User talk:OFTedit

Hi OFTedit, I reverted your edit at TCM - the first part looked fine as you were cleaning up wording, but in the same edit you included controversial material about Mao. Western writers love to write about how Mao "created" TCM - he did not, the standardization in the 1950's was a crystallization of efforts started in the early 1900's by people like Zhang Xichun, and later by Qin Bowei and many many others. Herbxue (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI Herbxue, thanks for message. I hope this is the right way to reply - I am new to the sport. I just looked at the page and it looks like you reverted everything I did - even the bits that "looked fine" to you, including some valueable references to literature that the reader may well find helpful. I edited, because I had stumbled over words like doctrine and precept, which don't reflect the empirical spirit of Chinese medicine. Lets not fight over Mao, of course he did not "create" TCM. What is needed are proper, scholarly references. BUt if I put them in and you take them out, how will we improve anything? (OFTedit (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi OFTedit, reversions of edits are very common and usually people will redo their edit with changes recommended. I would have like to only remove the part I objected to, but I was pressed for time and wanted to be sure to revert the Mao part - for these reasons editors usually save each part of their edits separately so when others revert (which they/we do, a lot), they don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Herbxue (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herbxue, may I say that this was a bit rash of you? The world would not have fallen down if there had been a "controversial" remark about TCM on a wiki article for a couple of days, whould it? If you know how to look up previous versions of articles (which I have not quite found out yet) you will be able to see on what basis I edited. You may find that I chose my words with care and purpose. The reference to "Mao created TCM" was not put in by myself, but I left it in, because controversy should not be eradicated, but put into context. People thus can make up their own mind. So, with your permission, I shall restore my changes (which I saved in a file), but duly rephrase the "controversy". For the intro part of the article, I am after a comprehensive list of classical sources with dates, instead of just mentioning two of them without reference. Such a list "The Manual", which was authored by a very eminent, chinese speaking scholar of Chinese herbalism, provides. The other reference you kicked out leads the interested reader (or even editor!) to the highly informed work of Yasuo Yuasa, a highly respected Japanese philosopher, who compares Eastern and Western philosophy and their effect on theoretical and empirical research her and there over the centuries, particularly the effect of this difference on the respective view of the methods of the natural sciences. He was instrumental for disseminating TCM teachings and QiGong techniques at international conferences and in his writings from the 1980ties onwards. Finally, I think there should be soemthing in the intro about the different therapeutic techniques offered by TCM or based on it. Maybe we can than join efforts in filling the reader in a bot more on those as well. Herbalism is great, but the rest is too. Hope that helps. Happy editing (OFTedit (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not take that initial reversion personally - like I said it is very common practice in the "culture" of wikipedia, especially in controversial subjects like acupuncture and TCM. Almost all of my edits have been reverted, because skeptics are the most populous group here. As a TCM practitioner, I mostly function as a watchful eye on over-generalizations of TCM and overly critical rhetoric that goes beyond the published sources. If you read the Talk pages on those articles you get a sense of the high degree of conflict and disagreement about the relative value of sources. I absolutely welcome your contributions and will happily defend the use of sources you mention. My recommendation above is simply to separate each inclusion of a new statement, with its source, into individual "edits" - that way, if another editor objects to any part of your edits, they can revert only the part they object to, leaving your other work untouched. I look forward to your future edits!Herbxue (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hara (tanden) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

physiological, pathological or therapeutic model of Japanese or [[Chinese Medicine]] is being used (e.g. [[Five Elements]], [[Five Phases]], [[Yin and Yang]], [[Zang Fu]]<ref>Maciocia, Giovanni; ''
German and English practitioners and reseachers seem to have drawn on pre-modern Chinese sources (note that European powers were influential in China during the [[Qing dynasty]](1644-1911).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hara (tanden) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

German and English practitioners and reseachers seem to have drawn on pre-modern Chinese sources (note that European powers were influential in China during the [[Qing dynasty]](1644-1911).
reveils that not only the ''Ren Mai'' is involved with the Hara or Dantian, but that the Chong Mai (Penetrating Vessel, the Du Mai (Governing Vessel) and the Dai Mai (Girdle Vessel) <ref>The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]