Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

---

Removing medical jargon

According to the manual of style for medical articles, medical jargon should be avoided because encyclopedia articles are written for the general public not medical people talking to each other. So, most often the language in the reference material needs to be switched to general language. And health care professionals need to be aware of their habit of using the language carried over from their work or schooling, and switch to general language when they write articles on Wikipedia. See Writing for the wrong audience. Also, articles should not be written as patient teaching materials--as if addressing patients. That is the reason that I reworded the article switching patient to people/person, and other minor changes of wording. My understanding is that these types of rewordings are non-controversial here on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, FloNight. Seems like a valuable principle to keep in mind, but I'm not sure "patient" counts as jargon. A lot of new vocabulary is introduced to the general reader in this article, I think as long as its clear the article is introducing and defining new terms its ok, we just can't assume the reader understands the technical jargon to begin with.Herbxue (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree that we should be adding this particular terminology that is widely used by medical personnel when speaking to each other in healthcare but not widely used by ordinary people when discussing illnesses and treatments. "Patient" is jargon that medical personnel use when speaking of their clients and customers. It is not a word that ordinary people use when speaking of themselves in or out of a healthcare setting. Since the material is not specifically written for medical personal or patients I don't think that it is desirable to use that wording when speaking of people in Wikipedia articles. Beyond being unnecessarily, it denotes a mentality of ownership of healthcare topics by healthcare personnel that is undesirable in collaborative projects like Wikipedia where the end product benefits from the scrutiny of a variety of sub-populations of people interested in the topic.

My background in healthcare is an OB/GYN Registered Nurse (dating back to the 1970s) who specialized in working with women with high risk pregnancies and pregnancy loss. Through my work with these mother, babies, and their families and friends, I came to see the value of eliminating unnecessary jargon from my language. It is not a matter of "dumbing down" information by substituting a less appropriate word. It is recognizing that the consumers of health information on Wikipedia are not best thought of as clients and customers of medical personnel. But instead people living with a medial condition, their family, friends, neighbors, and employers, and well as students and the intellectually curious reader.

All that said, I normally remove unnecessary medical jargon in articles about diseases and treatments when I see it, and skip over them when the article is about a medical discipline. Not because I don't think alternative wording is better, but often I don't think that is seems as inappropriate. I went ahead and made the changes in this article because I felt it seemed appropriate to do it. A judgment call on my part. My usual practice on Wikipedia is that I don't ordinarily do any reverts when someone objects (unless I'm doing it in my capacity as an oversighter or checkuser based on strict policy.) So, I'm going to leave the article as you reverted it. If someone else sees that value of making the changes then they can do it. Happy editing :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the thorough explanation. I am certainly interested in the idea that the words or attitudes used in the article represent "ownership" by one group over another. NPOV can be tricky because the fundamental assumptions of each editor come out not only in the way we word things, but more importantly the basic questions we have that lead to fleshing out the article. Herbxue (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You think Traditional Chinese medicine treats patients? QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You troll much? But seriously, you are not asking me a serious question, are you?Herbxue (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article

The end of the lede currently concludes that although TCM has some proponents, it is largely "irrational pseudoscience". This statement is problematic for several reasons.

1. The source for the statement is a 7 year old opinion piece. THe problem is not so much the age of the source, but the fact that one opinion is given the privilege of making the definitive value statement of the article (the last sentence of the lede).

2. The article should not be making a definitive value statement. The statement is certainly a notable and wide-spread OPINION, but it must be stated in the article WHO expressed this opinion. If not, it suggests that WP has collectively concluded that this opinion is fact. We have not.

3. Both words "irrational" and "pseudoscience" are intentionally pejorative terms - they do not add anything to the readers understanding of the issues involved, they are simply insults. If you want the reader to understand the lack of confirmation of TCM ideas by science, you can do so by simply citing the results of systematic reviews (which is what we have to do to justify a positive statement in WP med-related articles). If you don't do this, you are giving an opinion here, but presenting it as if it were fact. That is inappropriate. Herbxue (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be included in the lede, and since TCM is fringe this needs to be made plain according to policy. Nature seems a fine source for such a claim, and age does not matter unless there's evidence TCM has lost its pseudoscience. Of recent interest here is Jimbo's statement on this subject: see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that criticism needs to be included, but an opinion piece in Nature does not constitute a fact that must be disproven (as you suggest), it is just an opinion. Your use of terms like fringe, pseudoscience, and lunatic charlatans shows that you are more interested in POV pushing than an honest appraisal of facts. You seem to take "Jimbo"'s POV to mean that WP policy is to push an anti-fringe POV - that is not what he said, he said some sources are reliable and others aren't. Herbxue (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Best to avoid ranting and personal attacks: you're pulling quite a few of the tactics outlined in WP:FLAT. TCM is obviously based on pseudoscience (meridians, anybody?) and that fringeiness needs to be abundantly clear in the lede according to our policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that's obvious is that using pejorative labels is controversial, as seen in the lengthy dialogue about use of the term pseudoscience in previous talk page conversations (of which I was not the main person arguing against using the term). So, to say its obvious the article should conclude with a value judgement about an entire medical system is nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, not "Consumer Reports". Show, don't tell. Herbxue (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the category discussion? Whether we use the pseudoscience category is a different question (on which I have no firm view). However, saying TCM is "largely irrational pseudoscience" (which the Nature piece says is "obvious") is fine - and not the least bit controversial, I'd have thought. Is there any serious dispute over the statement? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Its fine to include as long as you clearly identify, in the body of the text, who is expressing that it is irrational pseudoscience. As it is written, it implies that WP editors have come to consensus that TCM is irrational pseudoscience. We have not, but even if we did it would be Original Research to express it in this way, thus a violation of guidelines. If the statement is changed to clearly assign ownership of that opinion / conclusion, then I have no problem with it. As it is, it is inappropriate. Herbxue (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So that would be a WP:FLAT No 3? – "You must not say 'the earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat-earth theory, the earth is not flat'". Needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements risks creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a dismissal on your part, not a sincere engagement with the issue. The "earth is not flat" is not equivalent here. MIllions of people consider TCM to be a valuable system of medicine, don't dismiss them unless you really know them (many are accomplished scientists). I assure you, the statement is controversial and disputable. You are smart enough to know that the article as written makes a conclusion that represents an opinion, and I have made clear that I am not interested in censoring out that opinion, only in making sure it is properly attributed. Herbxue (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha! By swaying to popular misconception we'd be in trouble with our UFO, creationist, homeopathy, etc. articles too! TCM is essentially a medieval pre-scientific belief system that has no correspondence with real science. No serious source disputes that. It's just an obvious fact which we can, and should, assert. You have provided no sources for your argument, merely: assertions (that the statement is controversial), an argumentum ad populum and a personal attack. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"We" could if we had consensus, and we don't. Simply agree to attribute the quote to its source and you would be doing the honorable and scientific thing to do. Instead you just make comparisons to other, more marginalized subjects. TCM may not be mainstream, but it is not "fringe" - there is licensure in many countries and universities dedicated to the subject in Asia and accredited colleges in the U.S. There are many convergences between TCM treatments and scientifically-verified actions of substances, so your dismissal that there is "no correspondence with real science" just shows your ignorance of the subject. If you do not understand the subject, how can you determine what an "obvious" judgement of its merits is? You cannot - you are only presenting an opinion. Herbxue (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I merely echo the mainstream, expert sources. Again, your arguments are of no use here. TCM is licensed in some countries ... so? Homeopathy is available from the National Health Service - that doesn't mean it's science. To repeat: "Needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements risks creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none". Show me the sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many sources stating that TCM is "pseudoscience". The question should be: "Why is there only one reference calling TCM pseudoscience?" Practitioners call TCM "science", yet the practitioners don't seem to perform scientific studies, so it passes the WP:DUCK test. I.e. pseudoscience. Given all of the points @Alexbrn: has made here, the "honorable" and "scientific" thing to do here is to call it Fringe and Pseudoscience. @Herbxue: your behaviour here is bordering on a personal attack. Please focus on content. Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Joseph Needham source (currently in further reading) has some good content that can be used to expand the article explaining the disjunction between TCM and science. I hope to have time to get round to this shortly (unless somebody beats me to it!). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree Jim. Practitioners generally do not call TCM science, and yet often do participate in scientific studies. I have personally conducted a pilot study on a topical herbal preparation, and have the highest respect for those that conduct serious research as a career. Alexbrn gets under my skin because he defended POV-pushing edits by Dominusvobisdu that misrepresented Ernst's conclusions regarding placebo effect, and thus has a history of preferring his opinion over facts. That should not cloud the real issue here - labeling a system of thought that is pre-scientific and that does not claim to be based on science "pseudoscience" is an expression of opinion, not fact. It may be a popular opinion, it may even be the MOST popular opinion, but that does not make it fact. An opinion should be attributed to those who express it in the body of an article. Alex, I fully welcome your contributions about the "disjunction between TCM and science", I have no problem with that line of thinking. Herbxue (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An appeal to personal experience and more personalization. If the statement is not in serious dispute (i.e. in high-quality sources) then it's a fact we can just assert. Failing to do so would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We've gotten circular at this point, need input from others.Herbxue (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's no consensus for your proposed change. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not yet at least.Herbxue (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with putting "pseudoscience" in the lede, for various reasons.

1.) I think TCM's theoretical base is largely superstitious, but "pseudoscience" implies that TCM actually tries to sound scientific. Which it doesn't. It has used the same terms since 2000 years.

2.) The source we have now is stating nothing else but the opinion of the author of the article, so the source could actually only be used for a sentence like: "An editorial in Nature stated that..."

3.) Apart from "pseudoscience", TCM has also been labeled "proto-science"[1] and "pre-scientific"[2] (and probably a couple of other terms as well that didn't show up on my google search).

My suggestion would be to either to not include all this labeling (and I actually don't understand the necessity for it) or to keep all these sources in a sentence like "TCM has been labeled pseudoscience, proto-science..." etc. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

i agree with above suggestion. 93.86.155.2 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: calling TCL fringe is beyond ridiculous... Billion+ people in Asia turn to this instead of modern medicine. In fact, one could say modern medicine is fringe for Asians. 93.86.155.2 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. However, from a scientific worldview (and that's what we follow on WP), it would still be considered fringe. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One controversial descriptor at a time, please :). Looks like there is sufficient doubt that "irrational pseudoscience" is a consensus-driven conclusion here. Again, I am not trying to edit out that opinion, but we as WP have not concluded that TCM, without a doubt, deserves to be labeled as such. I will make a neutral edit now.Herbxue (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

QG reverted my neutral edit as OR, so I just changed the (overly) close paraphrase to a quote (it was basically a quote already, though someone slipped the word "irrational" in for extra flavor, not from the source). Herbxue (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

How about a sentence in the form of: "TCM has been both been labeled a protoscience(citation) and a pseudoscience(citation)"...? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"TCM has been both been labeled a protoscience(citation) and a pseudoscience(citation)" is engaging in original research. QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get pointy. Of course, we could split the sentence: "TCM has been labeled a protoscience(citation). TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience(citation)." But that would sound imbecile, no? And we're here to build an encyclopaedia with good articles, no? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"From the standpoint of Cognitive Science, Chinese Medicine appears as a proto-scientific system of health observances and practices based on a symptomological classification of disease using two elementary dynamical-processes pattern categorization schemas: a hierarchical and combinatorial inhibiting-activating model (Yin-Yang), and a non-hierarchical and associative five-parameter semantic network (5-Elements/Agents)."(PMID 17965759) That is nonsense.

"TCM has been labeled a protoscience(failed verification). TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience(failed verification)." QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite clear what you're trying to say. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fail verification in any sense. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The source does not say "TCM has been labeled a protoscience".(PMID 17965759)

"TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is OR and does not tell the reader anything. I call it diluting the facts. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The source says "proto-scientific system". If you'd like to claim that that is not covered by WP:Close paraphrasing, I'll be happy to go into WP:DR about this. A third-party opinion might be a good starting point. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The source written by the trade fails WP:FRIND for such an extreme view. We have independent sourcing for pseudoscience. You can't obscure the facts with the bias source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The source, a peer-reviewed journal, is reliable. If that is a "trade" journal, then so is any journal publishing pharmaceutical research. Herbxue (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Take the source to the noticeboard if you still disagree. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It would take more than a couple editor's opinions to convince me that it is a fringe source. With one editorial calling TCM pseudoscience and an article calling it protoscience, it is clear that there are differences of opinion as to what label it should have, and none of the sources include what the profession itself would label itself as. With all this diversity, the article should certainly not make an OR conclusion that it is pseudoscience. I'd be fine with both labels being included, clearly attributed to the authors asserting the label.Herbxue (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a strong, reliable source to me. A peer-reviewed scientific journal, which of the best possible sources there can be. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For now we should abide by WP:CON. You are free to start another discussion about the source at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well we have multiple editors agreeing that pseudoscience is not appropriate for the lede so I will abide by WP:CON and remove the whole sentence.Herbxue (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think pseudoscience is quite appropriate. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only pseudoscience label is inappropriate, but talking about TCM in context of fringe and similar guidelines is even more inappropriate. I don't think some editors here understand what fringe means. Even the cited guideline explains something different, read the nutshell if nothing further... 178.221.90.250 (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been hashed out a number of times before. I would recommend reviewing the archives

Pseudoscience is appropriate. Besides the cite, it fits the wp:duck test. Many claim it to be scientific, yet fails to use scientific methodology. Many mechanisms of effect are not testable or fail testing. The Pseudoscience label should stay. Consensus has not been reached. Jim1138 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Archives yield this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/Archive_3#Pseudoscience

I would agree consensus has not been reached - either for or against use of the term pseudoscience, and certainly not for the article concluding it is pseudoscience in the lede. I propose a compromise - simply clearly show, in the text of the article, who asserts that it is pseudoscience. Herbxue (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A summary in the lede for Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Labels: Pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science

I added the material about proto-science and pre-science. The source for "proto-science" is a peer-viewed journal; therefore, the formal requirements for WP:RS and WP:FRIND are fulfilled. If someone wants to challenge this source anyway, it would be on them to prove that this source is not reliable even though it is peer-reviewed. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other misplaced text is from a personal website that is not a summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Nowhere does it say that there's consensus to not use this journal. Please provide evidence if you think this peer-reviewed journal is not reliable. Otherwise please move on. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Our lede currently carries the sentence: "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it has been suspected that the reason for these scarce results is that TCM is largely pseudoscience." IMO, this is too much information for the lede.

I suggest to shorten this sentence to "TCM has also been labeled pseudoscience" and put it behind "It is considered a protoscience, and has been compared to the humoral theory of Galen." --Mallexikon (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I support your suggestion, even though I think the comparison to humoral theory is unfair considering one died out long ago and another has been continually practiced. Still, it is important to contextualize the labels properly and your suggestion is the most appropriate so far.Herbxue (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't protoscience, for the simple reason that current investigations of TCM are characterised by pseudoscience. Earlier (as in prior to Mao's resurrection of the field) investigations are non-science or pre-science or whatever but we reflect current practice in this article, because this article, although it discusses history, describes current practice. The status of TCM inquiry can be assessed by reference to its views on qi and humours: once TCM robustly rejects those ideas as incorrect, we will have some confidence that it has begun a process of proper science. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

sometimes it is good to trust your eyes. if quantum mechanics can be true, even though nobody understands it, why qi cannot? something being unlikely does not make it impossible. [3][4]. go qi go! 212.200.205.18 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Guy: I also think it's a pseudoscience, but your and my opinion doesn't matter. There is no wrong or right reasoning here - it all comes down to different sources calling it this or that. I think it's deplorable to argue about labels here, especially pejorative ones. This article should give an NPOV description of TCM. Adding "it is largely pseudoscience" to the lede definitely doesn't make this a better article, and it adds zero important information for the reader. It just makes it sound like we want to nail our colors to the mast. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

For the pseudoscience label, we're currently using this source: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." This sentence is a grammatically difficult structure, and I'd like to point out that the colon connects the "it is largely just pseudoscience" with the "the most obvious answer is...". That means, this article is only suspecting that (the reason why success stories like the discovery of Artemisin are so few and far between is that) TCM is a pseudoscience. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a better wording of that sentence. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion to state only "TCM has also been labeled pseudoscience". in the lede does not tell the reader much. The previous wording added by User:Mallexikon was not an improvement. For example, it has been suspected is weasel wordings to skew/dilute the facts. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope - it is clearer. Anything more is OR. Herbxue (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This source has been correctly reflected in our article's "Drug research" section: "... a 2007 editorial in Nature said that while this may simply be because TCM is largely pseudoscience..."

The sentence featured in our lede ("... it is largely pseudoscience..."), however, is a POV interpretation which is simply not covered by the source. It would either have to be changed or deleted. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an accurate summary of the source to me. It appears that your trying to shift the burden of proof from the TCM side to the science side. The rule in science is that it's bullshit until proven otherwise, and TCM proponents have not offered much in the way of proof. Quite the opposite, in fact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to shift anything. Of course TCM theory is probably bullshit. But we're writing an encyclopaedia here that wants to be better than the Britannica. Throwing around labels like "pseudoscience" is just angry, pubertal POV - Britannica would never do this, unless it's universally excepted. But we don't even have a source saying TCM is universally excepted to be pseudoscience. We only have a source saying "the most probable cause why there haven't been a lot of breakthroughs in isolating new efficient medicaments from TCM herbs is that TCM is largely just pseudoscience". That's not adequate sourcing to put "TCM is pseudoscience" in the lede. So sure, knock yourselves out and satisfy your anger. After all, WP maybe is a place to right big wrongs (like all those soccer moms going crazy about alternative medicine). Why not put "TCM is just pseudoscience" at the top of the lede? Why use a source for this at all, since we have so many smart people on WP agreeing on it? And within no time, WP will look exactly like all of us white male tech/science-friendly geeks like it. Great job. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you lose a lot of credibility when you lay down the race card, don't you? If that's how you think, then you're going to have a very difficult time convincing other editors to work with you. Best idea is to step back and banish all such thoughts from your head. TCM, or any other bullshit, doesn't deserve a break because it's "not white". That's silly romantic era thinking of the "noble savage" sort that is actually highly insulting and condescending to non-westerners. And we don't need a source stating that "TCM is universally excepted to be pseudoscience". Consensus does not require unanimity. The source is correct: when a school of thought has been singularly unsuccessful in providing anything in the way of scientific validity for it's practices, it's a pretty safe bet that it's a pseudoscience. And I see nothing wrong at all in pointing that out here in WP. The source's conclusion is not as ambiguous as you seem to think. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it? Let me put it this way: as long as you don't show me a source saying that TCM is generally accepted to be a pseudoscience, there'll be no consensus to include this here. The source we use right now is misused. It's being used correctly in the "drug research" section. It's not being used correctly in the lede. I guess it's time for WP:DR. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What on earth do my nerves have to do with the discussion at hand? Keep personal comments like that to yourself in the future. They have no place on WP.

I've considered your arguments and have said all I have to say on this matter, and think that further discussion on this matter is pointless, either here or at DR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not pointless, this matter is not settled.Herbxue (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Protoscience

[5]

rest my case 212.200.205.18 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Once TCM is brought to the standards of modern medicine, it won't be TCM but "medicine". Currently it is not. It seems that few TCM practitioners will agree on fundamental points such as the mechanism of action. Nothing has changed by that declaration, so it is still pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's a pseudoscience, but your and my opinion doesn't matter. There is no wrong or right reasoning here - it all comes down to different sources calling it this or that. I think it's deplorable to argue about labels here, especially pejorative ones. This article should give an NPOV description of TCM. Adding "it is largely pseudoscience" to the lede definitely doesn't make this a better article, and it adds zero important information for the reader. It just makes it sound like we want to nail our colors to the mast. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit did not match the edit summary. You deleted sourced text that is part of the summary of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." - WP:FRINGE. Nature is an impeccable and highly reliable source for such claims. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. I thought the debate was settling down a bit here but now it has bubbled over to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user QuackGuru

I have been observing the editing style of a certain user, QuackGuru (talk), for quite a while now. Out of the 500 last edits on this article's page, 282 has been carried out by the same user (which is 56,4% of all edits). The editing is really disruptive, as there might be even up to 10 different edits in a row from the same user with immature edit summaries, such as "nonsense", "total nonsense", etc.

Also the user is clearly more interested in pushing his own opinions rather than building a well-balanced, neutral point of view article. For example, in the narrow field of alternative medicine articles, QuackGuru is clearly switching between different wikitags according to whatever best might suit his personal views:

1. The user adds a {{copyright violation}} tag[6].
2. The user changes it to a {{citation needed}} tag[7].
3. As this didn't work out with the other editors either, now he changes the tag into {{POV-statement}}[8].
4. Finally, user Paavo273 reverts the latest attempt of QuackGuru by stating: "...Remove POV tag that replaced one or more other tags. See talk...."[9]

This applies to all the alternative medicine articles (Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chriropractic, etc.) Overall, the editing is aggressive in both terms of reverts and misuse of wikitags, as well as it is fragmented and hard to follow. There is no question why the articles have so strong opinionated bias.

Therefore, I'd like the user to stop the disruptive editing and respect the other contributors as well. Wikipedia isn't one man's project. Should there be any difficulties with the technical side of editing, please get familiar with WP:SANDBOX[10] where he can practice editing without causing a nuisance to the other users. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

QG reverts just about every edit I ever make, without discussion, and has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring. He thinks he owns all these articles. I'm really tired of it. Herbxue (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbxue (talk), I have noticed the exactly same in QuackGuru's aggressive editing behaviour. According to DVMt (talk) at another alternative medicile article, Chiropractic, QuackGuru has been banned earlier for his disruptive editing[11] in alternative medicine articles.

He has also been warned by administrator EdJohnston from editwarring the alternative medicine articles here: [12],

as well as been warned by another administrator Tiptoety here: [13]. "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. ... I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..."

It is clear that the user is still continuing the same disruptive way of behaviour.

This appears to be forum shopping by User:Jayaguru-Shishya. You already brought it up here Talk:Chiropractic#Disruptive_editing_by_user_QuackGuru. Adding the same text on more than one page is not useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry (talk · contribs · email), I don't quite understand. If you look at the other thread, you'll see that it is not the same post. The problem is the same, but that's concerning the Chiropractic article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have specific edits / content you wish to discuss, discuss them. Making comments like "He thinks he owns all these articles." is not useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No. At the time I posted this thread, 282 edits out of 500 in this very article were done by one single user, QuackGuru. Many of them includes reverts such as I described above. It means that nobody will post 282 different posts discussing every single edit at the Talk Page; the problem is the user himself.

Since mid-April, I did 9 edits. Out of these 9 edits, 6 were reverted by QG ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]).

Good point. The latest warning for editwarring for QuackGuru by administrator Tiptoety you can find over here: [20] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This last revert [21] is particularly funny since the reason given for it was: "Consensus is to leave this out of the article" - there was, however, not even a discussion about it. The source is a reliable skeptic journal, the author of the article is Steven Novella. My summary of the source is truthful. How do you explain reverts like this? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This source was previously deleted and it isn't protoscience. You can also read this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So... what exact rationale are you citing for reverting this edit? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any point QuackGuru is trying to make with his last comment. The problem stay unchanged, the user himself. You have been warned multiple times. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User QuackGuru's recent violation of WP:3RR is being discussed at the moment at Chiropractic (talk). It is about his editing of Pseudoscience articles a whole (just like according to administrator Tiptoety's warning to QuackGuru) [22]. Also article acupuncture is part of this. Please see further details at the given link! Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience

We are arguing about the last sentence in the lede, which currently reads:

Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

We already have a form of words in the lede that makes the situation clear:

Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by science or evidence-based medicine. TCM is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community.

Having ploughed my way through the above and the DR threads, I've come to a few conclusions:

1) TCM is not a protoscience because (AFAIK) it shows no signs of working towards a scientific method. The journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is at the lower end of the peer-reviewed scale, but it is still on that scale. Subject to consensus we could therefore use the word, but personally I don't think it's useful to the article, certainly not in the lede.

2) TCM is not a pseudoscience because, like many other systems of medicine, it doesn't even imitate any sort of scientific method. To qualify as pseudoscience it needs to at least try to test hypotheses against observation. However, the word "pseudoscience" is also used - as by the Nature reference - to mean "rubbish". We could use the word, tout court, in the lede, though, personally, I'd omit it and simply remove the last sentence of the current lede. Noting however the majority opinion for inclusion, I might suggest keeping all the criticism together, using the word "pseudoscience", but because of its ambiguous meaning, reporting the usage of a RS rather than offering a simple assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe something like:

Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by science or evidence-based medicine. TCM is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community. It has been described as "largely pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

I hope this helps. I feel inclined to try a bold edit, but I'll solicit comments first. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by science or evidence-based medicine. The TCM theory is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community.[2]

This sentence above is about the TCM theory. TCM is a separate issue.

Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[9]

This sentence is neutrally written. Your proposal dramatically weakens the meaning of this sentence and adding "It has been described" is a violation of WP:ASSERT and WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Richard's proposal, although the whole quote from the nature article should be in quotations (as it is all a quote from the same editorial). As Richard states, the journal using the term protoscience meets requirements, and it is fair game to use, just as much as the nature article is fair game. I also agree that the article already made the point that many TCM concepts are not supported by bioscience, so the edit in question is redundant and is just piling on derogatory labels with no purpose other than to push POV (even harder than it is already pushed in the article).Herbxue (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

TCM and TCM theory are two separate things. See WP:IDHT. I clarified the text. Conflating the two together is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Although" may introduce a false dichotomy - there is not, necessarily, any opposition between "pseudoscience" and "subtle interrelationships between ingredients", and the rest of QuackGuru's sentence might be considered, in light of the various usages of the word "pseudoscience", to be difficult to maintain in the light of WP:ASSERT.

"It has been described" - it has, and I'm suggesting that we don't have sufficient agreement on the usage of "pseudoscience" here to say it ourselves. However, thanks for adding "theory" - edit conflict, I was just going to. The paragraph becomes:

Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by science or evidence-based medicine. TCM is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community. Its theoretical basis has been described as "largely pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

While I'm at it, this is not importantly weaker than a direct assertion in our voice, but it allows us to distance ourselves appropriately from the ambiguity of the term's use, and may allow us to come to a consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"It has been described" is still a violation of WP:ASSERT. There is no in light of the various usages of the word "pseudoscience".

"Its theoretical basis"... is also WP:OR. TCM and the TCM theory are different things.

According to the source: "Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[23] Therefore, the current wording is accurate.

The text beginning with Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts,... is about the theory.[24] The other text is about TCM. We can't merge two different things into one paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I basically support Richard's proposal. To be responsive to QG's WP:OR concerns, however, I suggest we write "It has been described as "largely pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments."

WP:ASSERT is definitely not violated by us writing this. On the contrary, trying to distort the statement of an editorial which says "The most obvious answer is that ... it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies" into "TCM is pseudoscience" would violate WP:ASSERT, since it would feign an assertion that is just not there. The wording in the editorial is too ambiguous. It's hardly more than speculation. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is conflating two separate issues. Claiming It has been described is not what the source says. The source does say "it is largely just pseudoscience". The source is discussing TCM. Read the paragraph beginning with So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures?. This text is part of a summary of a model of the body and this text is a summary of drug research. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The DRN is still open on this topic. The DR does not seem to have consensus for change. So, the pseudoscience phrase should probably stay as-is. There is the Chinese Medicine journal. The home page states: Chinese Medicine is an open access, online journal publishing evidence-based, scientifically justified, and ethical research into all aspects of Chinese medicine. Given that, Dr. Keatinge, would you agree that would indicate an "imitation of scientific medicine" and that the pseudoscience statement should stay? Jim1138 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"The DR does not seem to have consensus for change. So, the pseudoscience phrase should probably stay as-is". Sure. That's also a way to make sure you have your way. You use an ambiguous editorial to make a statement violating WP:ASSERT, just revert anyone who opposes this, and then demand that your POV edit has to stay where it is since there'd have to be consensus for change. Brilliant! --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how you apply WP:ASSERT to me, but not to Keatinge or other supporters. If you note, I am writing in the talk page, but not the article nor proposing it be put in the article, so how does WP:ASSERT apply? Jim1138 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The assertion you want to keep in the article ("TCM is largely pseudoscience") can not be found in this way in the source. The source's wording is "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." The structure of the sentence is somewhat complicated by the (superfluous) subordinate clause "... that it actually has little to offer". But it basically says "The most obvious answer is: it is largely just pseudoscience". This source (and let's keep in mind that this is an editorial) is speculating. Trying to present this speculation as a fact violates WP:ASSERT ("The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact"). We'd also violate WP:FRIND ("ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources"). To keep the term pseudoscience in the article, we'd have to use it differently. "It has been described as pseudoscience" sounds like a passable way to me. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all commentators above. Jim, you correctly make clear that Chinese remedies can be and are being analyzed by scientific methods. The point for this article is that traditional Chinese medicine doesn't, it uses non-scientific concepts and approaches. Quackguru, both the references we are using address, to some extent, both practical remedies and their theoretical basis.[25][26] There are appropriate places to clarify in detail the separation of these concepts, but the lede of the TCM article probably isn't one of them. And I don't think anybody's suggested anything that I'd classify as OR; we are using RS to write a good article.

I'm sure other watchers of the DRN process will be relieved if we can sort out a version acceptable to everyone here. I note that we have been using (and disagreeing about) a quotation from a particularly ill-written sentence, and I have changed my earlier suggestion with a slightly different quotation from the same RS: "Nonetheless, the bulk of these precepts, including the model of the body, or concept of disease, are not supported by science or evidence-based medicine. TCM is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community. It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments."

Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Agree. --Mallexikon (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you. At this edit I have boldly made the change. I do hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, you claim "There are appropriate places to clarify in detail the separation of these concepts, but the lede of the TCM article probably isn't one of them." The text currently in the lede is clear. There is no reason to change the text to unclear statements.

The sentence in the lede makes it clear it is about the theory. But in your proposal you want to remove the word theory that would make the text unclear. The TCM theory is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community.[2]

"It has been described" has not been verified and also makes the text unclear. I previously told you there is a difference between the theory and TCM and these differences should be clear in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Quackguru, thanks for your comments. It's quite true that the TCM theory is not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community.[2] TCM practice is also not based upon the current body of knowledge related to health care in accordance with the scientific community. The source doesn't try hard to distinguish theory from practice. It also isn't useful to do so here and the sources certainly don't require it.

"It has been described"... it has, the phrase is a normal part of encyclopedic text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also begs the question of where "traditional" leaves off and "modern pseudoscience" starts. Jim1138 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, in an article specifically about traditional Chinese medicine and in context, that's fine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"It has been described"... claims it may no longer be pseudoscience. None of the changes improved the article. Rearranging the text does not follow the text in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"It has been described"... makes no claim it may no longer be pseudoscience. It merely avoids committing us to a semantic ambiguity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the language you've added. It has an encyclopedic tone and strikes a proper balance. II | (t - c) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree and appreciate your effort.Herbxue (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine discussion is open, with questions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent compromise; keeps the idea and frames it properly. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Role of traditional concepts: belief system or mnemonic?

I think it may be useful to take a step back from the pseudoscience argument to our underlying assumptions. I think you can interpret the five this and five that two different ways: either as a belief system that demands the arbitrary application of certain herbs to a broad and unscientifically developed range of conditions, or as a mnemonic scaffold that would allow a lone practitioner, without relevant texts to consult, to run through a large set of ailments in his head before remembering one of them, which has an empirically determined treatment. It's not so clear to me which of these predominates, and I'm concerned that if some practitioners use the ideas in a more mnemonic way to remember treatments that have been arrived at empirically, calling the treatment a pseudoscience may be unfair to them. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We could, but until we can produce a RS to make that particular analysis it is OR. I'd also argue that in this article we are describing a conceptual system, rather than trying to dissect the minutiae of the thought processes of every practitioner. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

One good source along this line is Paul Unschuld, who describes Chinese medicine as being based "systematic correspondences" - which is what I think of as the conceptual scaffolding of the medicine. Herbxue (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As Richard says, that would be to risk WP:SYN. It's an agreeable idea but the persistence of humoural theory in medicine up to the discovery of germ theory and the systematisation of anatomical inquiry doesn't seem to me to really support it. It's not as if they had any actual idea what was really going on in the body, which is kind of what the term mnemonic would imply. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"kind of"? What do you mean? Are you saying that any use of an organizational scheme to remember a large number of data fragments is pretending to be science?Herbxue (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TCM and purinergic signalling

Greetings to all! I am the creator of the purinergic signalling article on Wikipedia and I would like to highlight some new discoveries from this rapidly expanding field. As I shall explain below, some of these findings may be directly relevant to TCM.

What are purines?

Purines are heterocyclic compounds with the chemical formula "C5H4N4".

What is purinergic signaling?

Purinergic signaling refers to a newly discovered form of cell signaling involving purine molecules and purinergic receptors.

Is purinergic signaling a mainstream scientific concept?

Yes. Although it was discovered back in the 1970s, it only gained acceptance in the early 1990s. For recent reviews, see:

- Annual Reviews: Signaling at Purinergic P2X Receptors (2009)

- New England Journal of Medicine: Purinergic Signaling during Inflammation (2012)

- American Journal of Physiology: Purinergic signaling and response in fibroblasts and tissue fibrosis (May 2014)

What has purinergic signaling got to do with TCM?

Apparently, several new discoveries have implicated the role of purinergic signaling in the mechanisms of traditional acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine. For example,

- Adenosine, a purine nucleoside, is involved in the anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture (See Purinergic signalling)

- Several purinergic receptors are involved in mediating the effects of Chinese herbs (See Purinergic signalling)

How relevant are these findings?

WIth regards to the field of purinergic signalling, these findings are certainly very relevant. The bigger question is whether they might also be relevant to this particular page?

Should we include some of these findings in this article? Are there any WP:MEDRS compliant sources we could use?

I personally think so. For recent reviews, see:

- Neurochemistry International: P2X receptors and modulation of pain transmission: Focus on effects of drugs and compounds used in traditional Chinese medicine (2010)

- European Journal of Physiology: Ancient Chinese medicine and mechanistic evidence of acupuncture physiology (2011)

- Purinergic Signalling: Purinergic signalling and cancer (2013) [note the effects of Rhubarb]

- Anesthesiology : Mechanisms of Acupuncture–Electroacupuncture on Persistent Pain (2014)

Acupuncture also has effects on local tissues, including mechanical stimulation of connective tissue, release of adenosine at the site of needle stimulation, and increases in local blood flow...

New England Journal of Medicine (2010)

Given these new discoveries, I don't think we should describe TCM as "pseudoscience" simply based on a 2007 editorial piece by Nature, which later in 2010 published the first scientific study linking acupuncture with purinergic signalling. This statement implying that there is "no valid mechanism of action" in TCM is demonstrably outdated, because we now know that there is at least one.

I'm highlighting it now because this article has been brought over to WP:DRN, so editors coming from there might be interested to take a look at TCM from a different perspective. Also, I would like to know what TCM editors think of these findings and how to integrate parts of the purinergic signalling article with this particular article.

-A1candidate (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The text "Mechanical deformation of the skin by acupuncture needles results in the release of ATP and adenosine.[53][54][55][56] The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor.[57]" is mass OR and SYN. See Purinergic signalling#Current. QuackGuru (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, I think we've discussed this before. As far as I know, release of adenosine purines is a normal occurrence in the course of any tissue damage (e.g. when a needle punctures the skin, but also in an abrasion or laceration etc.). If you have a reliable source demonstrating that the mechanism of action of acupuncture is based on purinergic signalling we'd use if of course. But as far as I can see right now, you're engaging in OR. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources are at Purinergic signalling#Current. Have you read them?-A1candidate (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. As far as I can see, the assertion that the anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mainly mediated by purines is OR. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Which part of "adenosine has been implicated as a mediator of acupuncture analgesia" do you not understand? Anyway, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors as well. -A1candidate (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How odd, then, that it makes no difference where the needles are located or whether they even penetrate the skin. It's almost as if the acupuncturists have seized on a finding that most people won't properly understand and gone "there you are! We discovered it first!" like the homeopaths did with water memory, until it was shown not to exist in any meaningful form.

Take for example the first reference claimed to support the statement that acupuncture works by this mechanism. The abstract says:

Acupuncture has been widely used in China for three millennia as an art of healing. Yet, its physiology is not yet understood. The current interest in acupuncture started in 1971. Soon afterward, extensive research led to the concept of neural signaling with possible involvement of opioid peptides, glutamate, adenosine and identifying responsive parts in the central nervous system. In the last decade scientists began investigating the subject with anatomical and molecular imaging. It was found that mechanical movements of the needle, ignored in the past, appear to be central to the method and intracellular calcium ions may play a pivotal role. In this review, we trace the technique of clinical treatment from the first written record about 2,200 years ago to the modern time. The ancient texts have been used to introduce the concepts of yin, yang, qi, de qi, and meridians, the traditional foundation of acupuncture. We explore the sequence of the physiological process, from the turning of the needle, the mechanical wave activation of calcium ion channel to beta-endorphin secretion. By using modern terminology to re-interpret the ancient texts, we have found that the 2nd century b.c. physiologists were meticulous investigators and their explanation fits well with the mechanistic model derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and confocal microscopy. In conclusion, the ancient model appears to have withstood the test of time surprisingly well confirming the popular axiom that the old wine is better than the new.

So, we start by begging the question and an appeal to tradition, we then claim that its physiology is "not understood" (false: the physiology *is* understood, the null hypothesis covers it completely - it's been known for a long time that qi and meridians do not exist and in recent years we also discovered that it does not matter whether they are even inserted or if a toothpick is just touched on the skin), then we launch into speculation about how intrcellular calcium ions "may play a role", then we go back to ancient texts to assert that the ancients were emticulous experimenters (though they never spotted that the meridians don't exist and it doesn't matter where you put the needle, so not that meticulous), and hey, presto! we have "proved" that the latest thing suddenly explains acupuncture - as long as you start with a statement of faith and only look for confirming data.

Oh, wait: that's pseudoscience, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that we understand how acupuncture works. What we do know, however, is the involvement of several basic molecular pathways, without which the effect of acupuncture would not be present. The authors are entirely correct in acknowledging our current gaps of knowledge.

If you wish to quote the source, please quote exactly as stated. There is a difference between "may play a role" and "may play a pivotal role". The latter is an accurate reproduction of what the authors said, while the former is a misrepresentation of what's being claimed. The involvement of calcium signaling has been demonstrated by some of the authors, but it is appropriate for them to remain cautious in interpreting their own findings and I don't think you can fault them for this.

How odd, then, that it makes no difference where the needles are located or whether they even penetrate the skin.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you are either unaware or refuse to accept the fact that it does make a difference where you the needles are placed. For example,

• The Baihui acupunture point significantly improves infarct volume during ischemic stroke.

• The Neiguan acupuncture point significantly reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting

It's almost as if the acupuncturists have seized on a finding that most people won't properly understand and gone "there you are! We discovered it first!"

The authors show that the immune responses can be modulated by electroacupuncture, which stimulates a neural circuit that results in the release of dopamine.

Nature Medicine (March 2014)

Not only the acupuncturists, but any respectable scientist would be well-advised to take full advantage of these findings. Consider, for example, the fact that:

• A new purinergic signaling mechanism for treating cancer was confirmed by using Chinese herbal medicine (2013)

• A new anti-inflammatory mechanism for treating sepsis was discovered by using electroacupuncture (2014)

Holding onto a statement of faith is what pseudoskeptics tend to do. On the other hand, using wise judgement to make new discoveries based on already known facts is not only prudent but also practical.

Oh, wait: that's appealing to tradition, isn't it? -A1candidate (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are using sources that are not specifically about acupuncture. Keep the SYN/OR violations out of my watchlist. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so threatened by a discussion of the mechanisms at play in the physiologic response to acupuncture needle stimulation. I have always supported the section on "possible mechanisms of action" because we know that in certain cases acupuncture works to relieve pain and nausea, but we do not yet know why. The research on possible mechanism is of value to the reader. By the way, "Keep the SYN/OR violations out of my watch list"? You have got to be kidding me! I think you need a break. Your ownership delusion is out of control. Herbxue (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's remotely threatened by this. What's at issue is that speculative conclusions regarding a field that is as yet not well understood, but whihc might (possibly) account for part, though unquestionably not all, of the observed effect of needling, is being used to assert that somehow a body of belief based on the four humours, unverifiable life energy, and "meridians" that have no anatomical basis, remains "protoscoence" (i.e. a body of knowledge on the path to science) rather than pseudoscience (a body of knowledge characterised by isolation from refutation). To make this claim would be a novel synthesis, as the statement that TCM is based on pseudoscience is sourced to reliable independent sources whereas the contrary claim is interpreted form primary sources that would in any case cover only one small corner of the body of belief. Can you see the difference? Guy (Help!) 17:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but for the record I am only in support of presenting the current state of research into proposed mechanisms of acupuncture, not making conclusions. I do not believe a WP article is a place to make OR conclusions like "TCM is a protoscience" or "TCM is a pseudoscience". I am also not interested in attempting to conclude "mechanism x is the reason acupuncture has effect y" - only in presenting the fact that there is research in this area as it is very interesting stuff that improves the article.Herbxue (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I checked the four sources for the statement in purinergic signalling that "The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor", text written by A1candidate. Based on my reading of the sources, I changed the text to "is thought by some" etc. This was reverted by A1candidate as "original research". I have now checked more fully. Of the four sources, one identifies the idea as speculative, one as hypothetical, one as possible and one does not appear to mention acupuncture at all. In fact, the claim that acupuncture works by purinergic signalling is not supported by the claimed sources, and is instead a novel synthesis - the issue of OR is precisely the other way around. In order to be completely fair I consulted an academic expert on acupuncture and other alternative medicine, who concurred with my reading of the sources.

Unfortunately this means that we now have to check the article, and other related contributions, for other examples of similar synthesis. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about this were raised before at WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is informative. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Guy and Alexbrn, could you join me at Talk:Purinergic signalling to discuss this? -A1candidate (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied there (not quite sure why we're shifting venue). It appears there is a problem with cherry picking & synthesis in the service of a POV-push here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Content being disputed is from there, not here. -A1candidate (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are using sources that are not specifically about acupuncture. Keep the SYN/OR violations out of my watchlist. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC) <--- is that how you talk to other contributors? How dare you?? It is apparent that you are not here to contribute constructively, QuackGuru (talk). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitions: traditional Chinese medicine, pseudoscience, and actual science

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

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

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You claim to use the word "pseudoscience" as a straightforward descriptor, we would need multiple good-quality reliable sources saying exactly that TCM is a pseudoscience. According to what policy we need multiple reliable sources for the obvious fact according to reliable sources that it is a pseudoscience. Unless there is a serious dispute among reliable sources there is no rationale reason to violate ASSERT. The serious dispute must be with the sources not when someone on Wikipedia objects to word "pseudoscience".

But we do have other sources that say generally the same thing about TCM. Some editors may feel it is unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Richard Keatinge, we should avoid WP:WEASEL wording, which is a vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as"), especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of a "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be.

The text in the lede is misplaced. The pseudoscience sentence is about the treatments. The lede is intermingling two issues together which are separate and distinct. The text should be clearer to the reader.

Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was extracted from a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[3]

It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[3]

The two sentences above should be next to each other which are from the same source. The text can be tweaked and improved without the vague attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so is this edit useful? It does unify both the concept and the source. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit is fine with me. QG if you are worried about vague attribution, just state "an editorial in Nature has described it as...". I don't see others complaining of "weasel wording". Herbxue (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit is not fine with me. Now we're stating the same thing (that TCM is fraught with pseudoscience twice in the lede. --Mallexikon (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the proper place to follow the sentence about that successful results have however been scarce. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So far so good. I have now removed the duplication - hadn't intended to leave it, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained the two sentences using the same source should be next to each other. They were next to each other until you deleted it. You deleted the wrong sentence and you originally misplaced the sentence out of context. You agreed to unify both the concept and the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, a draft edit would probably help us to understand what you're trying to say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You already made the edit previously. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what would your suggested edit be? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We're having a similar discussion at acupuncture; have a look: Talk:Acupuncture#More_re_TCM_.26_pseudoscience_wording --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources on acupuncture with positive results

Greetings! Here are some sources dealing with the positive research outcomes with acupuncture that I'd like to suggest to be taken into account in the Acupuncture and moxibustion section:

1. Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: "Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. ... We included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). ... P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV." (Lee A, Fan LTY. Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003281. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3)
2. The effectiveness of acupuncture research across components of the trauma spectrum response (tsr): a systematic review of reviews: "Thirty-one studies were included in this review. The majority of included trials comparing true acupuncture and sham acupuncture showed a trend in favor of acupuncture. The combined response rate in the acupuncture group was significantly higher compared with sham acupuncture either at the early follow-up period (risk ratio [RR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08, 1.30) or late follow-up period (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.43). Combined data also showed acupuncture was superior to medication therapy for headache intensity (weighted mean difference: -8.54 mm, 95% CI: -15.52, -1.57), headache frequency (standard mean difference: -0.70, 95% CI: -1.38, -0.02), physical function (weighted mean difference: 4.16, 95% CI: 1.33, 6.98), and response rate (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.17). ... Needling acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture and medication therapy in improving headache intensity, frequency, and response rate." (Sun, Y., Gan, T. J. (2008). Acupuncture for the Management of Chronic Headache: A Systematic Review. Anesth. Analg. 107: 2038-2047)
3. Acupuncture for tension-type headache: "Eleven trials with 2317 participants (median 62, range 10 to 1265) met the inclusion criteria. Two large trials compared acupuncture to treatment of acute headaches or routine care only. Both found statistically significant and clinically relevant short-term (up to 3 months) benefits of acupuncture over control for response, number of headache days and pain intensity. Long-term effects (beyond 3 months) were not investigated. Six trials compared acupuncture with a sham acupuncture intervention, and five of the six provided data for meta-analyses. Small but statistically significant benefits of acupuncture over sham were found for response as well as for several other outcomes. ... In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials, the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches." (Linde K, Allais G, Brinkhaus B, Manheimer E, Vickers A, White AR. Acupuncture for tension-type headache. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD007587. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007587)
4. Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis: "Twenty-two trials with 4419 participants (mean 201, median 42, range 27 to 1715) met the inclusion criteria. Six trials (including two large trials with 401 and 1715 patients) compared acupuncture to no prophylactic treatment or routine care only. After 3 to 4 months patients receiving acupuncture had higher response rates and fewer headaches. ... t. Overall in these trials acupuncture was associated with slightly better outcomes and fewer adverse effects than prophylactic drug treatment. ... Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment." (Linde K, Allais G, Brinkhaus B, Manheimer E, Vickers A, White AR. Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD001218. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001218.pub2)
5. A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost effectiveness analysis: " A short course of traditional acupuncture for persistent non-specific low back pain in primary care confers a modest health benefit for minor extra cost to the NHS compared with usual care. Acupuncture care for low back pain seems to be cost effective in the longer term." (Ratcliffe J, Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Brazier J. A randomised controlled trial of acupuncture care for persistent low back pain: cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2006;333:626)

I suggest that these findings will be included into the article in order to have a more balanced view on the subject.

Ps. This also intersects strongly with the article acupuncture so if you haven't, please take a look at that article as well! ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this tag?

The sentence: "TCM has been described as a protoscience" uses Needham's (multi-volume work about Chinese history) Science and Civilisation in China as a source. This source has been tagged as an unreliable medical source (without any further explanation)...? I don't see any rationale for rejecting this very respectable source, so if nobody objects, I'd delete the tag. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is too old and we have newer information on it about being prescience. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Model of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no "too old" for a source about the proto-scientific nature of TCM. We're not dealing with a claim of medical efficacy, which has to regularly be updated according to new trials. What you deleted here is reliably sourced material. Please re-instate it, unless this discussion is resolved. Otherwise, your conduct could be interpreted as edit-warring. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Needham is even above Unschuld, even though neither is a fan or patient of TCM they are the most highly respected teachers on the history of Chinese medicine. I reinstated the text, please do not edit-war and revert again.Herbxue (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This change added OR and a MEDRS violation. A source from 1980 is extremely old. That is over 30 years old and things have changed and we are using newer sources on the topic. Needham is teacher on the history of Chinese medicine but WP:FRINGE asks for independent sources on the topic. This is not a mundane claim.QuackGuru (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Mallexikon (talk) has got it right. As long as we are not dealing with claims of medical efficacy, the source is reliable and can stay. QuackGuru, you have been banned already before for edit warring alternative medicine articles[27], as well as you have been warned by two different administrators (EdJohnston and Tiptoety) for the very same reason lately[28][29]. Please make sure you won't start edit warring this time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the lede is ambiguous

Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

According to User:Roxy the dog and others it is Pseudoscience through and through. There is no need to add weasel words to the lede here or at acupuncture. The word "extremely" is also OR/weasel wording added to acupuncture. The previous wording restored by User:Adam Cuerden was closer to the source and neutrally written. User:BatteryIncluded clearly explained TCM currently presents itself in the West as medicine —an applied science— but it does not follow the scientific method. This should also be clearly explained in the lede too without weasel words or in-text attribution.[30][31] QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Our ambiguity allows well for the ambiguity of the term. No doubt the lede can be improved, but misusing a perfectly good word as a partially-accurate pejorative will not improve any encyclopaedic article.

With all due respect to Roxy, neither he nor I nor any other user is a reliable source.

That TCM is not based on the scientific method seems fairly uncontentious (I also note that, historically, most schools of medicine have had very little to do with the scientific method); I would welcome RS that clearly demonstrate a scholarly consensus that TCM presents itself as based on the scientific method.

On other points, I refer you to the discussion above Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem OR/weasel wording to me. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

QG its time for you to let this one go, seriously.Herbxue (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No full citation found in the footnote section

This edit removed the full citation tag but I could not find the full citation in the footnote section. The reference is As seen at: Flaws 1984, pp. 12–13. This is not a full citation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the citation (no. 36), you'll automatically be taken to the "References" section; there you'll find ""For example, [the term] Xue is used rather than Blood, since the latter implies the blood of Western medicine, with its precise parameters of biochemistry and histiology. Although Xue and blood share some common attributes, fundamentally, Xue is a different concept." As seen at: Flaws 1984, pp. 12–13" right next to number 36. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained As seen at: Flaws 1984, pp. 12–13 is not a full citation but the full citation tag was removed. I could not find a book written by Flaws from 1984. See Traditional Chinese medicine#cite note-36. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand what you mean (I thought you're looking for a full quote). The full citation was obviously removed when the References section was given a unified citation style... But that's not the only problem: there doesn't seem to be a book from Flaws from 1984 whatsoever. Checking books from Flaws from a different year didn't check out, but I finally found the citation in a book already used in our article which is from 1984 but not from Flaws but from Ross. The citation must have been a typo. I'll add the full citation now. Good job of spotting this! --Mallexikon (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Original research?

Artemisinin is not extracted or derived from a fever treatment. QuackGuru (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The source says "artemisinin, for example, which is currently the most effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herbal treatment for fevers". Perhaps I am missing something, but please respect other people's time by being clear and accurate in your objections. II | (t - c) 07:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Artemisinin is not derived from the herbal treatment for fevers. That's not how the drug is made. The part "fished out" does not mean Artemisinin itself is derived from the herbal treatment for fevers. QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better-written source will help us to provide better encyclopedic text. Although I wouldn't usually provide a lede with two references for an uncontentious fact, at this edit I have added an extra reference which I hope will meet whatever your objection is. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The extra reference does not verify the entire sentence. I don't see your point to adding an extra reference. The word "derived" still failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm left deeply puzzled by your problem. Are you having trouble reading the sources given, do you mean that we should only use the exact words of a source, or what? Please clarify. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked both of the sources and can't really understand why it wouldn't verify the sentence? Actually, can it be any more clearly expressed? This is not the first time you keep playing with tags, QuackGuru. Please stop it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The extra reference does not verify the claim. See diff. The source does not say artemisinin was "derived" from an herbal treatment.[32] Fished out does not mean that the pharmaceutical companies uses the herbal treatment to make the drug. See the definition for fished out. Fished out is not a synonym for derived and the lede should not make a claim that is misleading. Do you think the wording can be improved and the extra reference that failed verification can be removed? I don't think we have to use the exact words of the source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)(Jayaguru-Shishya did not respond to my comment. My comment was misplaced out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

QuackGuru, I have moved your comment from my talk page to above, in chronological order and into context. I still don't understand what is bothering you. Can you suggest a better form of words? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to think of a better word that won't suggest that the drug is "made" from the herbal treatment for fever because it was not "derived" from the traditionally used herbal treatment. It is misleading to suggest pharmaceutical companies used the fever treatment to make the drug. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Best source?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html is being used to state in the lead " The TCM theory and practice are not based upon modern scientific knowledge, and its own practitioners disagree widely on what diagnosis and treatments should be used for any one patient.[3]".

Question: a) is this the best possible source? It is certainly a biased source. Are there no peer reviewed reviews available on PubMed or MEDLINE? b) This statement casts a very broad net, stating simultaneously that TCM theory and practice are 100% not based upon modern scientific knowledge. This implies there is no legitimate scientific research into mechanisms underlying TCM, or research re: effectiveness, etc. Thoughts? DVMt (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Quackwatch is recognised and accepted as a valid mainstream view on such subjects. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hey ya'all, WP:NOTFORUM. Please recall that the topic of pseudoscience has been addressed at Arbcom and TCM is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. There is a looooong road to travel to change that basic stance at Wikipedia. To the point of this section, if there is a question now about QuackWatch, those questioning it should bring the source to WP:RSN and note that posting here. I doubt that will get far. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is final - especially an agreement of like-minded people about using a pejorative term about another group of people. Saying that TCM is among the list of topics considered pseudoscience by the people that are looking to call things pseudoscience is weak and unconvincing. I can start a group agreeing that religion in general is bs and that catholicism is among the topics considered bs. That wouldn't be hard. But stating, as fact, "religion is bs" would not have an encyclopedic tone and would assume that a truly conclusive consensus had been met. In this case, people who actually do science are careful enough to not use such broad labels, because they actually respect fact rather than a cynical, political need to discredit one group or another. TCM is not pseudoscience if the definition demands that TCM holds itself out as a science. Also, you'll have to do a little better Original Research to convince me that the "scientific community" is of one mind, or even close to consensus, on the value or validity of TCM (or any traditional healthcare system).Herbxue (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is true that nothing is final. What I am trying to tell you - and please hear me - is that this is not an issue for an article Talk page. The issue of pseudoscience has indeed gone all the way to arbcom, and currently, TCM is considered pseudoscience on WP. It was decided a long long time ago in WP that anything health-related goes under the rubric of science here, since diseases and conditions manifest in the physical body and interventions can be and are tested with the scientific method. To the extent that TCM makes health claims, those claims and the basis for them, are evaluated and discussed under the rubric of science. As near as I can tell, the root of this is the policy/pillar WP:VERIFY, and what the community accepts as reliable sources for health-related content, as per the two sourcing guidelines that stem from the policy, namely WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:FRINGE. So my sense, is that if you want to make changes about what kinds of sources and therefore what kinds of content can be in this article, you have to go to the root, to WP:VERIFY, and this would likely end up back at arbcom. It will be a long haul. This article's Talk page is not the place to work on these fundamental issues. It is not productive. And again, Quackwatch has been brought up repeatedly at RSN and at Talk:MEDRS and at Talk:Project Medicine and has been found just fine; I understand that the key set of discussions that you will likely find most relevant, being at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one, Herbxue. Wikipedia should strive to be an encyclopedia; if one saw the article of Britannica over traditional Chinese medicine, I am pretty sure one would get the point. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, thanks for taking the time. I still don't accept Quackwatch as reliable but will take that complaint elsewhere. In the article talk page however I believe it is appropriate to discuss whether certain sources are being given undue weight. Herbxue (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for hearing me. Talk pages are always appropriate places to talk about specific content and sources, but (to risk beating the horse) those discussions need to remain grounded on the policy/guideline foundations of Wikipedia, where TCM is pseudoscience and its health claims and view of the body are subject to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. WP:CON can be painful sometimes, I know. It is much bigger than what you or I necessarily like. What is great is that one can work to change consensus in this ultimately democratic space. btw, if you do bring up Quackwatch as it is used here on RSN or another board, please do us the courtesy of posting notice of it here. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Jytdog. Commenting about the reliability of QuackWatch, as far as I understand, it is by no way a peer-reviewed source and therefore I find it at least very problematic to be used. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, please see the many discussions of Quackwatch that I linked-to above. Please engage with the community's past discussions; if you don't like them, the place to bring it up is one of those boards. Saying "no" here is not sufficient to overturn WP:CON... thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There might have been earlier discussions and I don't disacknowledge that. As stated above, nothing is final. I'd suggest that let's keep it simple though: whether the source is peer-reviewed or then it is not. I don't mean to sound rude but I think that will serve Wikipedia the best and save us from any unnecassary speculation. Neither does the science world speculate on such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to fight consensus established on notice boards on an individual article page, and that is not how we operate as per WP:CON. As I said, the source has been found reliable for statements on pseudoscience on several notice boards, several times. Please see the discussions there. You are not the first to question this source, not by far.Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. Whether a source is a peer-reviewed one, or then it is not. I am not commenting about what has been discussed at the notice boards here; as far as I understand, Wikipedia has no say to what is a peer-reviewed source and what is not. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice boards are where the community applies policies and guidelines to specific issues to establish a consensus judgement. That is the purpose of noticeboards. You are coming very close to WP:IDHT and this is the last time I will respond to this. If you want to re-open discussion of this source on any grounds please bring it to the boards where it has already been found to be reliable for statements on pseudoscience. When you bring it to the boards, the people there will expect you to have already done your homework, so I suggest that you read the extant discussions, which it appears that you have not done yet. If you do generate a new posting, please provide notice here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism spans the whole article

I edit a wide variety of topics, rarely anything to do with medicine and possibly I'm just not used to the science critics. This article is littered with criticisms, so much so it's difficult to follow the subject being presented. A separate article or a rewrite with a section devoted to the western medicine/science critics would be most welcome.Dougmcdonell (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougmcdonell it's harder than it looks. WP is strongly based on science and science cannot be shunted to the side. For example, when there are statements in Wikipedia's voice about "qi", those statements cannot imply that "qi" is real. And statements cannot be put in quotes that imply it is real, as this is just coatracking. Yet the article should indeed communicate clearly how the idea of "qi" works in TCM. This is not easy to accomplish. And there are POV-pushers on both the pro-TCM side and the anti-quack side that make it very hard to craft careful language. It's not easy. Come try if you like! Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog I protest, TCM is not a science, it makes no claim to the scientific method why not shunt science to the side as might be appropriate for religion or art. Science does not own all knowledge or truth of the human body. The use of science in parts of western medicine does not automatically make all other systems subject to the god of science. "qi" is not an object, therefore no objective scientist needs to discuss it. Couldn't TCM be the "art of medicine" and skip the conflict, oh maybe in a different world. I read the WP:MEDRS where it explicitly states that science owns the medicine topic, and by extension the TCM topic, bummer. Thank you for your insight and invitation.Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks!!! whew. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dougmcdonell. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia's alt-med articles ;) ! The lede jumps into criticism as soon as in the 2nd paragraph, and if you compare this to real encyclopedic articles like traditional Chinese medicine of Encyclopedia Britannica, you'll see a huge different (in favour of Britannica, unfortunately). I just hope that this very article will never get chosen in these comparisons between different encyclopedias.

In my opinion, the lede should be more of an introduction of the article. This is of a bigger question though, and should be discussed at forums like WP:LEDE. Some dominating editors in alt-med articles such as QuackGuru, however, usually arguments his edits by saying: [[WP:LEDE]] is summary of the body (a description which cannot be found from WP:LEDE though). Anyway, I find it highly unprofessional that the lede jumps straight away into rather detailed research results, and that is usually result of extreme POV pushing by certain editors. There are some quite cynical editors who reject absolutely everything that contradicts their own negative views.

Anyway, your opinions and efforts would be the most welcome in editing this article, so welcome! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, you really have to put the axe down. Please get grounded on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is not criticism to clarify the relationship between TCM and science - it is a statement of fact and it is what we do here. We need to do that neutrally and (IMO) respectfully but we have to do it. Really, you are going to get terribly frustrated and burn out if you keep trying to fight policy battles at the article level every step of the way, and you are going to upset a lot of other people who make the mistake of actually trying to argue policy/guideline at the article level. I have tried to warn you repeatedly that pseudoscience topics are under Arbcom discretionary sanctions- please please stop fighting battles in the wrong places. It is unpleasant for everybody involved and not productive.Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

JYtdog, maybe you didn't read my post in full accuracy, but I actually said the very same that you are now telling to me here: these things need to be discussed at appropriate forums, not here. ;D User Dougmcdonell told us that he isn't really editing that many articles and is new to TCM as well, so I guided him to proper forums (such as WP:LEDE). On top of that, I told him what I think, both about the current state of article and WP policies.

JYtdog, I am not fighting WP policies at article level, I hope the above-mentioned cleared my point. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is good to hear, that this is where you are coming from. However, when I read " The lede jumps into criticism as soon as in the 2nd paragraph", what I am hearing is that discussing the relationship between TCM and science is something negative - "criticism" - not statements of fact that follows WP's policies and guidelines. I tried very hard to gather the scattered statements on the relationship in the lead and edit them together neutrally so that they didn't interrupt the flow. Please help me understand how to read your remark differently. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! JYtdog, I am not attacking against the edit you made (which I find pretty good even). I am participating the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic at the same time, and I guess I left out some arguments here that I brought up at the other forum. What I meant by jumping into criticism right away in the lede, it was related to neutrality and bias of the lede. "...positive stances on chiropractic should be summarized in the lede as well..."

Summa summarum: if the lede will jump straight away into the criticism (which could be handled in a separate section as well), it would be neutral and balancing to the article to also include the "positives" of TCM. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You will do as you will, but I recommend that you get more solidly grounded and understand that stating the relationship between TCM and science in Wikipedia in a neutral way is not criticism - it is what we do here. I know it is difficult when you are dealing with hard core anti-quack people, but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own head. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is fine, but the positives should be given an equal weight with the negatives in the lede. Or are you arguing that lede should only contain criticism? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

When the positives are rooted in pseudoscience, providing them with an equal weight in the lede is prohibited, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean, 'rooted in reliable scientific sources, providing them with an equal weight is more than welcome? We base things here on reliable sources, am I right? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As this is about medicine, WP:MEDRS is the standard for sources. Jim1138 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and other meanings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just trying to help with the specific issue brought to DRN, and I don't really have sufficient interest in the subject to spend a lot of time on the main body. I propose to edit the sentence "Nature found it to be largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[10]" to read "There is no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[10]" Does anyone think that this would make the article worse? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If we would have a very good source stating that TCM is pseudoscience, I would recommend to include it in the lede, however, the source we have is too ambiguous. A Nature editorial of course is a reliable source, however, the wording it uses is not as clear as it should be. The correct text summarizing the Nature source should be something on the line of: "Nature argued that the most probable reason why pharmacologists have only been able to develop such few effective therapeutic substances from TCM medicinals, is that TCM is just pseudoscience" (please cf. the source's original text). A complicated sentence like this is ok for the body of our article's text, but IMO not appropriate for the lede. And shortening it in the way we currently do is changing its meaning since it makes Nature's speculation sound like an unambiguous verdict.

I find it remarkable that reliable scientific sources have been so careful about calling TCM pseudoscience - this Nature editorial is a good example, as the wording it uses seems to hazard a very complicated sentence structure in order to avoid a clear verdict. Why is that? The most probable answer I can come up with is that the term pseudoscience automatically implies lack of efficacy in terms of treatment. Since research about TCM efficacy (both for herbal treatment and acupuncture) is ongoing, I guess everybody is afraid that there might actually some evidence of efficacy be found in the future (I personally think that's unlikely, but not fundamentally impossible), and thus be proven wrong.--Mallexikon (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting kind of forum-y, but briefly.... the problem with TCM is that there is no scientific basis for it. It comes down to vitalism. This is one of these things that is so obvious that scientists just don't say it over and over. It is very true that specific interventions used in TCM can be tested with the scientific method. As you know, many oppose putting money into investigating whether those interventions work because there is no plausible basis for them (see for example here). Think about witchcraft and spells. We could definitely investigate whether a given potion or spell works or not, to ....say, transform a man into a frog, using the scientific method. But why would we? That is the argument that some make. Arguments like that aside, yes, absolutely we can test TCM interventions using science. Starting with vitalistic ideas of the body and disease, one can derive specific physical interventions (just like magic or alchemy) - this is exactly what makes TCM pseudoscience. If any of those interventions are validated, they become empirically validated, yes. But they still have no mechanism of action....no scientific basis. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

You guys are all making bucket loads of assumptions, and trying to use sources to make a point. There is evidence of efficacy for both acupuncture and herbs. As an outsider you can CHOOSE to interpret that to mean it was an accident that had nothing to do with traditional theory, but people choosing to use that herb (the reason we want to know if it works) did so based on that traditional theory. Of course this does not mean it is scientifically validated. As Mallexikon points out, real scientists do not make generalized sweeping judgements because that would be unscientific (and in the case of efficacy, clearly premature). Just because you think something is obvious does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Herbxue (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We are very much in forum territory now.... Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I think Richard and Mallexikon are both advising caution with loaded words like pseudoscience and I agree that that caution improves the article.Herbxue (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As we discussed above, this is a way way bigger topic than this article. It comes down to how Wikipedia handles health claims and science.Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of text without discussion

I restored the text that was in the article for a long time and I added in-text attribution as a compromise. User:Jim1138 thinks consensus has not been reached for its removal in the first place. The text is currently in the Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research section. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of discussing here at the article Talk Page, QuackGuru ran immediately to Kww's Talk Page. It seems he has not learnt anything from his most recent ban for edit warring at electronic cigarettes -article. Anyway, it has been all said in the edit summary already, I don't see the reason for ranting about it here, especially since Jim1138 already made a further edit.

According to WP:Consensus Flowchart, since the revert made by QuackGuru over the edit of user Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article still keeping User Bexgro's edit. This per WP:CON. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)