Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SairaDorantes (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

Please either change the title of this topic to 'CLASSICAL CHINESE MEDICINE', or change the content completely. The historical information in this article is incorrect. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was created in the 1950's under the communist party. TCM was created to 'fuse' it with the western world and many of the mentioned aspects of the classical practice of medicine (Yin/Yang, 5 Elements and all the ancient historical references) have been either adulterated or removed from the learning and practice of TCM. Classical Chinese Medicine is the ancient and historical practice of Chinese Medicine, which this article is mostly about. This article confuses the two and is therefore incorrect. 92.211.57.142 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, Roxy, the dog. ? Zezen (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's better to discuss on the page when it changed over, what was changed, and the difference between CCM and TCM? I'm very curious about that. The Crisses (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TCM kills: animals, nature and people. Let us add such section.

I am missing the (TCM or otherwise) elephant here.

TCM, its political promotion (allegedly, also by the WHO and Western press) and the belief in its efficacy kill. See e.g. the trade in pangolins: https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/the-global-trafficking-of-pangolins/ the elephant tusks, etc. for starters. Why is there no section about such disastrous (un?)intended consequencies here? 

The hidden "There are some concerns over illegal trade and transport of endangered species including rhinoceroses and tigers,..." does not cut it, as it is not made into a full Section.

If you do not care about nature, but more about "4 Gender in traditional medicine 5 Clinical encounters with women..." then think e.g. about the resulting pandemics and its impact on people.

I am risking allegations of heavy POV here. But this elephant is too large and the ommission too glaring. Zezen (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also saves lives though— plenty of pieces of traditional western medicine kills too. Are you advocating to place that in a section for western medicine? Kizemet (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Critique

From the Wikipedia entry: Artemisinin (/ˌɑːtɪˈmiːsɪnɪn/) and its semisynthetic derivatives are a group of drugs used against malaria due to Plasmodium falciparum.[1] It was discovered in 1972 by Tu Youyou, who was co-recipient of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine for her discovery.[2] Treatments containing an artemisinin derivative (artemisinin-combination therapies, ACTs) are now standard treatment worldwide for P. falciparum malaria[citation needed]. Artemisinin is isolated from the plant Artemisia annua, sweet wormwood, a herb employed in Chinese traditional medicine. Bufb (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand the practice of Acuncture is ACC accredited. Shenqijing (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques

I’m concerned that the entire section on critiques refers to scientific evidence and clinical trials as if 1) there’s one form of science when there’s a multitude of scientific perspective 2) there isn’t high stakes for euro white western practitioners invalidating alternative medicines 3) as if racism doesn’t play a huge role in how traditional Chinese medicine has been perceived in the us and western world 4) a huge part of Chinese medicine is around the idea that the body requires balancing and each body is different. There isn’t one right answer for every single condition because for many conditions -the root isn’t the same. There’s a difference between treating a broken arm with certain common methods and addressing something like back pain. Back pain isn’t going typically have the same cause in most people

Without acknowledging these it erases a lot Kizemet (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kizemet:, please read WP:FORUM. If you are proposing a change to the article, please specify what it is and what sources you are citing to backup that change. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very waited article, the citation from nature magazine is not a very good example. Because there are reports that they are no longer a critical source due to baise on climate change. Shenqijing (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real Science behind this modality and not it's form is what is now being presented as new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology. This is why it is now up being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine). Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. Shenqijing (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Page please.

. The real Science behind this modality and not it's form but it's mindset, it is now being presented as a new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology so is about Human beings and the relationship with Nature, ecology phisical emotional and spiritual health perfect for a Enviroment reboot. This is why it is now being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention ( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine) as we have seen with the recent events. Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. We need to work on this page. As Chinese medicine is very broad and has influenced many cultures India, Greece and Rome for pulse blood pressure technology. Japanese medicine is based on Chinese Medicine as their information comes from Chinese text, as does their formative written language Kanji. This is just another example of another very refined cultural use of this model. The mindset is in Confucian, Taoist and Buddhism, Shinto and and and. Shenqijing (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited publication is seen to be a less than critical source to date by many non basis Scientific community members. The article is about donkey health more than TCM. There are many unethical practices that we could discuss from both TCM and Occidental Medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zezen Shenqijing (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above, please see WP:NOTFORUM. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing TCM from "Western" Medicine

There is a disagreement on how to distinguish TCM from modern, western medicine. Both sides have their points. Since the main feature distinguishing the two is the use of double-blind, random-controlled studies to prove safety and efficacy in western medicine, I propose the widely-used term "evidence-based medicine" or "modern, evidence-based medicine" for the latter. I will wait for a week before making this change to see if there is a better suggestion. JimGibson1 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is western medicine? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of the Critique section

I wish to move the Critique section to the bottom of the page just under the notes section. So it is in line with other Wikimedia page formats. If I do not here back from anyone I will just go ahead and move it to where it should be. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone, it is fine. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem strange to me compared to other articles. According to this policy: "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles. Contributors should follow the consensus model to establish an order." Other articles about fringe/unscientific theories like New World Order (conspiracy theory) like to put the criticism at the bottom; others such as Gasoline pill devote multiple sections to criticism or weave in the consensus throughout its statements. Because it would be unnecessary to write "this contradicts medical fact X established by science" next to every claim of traditional Chinese medicine, a specialized criticism section is needed; also, less important criticisms like "It endangers tigers" aren't the most important issues and don't need to be in the first section. My suggestion is to write a paragraph in the lead saying TCM is not rooted in science (more elaborate of course) and leave more detailed/niche criticism at the bottom. Wikinights (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of repeated links in header of article

This section needs to be removed as it is repeated information from the Critique section including links to pseudoscience, read's as follows "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2]" We need to also include from the same article that Traditional Chinese medicine has been added to global diagnostic compendium by WHO and what that means for TCM. Also move the Critique section to the bottom of the page maybe just under notes, as I have said that it is in line with the lay out of other Wikipedia articles. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the body text. We are required by Policy and Guidelines to summarise the most significant points from body text in the lead. This text is in my opinion very significant as it is one of the most important things about TCM, and should be highlighted in the lead. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, this article needs to be objective not subjective, the Critique section is relivent and that is where this information should be. In the lead it is clumsy. The same article also highlights how TCM has been included Shenqijing (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not opinion Wikipedia Policy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the global diagnostic compendium and that also needs to be added also. Shenqijing (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your last comment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement from Nature Magazine only included a objection not the subject and that is why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddit to the lead of this article including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above statement supposed to be an answer to my last comment? If so, it does not explain why "In the global diagnostic compendium and that also needs to be added also." You have not shown us why wikipolicy says we should include that meaningless statement you find so important? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, I actually think this might be worth covering, if Nature are writing editorials about it's probably not UNDUE. We would of course need to give it appropriate context, explaining what it means and how it was received. Would be interested to know others' views on this. GirthSummit (blether) 13:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that making an inneffective and fraudulent system of medicine more easily available to people with no or little access to real medicine is something that should be thought of as "a good thing" !! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, no of course not, but if the WHO have put it into their compendium thingy, and secondary sources have covered them doing so, we probably ought to mention that - alongside the reaction from the scientific community of course. GirthSummit (blether) 15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has shown the importance of this "compendium" or the relavence to TCM or real medicine. our SPA has just tried again, quoting you as justification, but This thread does not support inclusion, yet. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Zefr has made some additions to the article that mention the compendium, and put it into what I believe to be appropriate context. I support the changes that they have made - courtesy ping to Roxy the dog and Guy Macon in case you want to review and comment. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Zefr had made an edit, read the edsum, and saw no further need to validate. Now that I have, I see that I was correct. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of World Health Organisation decision

Here is the addition, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world and on the same token, has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters. The reference is within the same article from Nature Magazine, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1 "Traditional therapies have been included in a global diagnostic compendium" I have run out of time to add the citation will add to it tomorrow. Or if someone can help and finish it of that would be great. Shenqijing (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shenqijing, as promised, I'm going to explain why I reverted this. There are several problems with it, so in no particular order:
  • It has no business being in the lead of the article, unless it is summarising content in an appropriate section of the body of the article.
  • MOS:RECENTLY
  • The source supports very little of this content. Nowhere does the source assert anything along the lines of "by adding TCM to its compendium, the WHO is making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world". Nowhere does this source refer to "many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters" - there is nothing along those lines. You have made almost all of this content up out of whole cloth, ignoring the tone and content of the source and building your own analysis around it - we call that OR.
  • The source in question is clearly critical of the WHO's action. I would not necessarily be averse to mentioning the WHO's action here - for it to have garnered the attention of a Nature editorial, it would not be UNDUE; however, if the content is supported by this source, it needs to reflect the source fairly. It could, for example, be used to support a statement along the lines of "An editorial in Nature criticised the WHO for including TCM in its global diagnostic compendium, on the grounds of..." - that might work. To include the fact that they included TCM, and to leave out the criticism, misrepresents the source.
  • The one point where I agree with you is that we seem to be WP:DUPLINKing to pseudoscience - I'd support the removal of all but the first of these links, or at the most we should have one in the lead and one in the body of the text in the relevant section. At the moment there are two in a single section which is overkill. GirthSummit (blether) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, there was three links in the text until I deleted one of them last night. I will find the editorial that states the World Heath's reasoning for TCM Inclusion, I think it is on par with what I have implied. As for the original reactionary comment from Nature Magazine, you are right in saying that it should stay in the lead and as you can see from my reverted edit I had still left that as it was, but also I think that TCM's inclusion into the global diagnostic compendium should be represented in the light that it was granted it's inclusion by a World authority for health and "human rights" organisation, to tone down the naritave on this page. Their is a very substantial Critique section given pride of place in this article that needs to be moved down to an appropriate place under regulations, I will have a look at it, we have more eddtitors comming to have a look at this page.last but not least the addition of Eurocentric thinking is not a insult but a observation, When Medicine is defined by Western instead of Occidental is a reflection of this. My training in structural Medicine was European as it was in German. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shenqijing, what do you mean when you say 'We have more editors coming to look at this page? GirthSummit (blether) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other editors with a better still set than myself, that know the system. Impartial and can add some of their valuable experience and expertise to offer suggestions to improve the page for the end users experience. Untill then I will try to work through this with you and the other eddtitors on the page. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shenqijing, who are these editors, and how do you know that they are going to come to this article? GirthSummit (blether) 06:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to get a impartial opinion and seeing how to get someone with experience to come and mediate this page, before I do this I am looking at Wikipedia process to make sure that it is within the guidelines. I feel that there is a narrative on this page that needs to be balanced that is all. At no stage have I deleted the inclusion of the statement from Nature Magazine only included it's subject and why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddits including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". As you can see that the only thing that I am guilty of is pointing out how the article had three links to Pseudoscience enforcing a unbalanced narrative 2. requesting that the Critique section be moved to a more appropriate position rather than being in pole position in reference. 3, also adding a link for Chinese food therapy that was counted as a revert, 4 recording major edditing on the talk page, sumerising the article that I have supplied a link to, 4, telling the truth and being told that I have a extreme view and what I had to say was not well written, If you look at the history of the page one revert is actually the addition of the link to the Chinese food therapy wiki page. There was also another editor coming on to the page and rivirting the page without talking on the page. Have a look at the Talk on the page.

I would like to say that it is not hard in this case to look biased in this case and that I am not, as to bring Ballance back to this article I need to lean heavily to the opposite side to straighten it up to make it True. Amituofo🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the question that you have been directly asked above about the other editors you said were going to come to this article. You have been asked the same question at Arbitration Enforcement, it would be in your interests to provide a timely response. GirthSummit (blether) 11:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to get other eddtitors here that could look at this page, as I see the balance of this page heavily listing to one side.it needs to present in my opinion information that supports the pros and cons of this subject so there can be critical thinking from the reader. I have been looking at the Wikipedia guidlines of how to get other opinions and input to improve this article. That is all. I hope that this clears up your question. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am another editor and I have looked at this page. The page is not broken and does not need to be fixed. You are POV-pushing pseudoscience and you are edit warring, and I see that you were just blocked -- again. You have been warned multiple times. The next time you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of "Critique" and a "pseudoscience" section, normally to be fair these two sections should be together instead of apart, I am trying to find another Wikipedia page that does this and I can't, can someone explain or direct me to another example please?. Shenqijing (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Proposed definition is pseudoscientific babble from one source. We need to be using other independent secondary sources as the basis of the article also. Shenqijing (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we need to include in the lead please that TCM has been added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" Shenqijing (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content to the lead, including a reference and citation to a article from Nature Magazine. Including the exact statement and wording from the WHO and a explanation for their endorsement of Traditional Medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a example of another Wikipedia page on traditional medicine similar lead but not seven or more references to Pseudoscience also not a specific category for Critique or another sub heading devoted to the model of the body and Pseudoscience.

Here is the article thankyou 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda Shenqijing (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I was pointed to a section on talk page that did not exist so I have made one now. Do you want to discuss you second change now Zefr. It did not seem to be advantageous to me but perhaps you have a good reason. First you removed the seperation between its practice in the Sinosphere and the rest of the world. There is obviously a large difference in the rates of use so that was not an improvement. You put in wikipedias voice that it is based off of thousands of years of medical practice when in the body it is clear that is based on a 1950's stadardization. So also not an improvment.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear enough right above this topic section, as stated in the edit summary. This comment you make is nonsensical gibberish, and your revert of an edit containing relevant new publications is not supported by any reliable WP:RS in the article. Zefr (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not realize you had changed more than just the WHO content, which I have added back under the regulation section? You also changed the lead and removed content in the body. Did you not change content around the Sinosphere? Did you not also remove "The effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine remains poorly researched and supported, and most of its treatments have no logical [[mechanism of action]" Do you not agree you changed a claim about TCM origins to a statement of fact?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for my revision of the content discussed above, if you take a look at the diff of the edit that content does not show up as a change. No idea why, which is why when I figured that out I added back that content. The rest of the changes however I do not see as a necessary improvement.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was my revision of the lede which included a 2019 EAS position statement and two publications in Nature from 2018-19. You wrote over that using the previous tourism websites which do not meet WP:RS for lede content. Two other editors (above under the "Removal..." topic) agreed with my revision, indicating development of consensus; no consensus has been provided for your revision. You can express your opinion of "no improvement", but three editors disagree. Re-establishing the revised version until consensus for your (the prior version, containing unusable references in the lede) is established. Zefr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked every single before and after source, but my view remains that Zefr's edits were an improvement - it seemed to me that the sourcing was better afterwards, and that there was some important new content that was handled appropriately. I'd be open to discussion of any specific concerns, but I think wholesale reversal would be counterproductive. GirthSummit (blether) 05:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&direction=next&oldid=980162433

Leave a Reply