Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Washington_University/Bio_4030_Biological_Clocks_2025_(Spring_2025) | assignments = MIxaORsT, Bioclocker1228, Sofiakmartinez0711 | start_date = 2025-01-14 | end_date = 2025-05-06 }}

— Assignment last updated by Sofiakmartinez0711 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bon courage

You reverted the edit that included this [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36782331/ EJMR]-published study about combining TCM with Western medicine for Covid-19 treatment in Henan for being "unreliable."

If you can explain in detail why that study is unreliable, I will understand. Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's not WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Same answer, more detail: WP:MEDRS says {{tq|Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content}}. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is a potential additon, to the end of the current last sentence in the intro paragraph. Apologies if I have missed any Talk page information that would have stopped me from adding this topic!

"A large share of its claims are pseudoscientific, with the majority of treatments having no robust evidence of effectiveness or logical mechanism of action..."

...while other claims support efficacy through some mechanism other than placebo{{Citation | vauthors=((Murray, P.)), ((Shurtleff, D.)), ((Langevin, H. M.)) | year=2022 | title=Acupuncture: Effectiveness and Safety | url=https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-effectiveness-and-safety | access-date=23 April 2025}} Rhetth (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:Thanks for proposing this in talk first. I think I remember a previous discussion about NCCIH as a source that may not be truly neutral, although I was unable to find it quickly. The source you propose is a government website, so it's not exactly a review article per WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::The NCCIH (formerly known as the Office of Alternative Medicine) is a political entity set up by a US senator who believed in fringe treatments and cancer cures (specifically those of the Burzynski Clinic). It exists to promote pseudoscience. You can read more about it at https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/national-center-for-complementary-and-integrative-health/ MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And I found the previous discussion, at Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 34#Pseudoscience?, where there was a consensus against sourcing that way. At Talk:Acupuncture#Aggregating valid modern sources on acupuncture, that still seems to be the case, so I would be disinclined to support this edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating lead section to reflect a more balanced and current academic perspective on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). New references have been carefully selected from peer-reviewed journals (NEJM, The Lancet, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Frontiers in Pharmacology) to address both supportive and critical views, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. All sources are accessible, stable, and fully verified. YellowFlag (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is WP:FALSEBALANCE and in stark violation of Wikipedia's policies. WP:NPOV requires that the article follow the mainstream view, not prop up the pseudoscientific side to be in 'balance' with conventional medicine. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your comment. Respectfully, this edit is not WP:FALSEBALANCE. It does not claim equivalence between TCM and conventional biomedicine, nor does it elevate pseudoscience. Instead, it reflects that while many TCM claims lack full biomedical validation, emerging peer-reviewed research (e.g. gut microbiome, neuroimmune modulation, systems biology models) is being actively published in mainstream journals (NEJM, The Lancet, Frontiers, Pharmacology & Therapeutics). This is fully consistent with WP:NPOV, which requires fairly summarizing all significant views in proportion to their prominence. The previous version represented only one side; this version better reflects the breadth of academic discussion without removing skepticism. All sources are peer-reviewed, accessible, and verified.

::I'm happy to continue discussion here to find consensus, but full reversion dismisses relevant, high-quality sources without addressing the substance of the content or citations. YellowFlag (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The lead summarises the body, and WP:LEDEBOMBs are a problem. NCCIH and Frontiers journals are generally weak sources. If changes are made to the body of the article and stick, it may then be worth re-assessing the lead. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the comment. To clarify: the proposed lead update is not introducing undue weight or ledebombing, but rather adjusting the lead to reflect significant recent academic literature that has been published in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals, as outlined above. WP:LEAD does require that the lead reflect the body, but it also permits summary coverage of well-sourced material where gaps exist in the body (per WP:SUMMARY and WP:NPOV). In this case, the body coverage may indeed need parallel updates to better reflect this emerging literature.

::::Regarding sourcing: NCCIH is an official U.S. government agency, and Frontiers in Pharmacology is fully indexed in PubMed and Scopus, regularly cited in numerous medical and pharmacological papers. Both meet WP:RS for coverage of scientific discourse on mechanisms of TCM. None of the proposed content makes medical efficacy claims subject to WP:MEDRS; it merely describes the existence of ongoing research directions.

::::I remain happy to collaborate on improving both the body and lead in parallel if needed, but respectfully feel that full removal of sourced content from the lead without consideration of its validity is not in keeping with WP:NPOV or WP:DUE. YellowFlag (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Frontiers is a predatory publisher, and the NCCIH is a fringe org - as discussed in the section immediately above this one, and in the archives of this talk page as well. You should have a look through those archives. MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It will not improve the article if you add text based on the poor sources you are advocating, which is why editors are demurring your unacceptable proposals. To suggest that we have not considered the validity of the sources is not a show of good faith, something we are required to do. See WP:AGF Roxy the dog 17:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Due to the vested interests surrounding the TCM industry, there is a lot of low quality scientific literature surrouding TCM by its practitioners that purports "great benefits" of TCM, but quietly omits that lots of TCM ingredients are unambiguously known to be toxic. While TCM industry endlessly bangs on about the success of Artemisinin, one of the only TCM "cures" to be proved to have some positive effect, they are a lot quieter about Aristolochic acid, which literally causes cancer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for these comments. Respectfully, I believe some of the concerns raised here may conflate clinical efficacy claims (which would invoke WP:MEDRS) with descriptive summary of emerging academic discourse, which falls under WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

::::::The proposed lead wording makes no claims regarding the safety or clinical effectiveness of TCM therapies, but simply acknowledges that some peer-reviewed literature exists exploring mechanisms such as gut microbiota interactions, systems biology models, and neuroimmune pathways. These studies are published in widely indexed journals, including The Lancet, NEJM, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, and Frontiers in Pharmacology (which, while it has varying editorial quality across subfields, is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, and not considered universally "predatory" under WP:RS).

::::::NCCIH is a U.S. government agency whose publications are frequently cited on Wikipedia, including across many CAM articles where descriptive discussion of complementary medicine systems is covered.

::::::If necessary, parallel updates could be pursued in the body first per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD, but it seems counter to WP:NPOV to prohibit any mention of ongoing published discourse in the field.

::::::I remain open to third-party input to help reach consensus. YellowFlag (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think there is already a consensus in this discussion, and it goes against your position. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Being {{tq|indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed}} is a extremely rudimentary criterion that at best, suggests the publisher is probably not outright predatory (though see [https://retractionwatch.com/2025/05/16/scopus-indexed-journal-science-of-law-fake-editorial-board-sham-archive/] for a counterexample). It says very little about the selectivity or the quality of the journal. Frontiers is known to be a highly non-selective publisher that will publish a lot of what is submitted as long as the author pays, much of which is low quality. It's useful for some low citation low paper volume subject areas, but biomedicine is neither of these. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc top|result=As others have pointed out, this is inappropriate and inopportune. With an open DRN, this is clearly a WP:FORUMSHOP case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I am requesting an RFC on whether recent peer-reviewed research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) can be proportionally reflected in the article's lead to better comply with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:SUMMARY.

The current lead heavily emphasises the pseudoscientific status of TCM while minimising the existence of a growing body of high-quality academic literature exploring physiological mechanisms (such as gut microbiota interactions, neuroimmune pathways, and systems biology models), published in RS-compliant journals.

I proposed limited, policy-compliant updates to reflect the existence of such research without making efficacy claims or violating WP:MEDRS.

My proposed sources include:

• The New England Journal of Medicine (Eisenberg et al. 1993, doi:10.1056/NEJM199301283280406)
• The Lancet (Tang et al. 2008, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61354-9)
• Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Yuan & Lin, 2000)
• Frontiers in Pharmacology (Li et al. 2020, Zhou et al. 2021) - NCCIH (official NIH center on complementary medicine)

A full discussion and dispute resolution process has already occurred at the DRN: Link to DRN filing

I am requesting community input to determine whether limited neutral inclusion of these RS sources is appropriate under existing policy.

Thank you. YellowFlag (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Waste of time. This RfC is being started while a DRN is open. The lede of an article follows the body so a WP:LEDEBOMB is never going to happen, and the filer's vague choice of sources are ancient and/or unreliable in any case. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• YellowFlag you were told that even if the sources you are bringing were valid (and they are clearly not), the first step would be to update the body of the article. and as a second step, only if necessary, the lead may be updated. Now you are coming back with the exact same sources and the exact same demand to update the lead which shows that you are unable or unwilling to understand the advice giving to you. So, as already mentioned, this is a waste of time and should be closed as fast as possible to avoid wasting more of it. --McSly (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• YellowFlag What was the outcome of the "full discussion and dispute resolution process" you link to above? - Roxy the dog 14:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}