Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 23 March 2015

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that you can be bold and fix mistakes yourself you cannot be bold editing this article. It is under a number of editing restrictions per discretionary sanctions - 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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · 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: 31 days

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dietary Supplements Top‑importance Ayurveda 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Ayurveda received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Editswikifornepali (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

NPOV Page Watchers please fix

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. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proper state, which one? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We could also mention that the Aryuvedic text in the Sushruta Samhita contains an early description of cataract surgery as well as the earliest known description of the pedicled flaps, per PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. -A1candidate 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the inclusion of these sources? -A1candidate 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For? --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For coverage of aryuvedic texts. -A1candidate 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. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost treasure found in the archives

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as fr , Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler 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".

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. However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead.

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.

Quackwatch 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."

References

1. Engler, Steven (2003). ""Science" vs. "Religion" in Classical Ayurveda". Numen. 40 (4): 416–463.
2. Wujastyk, Dagmar; Smith, Frederick M. (2013). "Introduction". In Wujastyk, Dagmar; Smith, Frederick M. (eds.). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. SUNY Press. pp. 1–29. ISBN 9780791474907.
3. "Ayurvedic Medicine: An Introduction". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
4. Pulla, P (October 24, 2014). "Searching for science in India's traditional medicine". Science. 346 (6208): 410. doi:10.1126/science.346.6208.410. PMID 25342781.
5. Bausell, R. Barker (2007). Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Oxford University Press. p. 259. ISBN 9780195383423.
6. Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.
7. Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.
8. Semple, David; Smyth, Roger, eds. (2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780191015908.
9. William F. Williams (2 December 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-95522-9.
10. Stephen Barrett. "A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo".

I found a real gem. Wow! QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is this from and how is it relevant to current editing? --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, we are already over that pseudohistorical revisionism. You know it better than I do. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What does pseudohistorical revisionism mean Blades? Could you explain it to me please? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 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 Current Status 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? Amitrochates (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ronz, if I remember correctly, User:MrBill3 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 Current Status section. There is a notable pseudoscience debate among researchers. This is definitely relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So this was content or proposed content at some time? --Ronz (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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 (Sanskrit: Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine native to the Indian subcontinent. The word Ayurveda comprises of two segments or parts: 'Ayu' meaning life, and 'Veda' meaning knowledge or science.

Profitmaker123 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Wells, John C. (2009). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. London: Pearson Longman.
2. Ganga Ram Garg. Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World, Volume 1. Concept publication. p. 87.
3. Nisha Manikantan. Ayurveda Simplified: Body-Mind Matrix. Art of Living, Sri Sri Publications Trust. p. 9.

'Life-knowledge' works better and it is there. Bladesmulti (talk) 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.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, but there was no consensus, and none related to applying the term to current practice. --Ronz (talk) 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. Bladesmulti (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of people in agreement or disagreement doesn't matter, as consensus is not a vote. --Ronz (talk) 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.(Littleolive oil (talk) 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.(Littleolive oil (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 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. Bladesmulti (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 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.(Littleolive oil (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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.) Alexbrn 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. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

The RfC was about the category not about the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 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. (Littleolive oil (talk) 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 WP:LEDE as we should. This is not contentious at all, it's all perfectly straightforward. Alexbrn 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 Talk:Ayurveda#Lost_treasure_found_in_the_archives. QuackGuru (talk) 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. నిజానికి (talk) 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)? --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Modern" vs. "today"

John, the lead currently states "and today ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific." 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 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. నిజానికి (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:నిజానికి, 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no modern or older version of Ayurveda. Avoid OR. నిజానికి (talk) 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".—Kww(talk) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What source is నిజానికి questioning the reliability? --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That one of Oxford. It is written by someone who has no expertise in Alternative medicines. నిజానికి (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 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? నిజానికి (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 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. నిజానికి (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reported your violation of the restrictions to User:John, నిజానికి.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that is is unreliable is a waste of time, but take it to WP:RSN if you like. Until someone does so and gets consensus that it is unreliable, let's not waste any more time here with it. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chaper 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

నిజానికి, in what way is the source unreliable according to MEDRS? It is in independent high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 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. నిజానికి (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After 5 months we are still arguing about this wiki-made discovery? QuackGuru, please read WP:STICK. Your book reference is not "discussing" Ayurveda. VandVictory (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I see it mentioned in the reference as an example. --Ronz (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:No original research#Neutral point of view, third point. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply, Bladesmulti: 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"?—Kww(talk) 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 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. --John (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

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." --John (talk) 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 real life. 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 WP:BOLD 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:

• 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.

--John (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

1. The insights of core aryuvedic texts: For example, the Sushruta Samhita contains an early description of cataract surgery as well as the earliest known description of the pedicled flaps, according to PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. Does anyone know more of such discoveries?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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?

-A1candidate 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.—Kww(talk) 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. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that could be implemented the way they used to be about over 3500 years ago. Wheel is still round, even if it is made up of rubber, it is not a pseudoscience. నిజానికి (talk) 17:03, 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. -A1candidate 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? --AmritasyaPutra 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.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That deleted 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 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 WP:REHASH. 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. --AmritasyaPutra 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? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you say it is not contentious -- then why edit-warr`ing and three blocks? --AmritasyaPutra 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 - WP:IAR. --Ronz (talk) 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 WP:FOC. Is Vasant Lad pseudo-academician? --AmritasyaPutra 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.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

"Applying a western term to" Sorry, but your personal opinions to censor this article violate multiple policies and the goals of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

• "and today modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific."

BullRangifer (talk) 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. --AmritasyaPutra 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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 Shrikanthv (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinions do not trump references. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference psych was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• Past Indian collaborations of the month
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Dietary supplement articles
• Top-importance Dietary supplement articles
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles edited by connected contributors