Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine
|
|
| Contents |
Request for comment
I suggest we revert this article to the edit dated 02:19, 9 Apr 2004, by Jiang, as a preparation to bring the article up to standard for the Wikiproject on alternative medicine. Please comment. heidimo 03:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you have noticed, I have been able to deflect all the critics, right now, in alternative medicine for two reasons:
- I always use the correct magic words, and
- I keep on referring to our standards of quality guidelines.
- To do what you want to do now, requires that you analyze what the wrong doer is doing wrong in terms of our standard of quality guidelines. And, then respond accordingly to the point without resorting to personal attacks. You are allowed to do two reverts a day, for ever ... the way I read it.
- But, I will take a closer look and see if I can give you any more specific pointers. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
John, thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to follow all of those guidelines, and hold off on the revert I suggest until the proper time in the process, if at all. I'm only soliciting comments at this time, not saying if or when I would actually do such a revert. heidimo 04:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC) P.S. I added the infobox. heidimo 04:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have got it now. I would advised against doing a revert, now, simply because you have waited too long and too many editors have made changes to it. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Hello folks. It seems to me a revert now would be less desirable than the inevitable rewrite, which is to say, if you're going to work on it, work on the finished product instead of a temporary patch.
I like and agree with John G's statement on strategy;
"I always use the correct magic words, and I keep on referring to our standards of quality guidelines."
A nice, neutral presentation of information will do the trick, one thinks. As the guidelines say: Wikipedia is not about advocacy or propaganda of any kind, what I would add to that is that Wikipedia is about information of every kind, apparently. People can be as skeptical as they want to be, but the phenomenon exists and the information is out there and it isn't going away any time soon. Just as many aspects of traditional Chinese medicine make perfect sense if they are explained well, there are also many abuses of the traditional Chinese system, especially in the West, and they should not be glossed over. To present information as clearly as possible so that people can make up their own minds is all we can hope for. Fire Star 22:57, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Precisely! The phenomenon exists. So, we have every right to cover it per our standards of quality quidelines which are direct quotes from existing and well established Wikipedia guidelines.
- My accessment of TCM is that it is way too big. Much of the content should be moved to separate articles, with the main TCM article being an outline of what is contained in other articles. Beyond, improving comprehension of TCM to the general public at large this strategy would also deflect edit wars to the other more specific articles. Remember, that the same content would still be there. The details should simply be hidden in separate articles like all hyperlink documents are supposed to be designed. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:45, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Single-paragraph summaries are a good way to go with this that avoids edit wars - David Gerard 19:19, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed and agreed. The Tai Chi Chuan article is a good example of this, a discipline with roots and branches in ancient and modern Chinese medical traditions, a page with lots of info, but little overlap with the actual Chinese medicine article. Fire Star 20:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Thinning the page
As part of the wikiproject on alternative medicine, sections are being removed from this article on topics with their own article. Removed sections are being placed in the talk page of the respective articles, for merging purposes. Please help with the merging, if you are so inclined. heidimo 15:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi, heidimo. Please forgive me for my outrageous delay. I have some extra-Wiki commitments going on and on, and will come back with the long overdue comments Real Soon Now, promise! - irismeister 18:00, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
Preliminary review of TCM
My preliminary review of the TCM is very favorable. Again, the primary problem seems to be coming from the science people.
I am referring of course to the TCM and Science and Does it work? sections. These sections seems to be trying to duplicate the articles on the scientific method. My suggestion would be to simply add a hyperlink.
Does it work? As a reader, reading TCM for the first time, my response would be: What is it? And, what is it in reference to? Any reader, remotely familiar with science, would discount these sections as being totally mickey mouse. You cannot test for it, unless you have first defined what it is. And, then your conclusions about it would only be valid for a limited set of specific conditions which would probably mean specific medical conditions. Since, it is obviously referring to 100's of different things and since there are literally 1,000's of diseases the whole premise of this section is so fundamentally flawed that a sixth grader wouldn't believe it. -- John Gohde 20:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
= Jiang's reversions
Jiang, please stop your reversions. You need to stop pushing your religious beliefs as scientific facts. (You also need to stop denying that the belief in these forces was not religious; it was a religious belief, no matter what you claim, and these beliefs have no scientific validation.) Every time someone adds balance by merely presenting a scientific analysis of your claims, you revert the article. You often censor it by totally deleting all critical studies. That is a serious violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Its not just me that you have done this to; others too have suffered under your edits. Please know this - Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. When a controversial subject has a significant amount of mainstream criticism, we are obligated to present it. Instead of discussing the contoversy, you just keep on reverting and censoring, over and over. You did this a few months ago, and I am sad to see that you are doing it again, You must stop this inappropriate behaviour. RK 22:27, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I submit that RK is the person who needs to stop his inappropriate behaviour. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Please read the article before posting. Like before, many of the sentences you re-inserted are already present in the article, word-for-word. Now explain why we need to repeat the same sentence twice (or if we havent reverted you a couple months ago, three times). If you insert new material, then we can discuss. If not, we revert. --Jiang 22:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In my view, it is a political viewpoint used to control the social role of TCM, to classify qi forces as religious. The purpose of the TCM page should not be to praise, deride, critique, or justify TCM. There are ample opportunities for all of those viewpoints to be expressed elsewhere.
- well qi isn't scientific so how would you classify it?Geni 13:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The TCM page needs to represent the actual features of TCM with a balance of those topics that are of the greatest salience and importance in understanding TCM. It is an unreasonable imbalance in POV to have pages on western medicine which fail to represent the prominent criticisms of method and structure, while the TCM page dwells on critiques to the point of distraction. The page is not about controveries. Let controversies about TCM have a separate page, please.
- Why? They are relivant to the topic. fialing to put them in would may the article very POVGeni 13:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removed parenthetical (shen) after "observation of the patient's face". While shen is primarily diagnosed by facial observation, it can be observed in skin tone at other areas of the body. More significantly, observation of the face can be used to diagnose Lung, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Qi, Blood, and Jue, not just Shen and Heart. Nick Argall
Obviously this article can do with some editing. For me some portions need verification. For example, who says Buddhism and Confucianism influenced TCM - I've never heard of it, where are the sources or explanation, for example? Excuse me while I do some very liberal copyediting, and add some fundamentals of TCM from Chinese webpages. Pls voice your opinion if the changes are not to your liking. Mandel 15:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Gone through the article. Some parts are very unclear. What has SARS got to do with TCM, for instance? And this: "It may surprise modern people that the Traditional Chinese Medicine uses medicine as the last resort to fight health problems....However, with modern practice of the Traditional Chinese Medicine relies more and more on medicine and eventually abandons the physical treatments (like Gua Sha) largely. Some people believe it is because medicine can bring more profits to doctors than simpler physical treatments." is neither accurate nor true. Mandel 17:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
中医学 vs 中药学
Hi, I noticed that 中医学 has a separate page from 中药学 on the Chinese Wikipedia; the Chinese one seems to indicate that the former is more general, while the latter refers to an almost scientific study of the foundations of Chinese medicine. It seems a bit strange that we just list both as definitions without further comment. Also, it is strange that one is in traditional characters while one is simplified - does English Wikipedia have a standard for included Chinese? Also, I added and corrected the pinyin for both and verified it on pin1yin1.com (http://www.pin1yin1.com); hopefully I did it right. Capybara 07:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- zh.wikipedia is a separate entity from en.wikipedia, so you should ask the users there. As far as I know, they used to be divided into two camps, although software translation between Simplified and Traditional Chinese has resulted in the two merging. --Euniana/Talk 19:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These names are not equivalents. Zhong yi-xue should pertain to the whole field of medical treatment, setting bones, immunization, etc., etc. Zhong yao-xue should pertain to (traditional) medications only. A person who practices Zhong yi uses Zhong yao (or cao3 yao4). I guess I should have a look at the relevant pages, but it would be a really strange use of language if the two names are taken to be synonyms. P0M 04:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
O.K. Just as I thought, the yi xue article is long and about the traditional practice of medicine, and the yao xue article is hardly more than a dictionary definition that says it is the botanicals, the animal parts, and that kind of thing that are used as medications in the traditional practice of Chinese medicine. P0M 04:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More page thinning
There were many redundant statements as well as biases favouring one school or another that I have edited out. I tried (albeit imperfectly) to keep all pertinent information while taking out New Age and any other species of POV doublespeak I could. I apologise for stepping on anyone's toes, but TCM is such a huge subject that I believe that this central article should give mostly just a very general overview, pro and con, while specifics can go on their respective articles. Fire Star 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)