Talk:List of traditional Chinese medicines: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:22, 3 October 2022

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China List‑class

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Orphaned references in List of medicines in traditional Chinese medicine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of medicines in traditional Chinese medicine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HDCM":

From Traditional Chinese medicine: “Human Drugs” in Chinese Medicine and the Confucian View: An Interpretive Study, Jing-Bao Nie, Confucian Bioethics, 2002, Volume 61, Part III, 167-206, DOI: 10.1007/0-306-46867-0_7, [1] ^{[dead link]}
From Chinese herbology: Nie, Jing-Bao (2002). "Confucian Bioethics". Philosophy and Medicine. 61: 167–206. doi:10.1007/0-306-46867-0_7. ISBN 0-7923-5723-X. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placenta? Urine?

Why in blazes are "Human placenta" and "Feces/urine" the first two subcategories in a field dominated by plant matter? It makes it sound like we're dealing with voodoo. I cannot believe such a placement is by accident, hence, WP:NPOV. Seriously. Whoever made that edit should phone up every TCM practitioner or distributor in Seattle and ask them whether they have placenta or urine in stock. I certainly think the editor would not bother as he would know better. Since plant matter, specifically herbs, constitute by far the lion's share of the components of all the prescriptions written, why not rank things by "most likely, first, and most outlandish, last, or better yet, not at all". 174.62.117.228 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. This whole page is of poor quality. It is inconsistent and very has huge missing pieces. It also seems intent on an anti TCM POV. For instance most commonly used TCM herbs are not mentioned at all, such as Dang Gui, Bai Zhu, Chai Hu, etc. StephenClen (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sensible comments above.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thaat's pretty much how wikipedia treats tcm generally. I agree that it is wrong. Can someone with more wikipedia skills please escalate this? 73.170.203.143 (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it had an anti-TCM POV the first paragraph would contain a sentence like, "Most claims made by TCM practitioners are not supported by scientific evidence." Which would be true. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, or boil its skin and sell the gelatin as an insomnia treatment...--97.83.179.39 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this anonymous commentator think it is the habit of random cranks to limit themselves to the pseudo-judiciousness suggested?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make a section for obsolete herbs, according to the Besnky Materia Medica, so that we are not including human body parts in the same section as E Jiao. Obsolete herbs should be at the end of the article, like in textbooks. We can get to work on this, if we're in agreement. Thorbachev (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorbachev:, this obsolete herb list would also include herbs no longer used due to extreme toxicity (like lead oxide), or due to coming from endangered species (like tiger bone and rhinoceros horn)?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page so choppy?

I've been trying to clean this page up a bit - adding various out-links to any active chemical compounds present (artemisinin on the sweet wormwood section - for example). But I have been having a lot of issues with this page as a whole, Who formatted this thing??! Also some of the tox profiles and preparation methods (also some citations don't even appear valid) do not even return a valid result on google. Now while I don't agree with some of the traditional fixes mentioned here (For example I highly doubt a tiger's genitalia or a rhino's horn has any active chemical component) - I don't feel we should throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak - As the writer of this article may have intended on doing. Mfernflower (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with most Wikipedia articles, it was written by many editors over a span of many years. This naturally leads to an inconsistent writing style, poor formatting, etc. If you believe that any content is dubious and unreferenced, you can simply remove it (with an adequate edit summary so others understand why you're removing it). Also, if you're not aware, Wikipedia has stricter referencing requirements for any claims of health benefits (which are outlined at WP:MEDRS) than for other content. Any health claims that to do adhere to this policy can also be removed. Deli nk (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary information from cited material is exaggerated or false

Example: under Flying Squirrel Feces it said "Use of flying squirrel feces as medicine has been associated with Rickettsia infections.[31]." But the cited article explores two cases in which people in the US were in contact with either a wild flying squirrel nest, or a dead squirrel carcass. There is zero mention of medicinal use so the text is patently false. I've modified it, but this article needs all citations checked to ensure summary information is correct. Tklow (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Tklow[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of traditional Chinese medicines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of traditional Chinese medicines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I'm going to place the Expert needed, More citations needed and Specific templates on this page. For one, this article places an extreme emphasis on the animal-derived parts which accounts only for a minority of all TCM medicine; the majority of TCM is herbal in nature. In addition, it contains a heavy amount of uncited/unverified statements and a lot of the entries are sourced not to citations pertaining to TCM but rather other sources who mention TCM in brief. Sega31098 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :I agree with the sensible comments above.
 :[[User:David Lloyd-Jones|David Lloyd-Jones]] ([[User talk:David Lloyd-Jones|talk]]) 19:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
+:Thaat's pretty much how wikipedia treats tcm generally.  I agree that it is wrong.  Can someone with more wikipedia skills please escalate this? [[Special:Contributions/73.170.203.143|73.170.203.143]] ([[User talk:73.170.203.143|talk]]) 07:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)