Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traditional Chinese medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Traditional Chinese medicine.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hi everyone. I was searching about Traditional Chinese Medicine today and saw this very negatively worded description about TCM. The lede does not give a proper introduction to TCM and is backed up by an article that has only an impact factor of 1.17, which is quite low and most definitely cannot reflect the mainstream opinion. I made a change to the first paragraph to a more comprehensive and neutral description, and later it got reverted by a user because they think that my change is non-neutral, which is ridiculous. I was told later that we need reliable sources to back up a neutral description. Please respond with reliable sources so we can try to make a change.
It is worth noticing that many other traditional medicine branches like "traditional Japanese medicine", "traditional Korean medicine", "Ayurveda" (which is alternative medicine in India), etc all have very neutral descriptions, and some of these branches even are derived from Chinese medicine. If their lede can stay neutral, then the TCM lede should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuangyanLi ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been described as, already in the article, is enough of an attribution. The level of acceptance from the scientific mainstream is extremely relevant context for the reader and should be at the top of the article. What google decides to put on their website is none of our business. MrOllie ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
to investigate more into TCMuntil we agree with you, otherwise it is still not enough. "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths.
We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience. It is not our doing, it is the scientific consensus. You are not listening. But of course, not listening to things you disagree with is a precondition for belief in pseudoscience. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why the cited articles by the editting user was simply categorized as "Junk research" by the reverting user? GavinXLu ( talk) 05:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"—let's face the reality: TCM was a farce played by Mao because People's Republic of China lacked money for Western-style anesthetics and Western-style medicines. It never was anything else, and it will never be anything else. Evidence-based medicine is hugely expensive. That's why China, India, and such countries cannot afford large-scale EBM. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
In April, editor 梦随飞絮 changed the infobox image from this one:
1.
to this one ( diff)
2.
and then to the current one ( diff)
3.
In my opinion, a photograph is a more representative image for the article. While it does deserve a place, the yinyang symbol is already included in the #Philosophical background section. The photographs also address the subject itself, rather than a subtopic.
Between the two photographs, I prefer #1. It shows a nice contrast between medications and TCM in a modern Chinese context. However, I do see the merits of #2 (shows the herbs itself instead of packaging). Let me know what you think. HenryMP02 ( talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add space between period after Act and They in Taiwan subsection of the Regulations section. Ret2pop ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FeliceRCLi ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi ( talk) 23:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traditional Chinese medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Traditional Chinese medicine.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hi everyone. I was searching about Traditional Chinese Medicine today and saw this very negatively worded description about TCM. The lede does not give a proper introduction to TCM and is backed up by an article that has only an impact factor of 1.17, which is quite low and most definitely cannot reflect the mainstream opinion. I made a change to the first paragraph to a more comprehensive and neutral description, and later it got reverted by a user because they think that my change is non-neutral, which is ridiculous. I was told later that we need reliable sources to back up a neutral description. Please respond with reliable sources so we can try to make a change.
It is worth noticing that many other traditional medicine branches like "traditional Japanese medicine", "traditional Korean medicine", "Ayurveda" (which is alternative medicine in India), etc all have very neutral descriptions, and some of these branches even are derived from Chinese medicine. If their lede can stay neutral, then the TCM lede should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuangyanLi ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been described as, already in the article, is enough of an attribution. The level of acceptance from the scientific mainstream is extremely relevant context for the reader and should be at the top of the article. What google decides to put on their website is none of our business. MrOllie ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
to investigate more into TCMuntil we agree with you, otherwise it is still not enough. "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths.
We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience. It is not our doing, it is the scientific consensus. You are not listening. But of course, not listening to things you disagree with is a precondition for belief in pseudoscience. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why the cited articles by the editting user was simply categorized as "Junk research" by the reverting user? GavinXLu ( talk) 05:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"—let's face the reality: TCM was a farce played by Mao because People's Republic of China lacked money for Western-style anesthetics and Western-style medicines. It never was anything else, and it will never be anything else. Evidence-based medicine is hugely expensive. That's why China, India, and such countries cannot afford large-scale EBM. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
In April, editor 梦随飞絮 changed the infobox image from this one:
1.
to this one ( diff)
2.
and then to the current one ( diff)
3.
In my opinion, a photograph is a more representative image for the article. While it does deserve a place, the yinyang symbol is already included in the #Philosophical background section. The photographs also address the subject itself, rather than a subtopic.
Between the two photographs, I prefer #1. It shows a nice contrast between medications and TCM in a modern Chinese context. However, I do see the merits of #2 (shows the herbs itself instead of packaging). Let me know what you think. HenryMP02 ( talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add space between period after Act and They in Taiwan subsection of the Regulations section. Ret2pop ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FeliceRCLi ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi ( talk) 23:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)