPdd (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ginkgo inaccuracy
Ginkgo used in TCM is different than the common ginko biloba supplements commonly sold to improve memory. That is the eastern herb which uses a different part of the tree. I don't believe TCM uses either the fruit or the leaf, but that should be double checked. If so, there is no reason to include the toxicity of those parts of the tree. Calus (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Source on toxicity was removed as unrelated to TCM, in that it only referred to leaves, not the seeds used in TCM. PPdd (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Strychnine tree seeds
According to the Materia Medica by Dan Besky, page 1050; "Due to the small difference between the therapeutic and toxic doses, use of strychni semen (ma quian zi) bears a high risk of inducing severe poisoning and for this reason should be regarded as an obsolete drug". It is listed in the 'Obsolete Substances" category. Due to this fact I challenge it's validity in an article on Traditional Chinese Medicine. At very least, it should be noted that the herb is no longer used. Calus (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the source indicates that it is not used in the practice of TCM, so it should be removed from the page.Herbxue (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cited source is now added for disambiguation. The seeds are still sold and used by others, just like tiger's penis is still a problem, but a secondary source on some TCM authorities' responsible removal of highly toxic materials and highly endangered species would be helpful. PPdd (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a section on the bottom for obsolete herbs. In fact, I think the way herbs are listed now should be reordered.  I think the most commonly used type of herbs, i.e., plants based should be at the top, followed by fungi, animal parts, and minerals with a section on obsolete or black market herbs at the bottom. Perhaps herbs should be ordered as they are in TCM materia medica, by TCM categories of function.  I understand the way things are ordered now, but not the reason why. Calus (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed. They are ordred biologically per WP, from higher land anminals to lower to marine to fungi to plants to minerals, and alphabetical within the categories. I tried ordering by usage, but all that happened was arguments about which is more important, like "King of herbs" should be first, or "Snake oil should be first since it is an English language encycloipedia" citing WP on this, etc. People wanted to use the order to express their POV, and only advocates and skeptics stated objections so as to create POV, so it is now back to standard NPOV biological WP style which has broad consensus over WP. The only reason to change it is POV, and changing now is a gross violation OF THE VARIOUS MOS and other standards. This has all been extensively discussed, such as at the projects, here, and elsewhere, and to bring it up again is pointy. PPdd (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say is that is a disservice to the subject. For one thing, this is not a Biology article, it is about TCM which really has no parallel subject in terms of scope, continuity, or cultural interconnections so it does not make sense to apply an arbitrary format. For another thing, all the WP policy pages you cite clearly indicate that any policy should be ignored if it stands in the way of faithfully presenting the subject. Our hands are not tied.Herbxue (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The disservice is all the POV pushing in trying to order things, and pointy ignoring of WP:MOS as to the original NPOV biological ordering, and as to alphabetical ordering, cherry picking lists to best achieve POV. As far as I know, the most common classification is either by toxicity with most toxic being highest on the list becuase those are considerered most effective, alphabetically, or biologically. The the latter NPOV was changed to the middle with a POV and pointy violation of MOS, then when aconite was added to the article, and became the first on the list, it was changed back to biological. Listing by toxicity (which would also violate MOS), was also rejected, leading back to the original NPOV biological. Then a list structure was cherry picked using one particular author's subcategories, again POV pointy violating MOS, and when this developed in a way POV editors did not like, it was changed back to NPOV biological, which is where it is going to stay, as any further discussion pointily violates MOS as to the style being that of the first major contributor's NPOV biological listing. MOS - "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.", which is me, since I created the entire section, and did 99% of the edits in it. POINT - "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the... interpretation. ... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." Bringing this up again and again in the face of MOS and clear NPOV biological ordering, and after having POINT notices, is pointy and disruptive. PPdd (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not fair. I am not making a POINT about TCM in the article itself, I am "pointing out" here that the order is not in keeping with how THIS SUBJECT is generally presented in textbooks or in school curricula. I h:ave not made any attempt to re-order anything (yet). Can you please cite where you read "the most common classification is either by toxicity with most toxic being highest on the list becuase those are considerered most effective" - they are not usually listed that way in any resource related the the subject at hand (TCM) and it is a false generalization to say that they are considered the most effective.Herbxue (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For about the fifth time here and elsewhere, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.". WP:POINT includes repeatedly raising the same issues again on talk pages, which are already determined per WP:MOS, with WP:SILENCE after a while when it keeps coming up again because WP:MOS is dispositive and biological order has been determined to be WP:NPOV. WP:DE includes on WP:Talk pages, and frequently has led to topic bans for WP:SPA on alt med articles. WP:GOI, WP:BLUD, and WP:STICK  or possible WP:BAN for WP:DE per WP:POINT. Also, writing "yet", in the face of all of these policies and guidlines, indicates both an intention to be DE, and SPA. PPdd (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for citation: aconite
The toxic component of aconite root used in TCM is destroyed in boiling water. This should be easy to find citations for. From there it is easy to state that "preparation" involves boiling for up to 2 hrs prior to adding other herbs to the formula. The way it is written now makes TCM seem ignorant of aconite's toxins, or unable to neutralize the toxins.

Perhaps we can also do something about this statement: "some TCM believers think that this is because it was either processed incorrectly or planted on the wrong place or on the wrong day of the year, i.e., for supernatural or astrological reasons, not because of the toxins" Calus (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - If the article makes a medical claim about how to medicinally "detoxify and use" highly dangerous poisons, above all sources it must strictly adhere to MEDRS as to peer reviewed reliable secondary source scientific/medical publication, and not just be from a TCM or alt med publication. Any violation of this will be immediately deleted by one of the many editors watching this article, and might result in a block. PPdd (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Point well taken, but as I indicated above, this page does not need to make a medical claim, it needs to report on the practice of TCM. The sentence could read "many practitioners believe that boiling for over an hour reduces toxicity" and then add a couple sentences after, backed by RS, that support and/or refute the validity of that practice.Herbxue (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point Herbxue, perhaps something like: Many practitioners believe that boiling for at least an hour prior to decoction with other herbs reduces the toxicity while maintaining the therapeutic qualities.(alt citation) The poisonous chemical compound aconitin, is an alkaloid with low solubility for water.  One method of extraction is to boil the plant and distill the steam from boiled water" (or something, since we dont want to give instruction on how to create a poison, but its easy to show with scientific research that the toxic chemical cannot stay in boiling water.)Calus (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got it exactly with your suggested sentence (except you are supposed to find the sentence in a source first, not in your head, but nobody really does that who knows facts already). There may be much more than just boiling under historic TCM belief, and you might have to say "Famous TCM person A believes that boiling for such and such time and then doing this and that, and it had to be planted at the solstice and at this location... reduces toxicity" ". (But please don't boil aconite and use it. For all you know it was not planted on the solstice like it should have been, and in that case Heiner Fruehauf will not want to take responsibility for what happens.) :) PPdd (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the toxic dose of a poisonous drug is generally close to its therapeutic dose.
This sounds a lot like the phamalogical notion of a "narrow therapeutic index", I'm not sure if the Alt medicine source can make this claim. Calus (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I might have worded too closely to the wording in the RS. Reworded per MEDRS - "Under TCM it is believed that toxicity is needed to fight pathogens in the body; that the therapeutic dose of a poisonous drug is generally close to what is believed to be its toxic dose." PPdd (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only true for certain more rarely used substances. It is not true for things like Ginseng, Goji, Ganoderma, etc. The statement, while it may represent good RS, is incomplete RS. Its like saying "John Keats was a poet, he had TB, so poets generally have TB". The treatment principle called 以毒攻毒Yi Du Gong Du or "using toxin to attack toxin" is very rarely used. Not sure what the best way to cite a source for a statement of what TCM is not, because if I count up the instances of that treatment principle showing up in textbooks on therapeutics manuals it might be construed as "original research". In any event, the statement in the article is misrepresentative - pathogens are more often cleared with relatively non-toxic substances.Herbxue (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Matuk article is questionable source - No "complex association with gods"
I just noticed that under section 33 Unfaithful Citations Mallexikon brings up a very similar objection to the Matuk article as the point I made under section 42. Two editors clearly read this source as mixing apples and oranges while the way it is used in the article makes it sound like "association with gods" is a verified part of TCM development. PPdd has defended the source as coming from a peer reviewed journal, but, as I pointed out, the author Matuk is not a TCM subject matter expert but someone attempting to make (what I perceive as) a sophomoric point about a non-existent East-West parallel. I think if this article makes the dangerous claim that TCM has anything to do with "gods" (and what gods?), then a better source should be found. "God" is a loaded word, loaded with connotations that are completely foreign to the Chinese. How could a medicine based on a "complex association with gods" have been systematized and promoted by the Chinese communists during their most culturally caustic period? Would anyone else care to defend the Matuk article, and this claim in particular, as a reliable source on TCM? If not I think the statement should come out.Herbxue (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Mallexikon brought up a question about wording in that section, and the article wording was changed to exactly reflect the source. You are making a different complaint, that you personally disagree with the source. What RS do you base your personal opinion on?
 * (2) The Matuk medical history article was peer reviewed. What evidence do you have that both Matuk and the peer reviewers are not TCM history experts?
 * (3) The article appeared in a prominent medical journal on a controversial subject. What RS has responded if the article is so erroneous as you say? PPdd (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My only opinion is that the article is sophmoric. It is not my opinion that the study of TCM does not involve "complex associations with gods" - please see the "A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine" by Wiseman and Ye - no mention of "gods" defining TCM anatomy. Please see "The Foundations of Chinese Medicine" by Maciocia - no mention of "gods" associated with TCM anatomy. In order to sincerely collaborate to improve this article can you please consider the possibility that someone made a mistake in a peer reviewed journal. Remember Vioxx?Herbxue (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is clear MEDRS, and its editors and peer reviewers did not share your opinion, or it would not have been published. Apparantly no one else of any stature shares your opinion, since the article has not been reacted to in the literature. The article says what is quoted, where this was already discussed on this talk page and extensively at the acupuncture talk page, and the wording in the article was changed to accurately reflect what the article says. Please read these talk pages and please do not keep trying to beat a dead horse and make a point. PPdd (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wording changed from quoted taxt "complex associations with the gods" to "complex association with reiligion and spirituality", as "religion and spirituality' are also words used in the article, which not only cites references for words used, but shows an illustration of the association from TCM history. PPdd (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that's more acceptable, thanks. Still incomplete but way less loaded with misrepresentative connotations (although the word "religion" here still skews the reader toward assumptions that do not apply as the medicine and major philosophies developed together throughout the Warring States through Han periods and the "Religions" as we know them now did not really exist as a formal entity at the time. Also, religion was soundly rejected during the period of time that modern "TCM" was developed. But I'll let this sleeping dog lie). Herbxue (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd Article Topic Ban
I would like to open this for discussion to the community and some consensus. PPdd has 3 times the number of edits than the 2nd highest editor in the last 3 months of editing this page, close to 700. The average time between edits is less than 2hrs. He has repeatedly reverted others edits and later claimed to have made them in mistake. This is entirely possible given his fast and loose editing style. He appears to act from a sense of ownership and has made absurd claims about the subject matter which show a lack of competence, and possible attempt to introduce a skeptic POV. The validity of his NPOV claims is clearly open for debate. While on the one hand his introduction of subject matter is a benefit to this article as a whole, the inability to allow others to edit, and constant rewording before any consensus can be acheived on talk page is disruptive. It is my opinion that a Topic Ban is warranted, to prevent further abuse. Calus (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not made any "absurd claims" about TCM - I have not made any claims about it at all. I only found RS for material already here when I came, and added more with RS and MEDRS. In fact, I use TCM daily with ginger/chrysanthomum/genseng/ginkgo drinks, and my best friend is a famous celebrity MD who advocates TCM on the grounds that the theory is hocus pocus but some of the medicines work, and there is no big pharma misleading adverts since the profit incentive is pretty low. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Topic-bans are usually a last resort; I don't think this is necessary (and the article talk page would be the wrong place to discuss it anyway) - hopefully Ludwigs2 can fix the article so everyone is OK with it. In the meantime let's try to stay calm and civil. --Six words (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that PPdd leave Ludwigs2's edits alone until we all get a chance to comment and collaborate on improving them. That would show good faith.Herbxue (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that were multiple edit wars with 5 of Herbque's SP's blocked, before deleting existing edits that may have been up for months, and doing so without reviewing the entire talk page discussions on them, and reviewing the individual edit's edit summary, it should be discussed first, not deleted first. PPdd (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have SP's! And the edit wars you refer to were WP newbies just trying to remove a picture that other neutral parties agreed was in poor taste. Stop distracting people from the real issue here! You should let someone else edit the page without disruption for awhile and then we can all comment on it. Including you. Doesn't that sound fair to you?Herbxue (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Re - Multiple AGF attacks on me on this talk page and these edit summaries

 * Editors are supposed to AGF. Since this has not happened, and I was implicitly or explicitly accused of bad faith on this talk page, in this artricle's edit summaries of, or on pages associated with the TCM page. Not one editor has apologized, even for the overt and repeated simple assertion of bad faith in my editing.
 * Editors are not supposed to force another editor to out themself with attacks accusing bad faith, but that has been done. Although I did phil of math/data analysis and performance art stuff, I am also a xerophytic field botanist, and I have been the chief american scientist for the largest agricultural congolmerate in western china since 2009, based in gansu at the eastern edge of the gobi desert. We make cancer drugs from traditional herbal medicines (and chinese whisky, and etc.). I also own a company in shanghai.
 * When at WP, I only know what is in RS. My best friend and principal info source to look up RS from, is a world famous celebrity MD, and is a major advocate of alternative medicine (I got to know him by debating him in hollywood a few years back, although I had met him years before that). He says something like, "the theory is hocu pocus, but the medicines were derived by a very long period of trial and error and meticulous record keeping for thousands of years, so some of it works."
 * Because I was accused of POV (without anyone knowing my real background), I decided to WP:ENEMY, and went to major mainstream TCM sites to see what they said, such as NCCAM, Journal of Chinese Medicine, and even Acupuncture Today. I then tried to work their content into the article with RS.
 * Almost everything I originally deleted from the article as NRS is now back in, as I reworded per RS or MEDRS and put back in the article, or others did.
 * When the new POV WP:SPA army arrived with their Socks and Meats, they first vandalized, then WP:C violated, then edit warred, contested the article's saying "human parts", in instead of "one human part". Recalling reading about "parts" and that word in particular, I looked up RS for the sentence, just as I did for any contested sentence here, either to change it or to source it. I found a wealth of literature, and have recently been writing from it, which they interpret as POV, since all recent edits have been from that one area. But they had no problems with me when I was writing the history section. They don't understand WP:WNF, or WP:AGF, and clearly have not read WP:FROG. AFG everyone. :) PPdd (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I left you a message at your talk page. I would like to suggest you can show good faith by leaving the page alone and letting others like Ludwigs2 or someone else edit the page for awhile. Then we can all comment and collaborate on the edits as a community. Does that not sound reasonable to you? Take a break. I'm about to. :)Herbxue (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 is a good editor, and frequently broadens my mind. But he argued here that the Materia Medica materials should not be in this article. He is unlikely to edit without thoroghly researching to get a perspective, and will not be deleting RS content. I suggest you read