Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ayurveda: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 23 March 2015 editLittleolive oil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,081 edits →Discussion: itsy bitsy fragment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:34, 2 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,056 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 22) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
<font size = 4>'''Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Note that <s>you can be ] and fix mistakes yourself</s> <u>you cannot be ] editing this article. It is under a per ] - you must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked.</u></font size>

{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}} {{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|subpage=Biology|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject India|class=c|importance=high|past-collaboration=week of 3 July 2006}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=c}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=c|importance =low}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=c|importance =high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=c|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | class=C | importance=top }}}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} {{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{Trolling}}
{{controversial}}
{{tmbox
|image=]
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><br> The article ] is currently subject to '''discretionary sanctions''' authorized by active arbitration remedies (see ]). The current restrictions are:
* '''Limit of one revert in 24 hours:''' This article is under ] (one ] per editor per article ''per 24-hour period'')
{{Collapse|1=
Enforcement procedures:
* Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked <u>without warning</u> by any uninvolved administrator, even on a ''first offense''.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
* Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all ] restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
* Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
* Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to ]. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
] can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any expected ], or any ]. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.<br>
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. '''Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!'''
|2=<span style="color:red">Remedy instructions and exemptions</span>
|bg=#EEE8AA}}


<big><br>'''Please note''' that due to disruption of this page, '''if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article''', your comment <u>will be removed without reply</u> if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.<br><br> Please read ], ], ] and ] before posting here.</big>
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa|brief}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{connected contributor|User1=Editswikifornepali|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|User2=Arunjithp |U2-EH=yes |U2-declared=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance =high}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|past-collaboration=week of 3 July 2006}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Other banners|collapsed=yes|
{{Press
| subject = article
| author =
| title = Plea Seeks Removal Of 'Defamatory Content' On Ayurveda From Misplaced Pages
| org = ]
| url = https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/plea-seeks-removal-of-defamatory-content-on-ayurveda-from-wikipedia-2950295
| date = 6 May 2022
| quote = "The contents of the matter shown on Misplaced Pages totally malign the natural system of medicine which has a history of more than 3,000 years and is widely respected and accepted the world over, " the petitioner said, pointing out the fact that the incumbent Government of India has also constituted a separate Ministry named ] for Ayurveda and other alternative medicine systems. The petition further stated that the Constitution of a separate ministry is an acknowledgment of this ancient stream of medicine, the petition said.
| subject2 = article
| author2 =
| title2 = "You Can Edit Misplaced Pages Articles" : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Misplaced Pages Articles Allegedly Defaming Ayurveda
| org2 = Live Law
| url2 = https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/you-can-edit-wikipedia-articles-supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-wikipedia-articles-allegedly-defaming-ayurveda-212241
| date2 = 21 October 2022
| quote2 = "The petition referred to the article published on Misplaced Pages termed Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific and stated that the article written on Misplaced Pages was unnecessary and written purely with the intent to tarnish Ayurveda. "The matter of concern is that this is utterly absurd, poorly researched and prejudiced article pops up as the first article when Ayurveda is searched on Google", the petition said
| subject3 = article
| author3 =
| title3 = SC Refuses to Entertain PIL Against Misplaced Pages Entry Describing Ayurveda as 'Pseudoscientific'
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://m.thewire.in/article/law/sc-refuses-to-entertain-ayurveda-pil/amp
| date3 = 21 October 2022
| quote3 = The ] (PIL) submitted that the Misplaced Pages entry described Ayurveda as “pseudoscientific” and, calling the article unnecessary, alleged that it had been written with the sole intention of tarnishing the image of Ayurveda.

| subject4 = article
| author4 = Catherine Davison
| title4 = Modi wants to export traditional Indian medicine to the world, but doctors warn against pseudoscience and quack cures
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://www.codastory.com/waronscience/india-traditional-medicine/
| date4 = 4 November 2022
| quote4 = The second sentence in the Misplaced Pages entry for Ayurveda declares that the “theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.”}}
{{mergedfrom|Panchakarma}}
{{mergedfrom|Ama (ayurveda)|date=17 November 2018}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} {{Old peer review|archive=1}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 9 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(31d) |algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Ayurveda/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Ayurveda/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Connected contributor|Editswikifornepali|editedhere=yes|declared=yes}}
|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>
== NPOV Page Watchers please fix ==
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes
Are there any people interested in restoring the article to its proper state? Very very poor jobs page watchers are doing, they should be ashamed. -] (]) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
}}
:''Proper state'', which one? ] (]) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
__TOC__
::As an acknowledged advocate of Ayurveda, I don't expect you to take any action Blades, but if you can't see the issue, which is plainly obvious, don't worry about it. -] (]) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We could also mention that the Aryuvedic text in the '']'' contains an early description of ] as well as the earliest known description of the ], per PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. -] 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Are there any objections to the inclusion of these sources? -] 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::For? --] (]) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::For coverage of aryuvedic texts. -] 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::It might be best to propose what content you want to add/change, but at a glance they look to have information that should be covered in this article. --] (]) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

== Lost treasure found in the archives ==

{{quotation| The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as {{ill|fr|Francis Zimmermann|Francis Olivier Zimmermann}}, ] and ], have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on ] and ] qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as ] argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected".<ref name=Engler>{{cite journal|last1=Engler|first1=Steven|authorlink1=Steven Engler|title="Science" vs. "Religion" in Classical Ayurveda|journal=Numen|date=2003|volume=40|issue=4|pages=416-463|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270507}}</ref>

In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wujastyk|first1=Dagmar|last2=Smith|first2=Frederick M.|editor1-last=Wujastyk|editor1-first=Dagmar|editor2-last=Smith|editor2-first=Frederick M.|title=Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms|date=2013|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=9780791474907|pages=1-29|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kHYj2S_c-gMC&pg=PA1&|chapter=Introduction}}</ref> However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited,<ref name=NCCAM>{{cite web|title=Ayurvedic Medicine: An Introduction|url=http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm|publisher=]|accessdate=5 November 2014}}</ref> and the concept of body-humors (''doshas''), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as ].<ref name= "Pulla2014">{{cite journal |last= Pulla |first= P |date= October 24, 2014 |title= Searching for science in India's traditional medicine |journal= ] |volume= 346 |issue= 6208 |page= 410 |doi= 10.1126/science.346.6208.410 |pmid= 25342781}}</ref><ref name=Bausell>{{cite book|last1=Bausell|first1=R. Barker|title=Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine|date=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780195383423|page=259}}</ref> Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the ], regard Ayurveda as a ], while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead.<ref name= "Quack2011">{{cite book |last= Quack |first= Johannes |year= 2011 |title= Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India |publisher= ] |isbn= 9780199812608 |pages= , }}</ref><ref name= "Paranjape2009">{{cite book |first=P. Ram|last=Manohar|chapter=The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition|editor-first= Makarand R. |editor-last= Paranjape |year= 2009 |title= Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India |publisher= Anthem Press |isbn= 9781843317760 |pages= 172-3|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey1v6JEmvakC&pg=FA172&}}</ref><ref name= "Semple & Smyth">{{cite book |editor-last1= Semple |editor-first1= David |editor-last2= Smyth |editor-first2= Roger |title= Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry |year= 2013 |publisher= ] |isbn= 9780191015908 |page= }}</ref>
Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects.<ref name=Williams2013>{{cite book|author=William F. Williams|title=Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vH1EAgAAQBAJ|date=2 December 2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-95522-9}}</ref>
] states "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe."<ref name=Barrett2012>{{Cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html |author=Stephen Barrett |authorlink=Stephen Barrett |title=A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo}}</ref>
}}
{{reflist-talk}}

I found a ]. Wow! ] (]) 15:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
:Where is this from and how is it relevant to current editing? --] (]) 19:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
::QuackGuru, we are already over that pseudohistorical revisionism. You know it better than I do. ] (]) 08:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::What does pseudohistorical revisionism mean Blades? Could you explain it to me please? -] (]) 13:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I have gone through the previous Rfc and was wondering whether the paragraph above could be included in the ] section (not necessarily all of it). I understand that labelling whole of Ayurveda as pseudoscience in the lead has no consensus and is perhaps unfair to the discipline. But a section discussing where Ayurvedic theory stands with regards to Modern Science would not necessarily be undue. Right? ] (]) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::], if I remember correctly, ] previously wrote most of the text. I added some text and also tweaked some of the text. Most of the text is relevant to the ] section. There is a notable pseudoscience debate among researchers. This is definitely relevant. ] (]) 08:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::So this was content or proposed content at some time? --] (]) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes. It appears editors had made vague objections such it is "pseudohistorical revisionism". But there is clearly a debate among researchers that is noteworthy. ] (]) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Ayurveda|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
I would like to add some content to this page from some sources that I am currently reading. The below content can be added after the first sentence in the current article. The source is cited.

'''Ayurveda''' (]: {{lang|sa| ''Āyurveda'' आयुर्वेद}}, "]-]"; English pronunciation {{IPAc-en|ˌ|aɪ|.|ər|ˈ|v|eɪ|d|ə|}}<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Wells | first1 = John C. | authorlink1 = John C. Wells | title = Longman Pronunciation Dictionary | publisher = Pearson Longman | year = 2009 | location = London }}</ref>) or '''Ayurvedic medicine''' is a system of Hindu traditional medicine<ref>{{Cite book|title=Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World, Volume 1|page=87|publisher=Concept publication|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=w9pmo51lRnYC&pg=PA87&dq=|author=Ganga Ram Garg}}</ref> native to the ]. The word Ayurveda comprises of two segments or parts: 'Ayu' meaning life, and 'Veda' meaning knowledge or science.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Ayurveda Simplified: Body-Mind Matrix|page=9|publisher=Art of Living, Sri Sri Publications Trust|url=http://www.indulekha.com/ayurveda-simplified-body-mind-matrix-spiritual-dr-nisha-manikantan|author=Nisha Manikantan}}</ref>


<!-- End request -->
] (]) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
:'Life-knowledge' works better and it is there. ] (]) 16:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

== Reverting against consensus ==

Please get new consensus to add pseudoscience to article especially lead per . I'd add that given the RfC and extensive discussion, opening discussion with out some new sources, and adding content without agreement for inclusion might seem tendentious.(] (]) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
:Sorry, but there was no consensus, and none related to applying the term to current practice. --] (]) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::Is there any agreement even now? I see at least 4 users disagreeing to it. It looks like a pseudohistorical revisionism anyway, held by only one author who don't even describe more than a flying mention. ] (]) 16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't see it as only one user. While Ayurveda certainly predates science, that doesn't prevent its ''current'' use from being a form of pseudoscience. When I look over the previous RFC, I see that distinction brought forth several times and not addressed in the closing.&mdash;](]) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::The number of people in agreement or disagreement doesn't matter, as consensus is not a vote. --] (]) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::Consensus is not a vote but it indicates the tendencies in a discussion. In a good collaborative situation, editors might hold off on pushing clearly contentious content into an article and rely on discussion.(] (]) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)at
:::::This is hair splitting, but no problem. The intent to get this article superficially labelled on way or another rather than rely on good old fashioned explanation and content, is clear. I'd add that the syntax on the efficacy section might be tidied up. While westerners might label Ayurveda as pseudoscience many non westerners would not so this blanket statement is not accurate, is western centric, and does not honour other cultures. But again I doubt that matters when editors are determined to label. I won't play revert games with this content. The way to deal with clearly contentious content is to discuss and get agreement not to edit war it into an article.(] (]) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
:::::::Please don't focus on the westerners vs. non-westerners canard. We are an encyclopedia, based on science and fact. Ayurveda is clearly not based in fact, and the question as to how to label that is legitimate.&mdash;](]) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Kww I had said one author, not one user. There should be some basic agreement within the scientific community, then only we may consider. Right now it is just far. ] (]) 17:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Don't denigrate the value of an RFC conclusion: painful as it is, abiding by them is a necessary part of making this project stable. The best move would be to start a new RFC focused precisely on the distinction: pseudoscience in history vs. pseudoscience as currently practiced, and then abide by that result.&mdash;](]) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

::::It is not painful at all to me at least, to include content that is both sourced and shows the agreement of the editors involved nor is anyone denigrating anything. Further, accuracy per a world population and adding content that is comprehensive and accurate is the job of a world encyclopedia. I agree another RfC with its discussion is useful and my comments above suggest further discussion prior to adding controversial content, but lets not narrow the scope to an already determined position. Ayurveda "as currently practiced" is wide open and carries implied bias. Truth is I don't care what this article says about Ayurveda, but I do care about the manner in which articles are labelled and I do care about accuracy and explanation over those simplistic labels. As I said I will not edit war over this, and again, prefer discussion to determine what is added when that content is so clearly contentious.(] (]) 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
:::::Check the indentation level: my reply was to Ronz. Perhaps if you reread it in that light, you may interpret it differently.&mdash;](]) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Must admit I was on the fence when this whole ayurveda/pseudoscience fracas started (last year sometime). But on investigation the sources seem pretty solid in favour of so categorizing it, like the source I just came across and added (an OUP textbook) which goes so far as to detail ''why'' it's a pseudoscience. This is what the sources say *shrug* not sure why some folk seem to want to deny the article this information. (Add: BTW, demanding "consensus" be confirmed before making an edit is a symptom of ownership, not good. Better for editors to be bold and improve the article.) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

::'''Asking''' for discussion and agreement for content that was the subject matter in an an RfC and is highly contentious given the numerous discussions on that word is not ownership. '''It is''' an implied request for collaboration. (] (]) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
:::The RfC was about the category not about the sourced text. ] (]) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

::::I agree that's why I qualified my statement with "subject matter"and "highly contentious". The bottom line is that I asked for discussion on a highly contentious topic and suggested that a bold edit and edit war is not the best way to approach that. I also clarified my position which is that I prefer explanation in content rather than labels which tell the reader almost nothing about the subject matter. (] (]) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC))
:::::So you'll be cool with the way we explain why ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscience in the article body, and merely mention it in the ] as we should. This is not contentious at all, it's all perfectly straightforward. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::There is nothing highly contentious about the topic. There is nothing contentious about explaining what reliable sources say. If you want more details see ]. ] (]) 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::You are referring an unreliable source as a reliable source. That's where the story ends before it would even begin. ] (]) 08:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::What source might that be? Is there consensus it is unreliable, or just the position of a few (perhaps only yourself)? --] (]) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

== "Modern" vs. "today" ==

], the lead currently states "and today ayurvedic medicine is considered ]." I propose using the word "modern", rather than "today". This eliminates the possibility of thinking that ancient ayurveda might have been considered pseudoscientific, and makes it clear that it is only the modern context which legitimizes such terminology. Can I make this edit, or do I have to make an edit request? I am not used to working under 0RR restrictions. -- ] (]) 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:I am inclined to remove it under a few hours because there will never be any consensus to call an Iron-Age medical system a pseudoscience. Bringing an unreliable source for making such big claims is righting a great wrong. ] (]) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::: ], you fail to understand this thread. No one is accusing ancient ayurveda of being pseudoscience. It is the modern version which is so accused, and rightly so. -- ] (]) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::There is no modern or older version of Ayurveda. Avoid OR. ] (]) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::As an Iron Age medical system, practiced in the Iron Age, you have a point. Someone comes up and wants to inflict it upon you ''today'', it's quite likely that their explanation as to why it works would be classed as "pseudoscientific".&mdash;](]) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::What source is నిజానికి questioning the reliability? --] (]) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::That one of Oxford. It is written by someone who has no expertise in Alternative medicines. ] (]) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Expertise in medicine and science is what we look for in a source. Expertise in alternative medicine typically indicates that the source is unreliable.&mdash;](]) 17:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::We look for expertise. We cannot use a off-field source where you require credible source. And this source look like a nonamer to me. Can you prove if they have any credibility in this subject? ] (]) 17:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Arguing that Oxford University isn't a reliable source would take some pretty strong evidence. That Ayurveda has no foundation in reality is well established, so the categorization as being pseudoscientific doesn't require a very strong source: it's not a startling or surprising claim. That some of its proponents attempt to mislabel it as a form of science would reinforce that. I'm not seeing any reasonable challenge to the reliability of the source here.&mdash;](]) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::We cannot right a great wrong and stick to original research only because you say. You speak for that unreliable source(in this area) than it has done itself. And just don't repeat yourself again if you cannot prove the credibility of the source. ] (]) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I've reported your violation of the restrictions to ], ].&mdash;](]) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Arguing that is is unreliable is a waste of time, but take it to ] if you like. Until someone does so and gets consensus that it is unreliable, let's not waste any more time here with it. --] (]) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{cite book |author=Semple D, Smyth R |work=Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LiJKseis6OYC&pg=PA20 |year=2013 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-969388-7 |page=20 |title=Chaper 1: Psychomythology |edition=3rd}}
:::::::నిజానికి, in what way is the source unreliable according to MEDRS? It is in independent high-quality source. ] (]) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I saw you just copied and pasted the source that I had already analyzed once. I had asked for its credibility, not about the publisher. Now don't re-store it until you gain the consensus or find many other reliable sources for this kind of knowledge. ] (]) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::After 5 months we are still arguing about this wiki-made discovery? QuackGuru, please read ]. Your book reference is not "discussing" Ayurveda. ] (]) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Please ]
::::::::::I see it mentioned in the reference as an example. --] (]) 00:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::It can be mentioned only as an example where the examples of pseudoscience have been pointed. Now as it is just a view of a person, see ], third point. ] (]) 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::That doesn't really apply, ]: that Ayurveda isn't a legitimate form of medicine represents the scientific consensus on the the topic, and there's no reason to believe that only a "tiny minority" would think it met the technical qualifications of being pseudoscience. As I understand your argument, the only reason you oppose the pseudoscience label is because Ayurveda "predates science". So what's your alternative? How would you concisely state in the lead that Ayurveda is founded on nonsense, provides no hope of effective treatment, and runs a substantial risk of injuring its "patients"?&mdash;](]) 12:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
*If you are struggling to decide whether this material should be included, you should perhaps seek outside input. I see ] was mentioned and that is not a bad suggestion. Consider also whether the recent RfC applies to this question. Finally, is there a compromise both "sides" could live with? By the nature of compromises, it is likely not to please anyone but it might allow us to move on here. Certainly reverting back and forth isn't the answer. --] (]) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{rpa}}
:I redacted an unhelpful comment here. I remind all editing here that, as per the restrictions and the editnotice, there should be "no name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. There should be no reason for anyone to do this either. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to me or to WP:AN/I, in that order of preference." --] (]) 14:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

== Reboot ==

I may not have much time to give to this over the weekend as I am busy in ]. A couple of thoughts;

*As I said above, if you are struggling to decide whether material should be included, you should perhaps seek outside input. I see WP:RSN was mentioned and that is not a bad suggestion. Consider also whether the recent RfC applies to this question. Finally, is there a compromise both "sides" could live with? By the nature of compromises, it is likely not to please anyone but it might allow us to move on here. Certainly reverting back and forth isn't the answer. Neither is name-calling. Finally, we have passed the point where ] edits are optimal. However boring and frustrating it may be, editors of different views will have to knuckle down, talk to each other honestly, listen to each other openly, and be prepared to compromise.

*Here are the restrictions we are using to facilitate this process, in case anyone has forgotten them:

{{quotebox|*No edit-warring, broadly construed. This includes team edit wars where A adds something, B removes, C restores and D re-removes.

*No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. There should be no reason for anyone to do this either. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to me or to WP:AN/I, in that order of preference.

*Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand. Discussions may be referred to central noticeboards like WP:NPOVN or to WP:RFC, in fact I encourage this.}} --] (]) 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

===Discussion===

The best way forward would be to address all the following points at the same time:

#'''The insights of core aryuvedic texts''': For example, the '']'' contains an early description of ] as well as the earliest known description of the ], according to PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. Does anyone know more of such discoveries?
#'''The current state of evidence''': For example, the aryurvedic compound "Rumalaya" has large, unbiased effects beyond placebo, according to PMID 25062981. How much weight should we give to these claims?
#'''The compatibility of aryuveda with modern medicine''': What are the main tenets and practices of aryuveda? Are they compatible with modern medical theories? If these theories are incompatible, do their proponents disguise them as a form of science?
#'''Related practices''': Are yoga and meditation therapies intrinsically part of aryurveda? Since these practices clearly have a solid scientific basis , how should we classify them?
-] 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:3 is really the only debated topic. 2 is irrelevant, because if Rumalaya has any large, unbiased effects beyond placebo, it will be explicable using science, not ayurveda. Similarly for 4. As for 1, no one is arguing that in ancient times, ayurveda represented a valid effort to explain things.
:3, however, is the core of this argument: ayurveda is based on a misunderstanding of physiology, false beliefs about heavy metal, and rank superstition. To present ayurveda in a positive light ''as a modern practice'' is to promote pseudoscience.
:I can't emphasise this point enough: there is no reliable scientific source that speaks to a viable and meaningful theoretical underpinning for ayurveda. As a field of ''historical study'', it's a protoscience, and worthy of respect. As a modern practice, the only argument is whether it's religion, superstition, pseudoscience, or fraud.&mdash;](]) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::Concur with Kww. The current practice of ayurveda lacks credible theoretical basis or explanation mechanisms of action and as studied scientifically the compounds are effective or not based on chemistry and physiology, ayurveda contributes no substantiated explanation or theory. As a historical subject ayurveda is an important protoscience that deserves serious consideration. However ayurveda is not an iron age medical system it is currently practiced, the current practice is and should be clearly described as pseudoscience. - - ] (]) 01:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on a quick read of the comments above, I would summarize them as:

* Ayurveda as a field of historical study: protoscience
* Ayurveda as a theoretical framework: pseudoscience
* Ayurveda as a modern practice: religion, superstition, pseudoscience, and/or fraud

Have I accurately represented both of your positions? If so, we could proceed to expand on each of these bulleted points. If not, do clarify. -] 01:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:: How is this different from the last RfC that ran for a month and saw good participation? Unless there is new evidence there is no reason to change a long drawn concensus. Is there new published study in last two months? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The RFC made no distinction between history and current practice. The recent controversial edits limited the description as pseudoscience to modern practice, but it was reverted without regard to the distinction.&mdash;](]) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: That distinction needs to be restored. The editor is even blocked, but the article is in the wrong version, and I don't dare touch it. Maybe this should be done as an edit request. -- ] (]) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::::You seem to have echoed my position reasonably well. There may be some details that are contentious (especially in terms of an exact definition of "protoscience"), but you have the broad strokes.&mdash;](]) 12:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: The edit is major and contentious. The editor was long unblocked even before the comment was made. Please open RfC or discuss. Editors have responded before too and they are probably tired of this ]. If you self declare it is right and continue the edit war it may not help. If there is nothing new from previous RfC please drop the stick. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Aside from declaring the potential edit contentious the above comment contributes little to the discussion of the proposed content. There is indeed something which diverges from the previous RfC to whit there is a clear distinction between ayurveda as a historical subject and as a current practice. PAG based rationale with RS behind it clearly supports the unambiguous recognition that ayurveda as currently promoted/practiced is pseudoscience. It is promoted as scientific in multiple sources and has been evaluated and analyzed as lacking scientifically sound theoretical foundations or plausible mechanisms of action these are the three elements which define pseudoscience. Is there any PAG based rationale and RS that contends otherwise? - - ] (]) 14:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Do you say it is ''not'' contentious -- then why edit-warr`ing and three blocks? --]<sup>]</sup> 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The content is not contentious. The drama here is. We don't stop improving articles because of editors behavior or personal opinions, rather the opposite - ]. --] (]) 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::If you are so clear there is no contention then join the edit war -- at your own risk -- Or ]. Is ] pseudo-academician? --]<sup>]</sup> 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda Is a very old and extant health care system that developed out of a specific philosophical system different than the systems out of which western medicine developed. Applying a western term to Ayurveda or any other traditional form of health care or medicine is simplistic and does not give a particularly accurate view of those health care systems. Ayurveda is not fraud although there may be instances of fraudulent practice. Of course, we could note an enormous amount of fraud in the allopathic health care system. Ayurveda is not a religion although It may have religious elements. Is Ayurveda based on superstition, or more accurately a philosophical ground that is not western or Aristotelian in nature? My point is that when dealing with a non western form of health care, if we are going to use western terminology we need also to provide context. Ayurveda is in its infancy in terms of research. A blanket statement noting the research is poor, and I haven' looked in depth enough to know if that is true or not, (although I would think there may be weaknesses because its still early days in terms of western research) is not an accurate view. What is accurate is context, for example per western research Ayurvedic research needs more time and development before usefulness or not can be established. To slap the pseudoscience badge of dishonour on this or any health care system seems simplistic as I've said, but if we go that way then the article must provide contextual information because we are actually comparing apple and oranges.(] (]) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Ayurveda|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

I would like to restore the content, but with one word changed:

* "and <s>today</s> modern ayurvedic medicine is considered ].<ref name=psych/>"
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

:: {{not done}} 1. The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user including you. 2. "Edit request" is not an alternative to gaining consensus. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
::: I see that already the lead mentions that it is not scientifically prooven and pseudoscientific means that some one has to claim this is science first, and then to call it a pseudo later. I see no point in adding mis guiding words in the begining ] (]) 09:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
]
::::Your personal opinions do not trump references. --] (]) 15:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:34, 2 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayurveda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:
  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
  • Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.

Please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before posting here.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDietary Supplements High‑importance
WikiProject iconAyurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ayurveda.
          Other talk page banners
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Ayurveda received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

"Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Ayurveda: Difference between revisions Add topic