Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 20 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 0RR restriction 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 0RR 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.

Title Paragraph Should Describe Main Ideas

Title paragraph should give main ideas concerned with the topic, not ancillary statistical information that does not support the topic. Vernekar8 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The concern over toxic metals occupies a significant portion of the article and is hardly "ancillary". --NeilN 07:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree - the lede must summarize the body. Alexbrn 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Accept Vernekar8 and Alexbrn. It is only FDA of USA that reports about toxicity of Ayurvedic medicines. (However, the report is itself silent which medicine formulation contained toxic metals and which websites on internet has been used for testing.) BUT, the subtopic use of toxic metals has 5 paragraphs, repeating the same things over and over. ALL the references used to show the presence of toxicity in the whole article, actually cites FDA's report ONLY. The article gives a message to reader for not using Ayurvedic medicine, which is wrong. I believe Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral. DON'T MISLEAD READER. I even don't think the subtopic Efficacy is necessary. This article resembles like a blog. AT LEAST, CHANGE THE TITLE PARAGRAPHS. Read https://ne.wikipedia.org/आयुर्वेद or https://hi.wikipedia.org/आयुर्वेद to get an idea on how the article must have been written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove the section that contains scientific viewpoints. That's... convenient for advocates. --NeilN 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's exactly what you'll get if John's sanctions are not lifted. Supporters of Ayurveda will whitewash the page, as mainstream editors are no longer watching. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyedits and other changes

So I thought I would copyedit the article so the tag could be removed, and it turned into a full-day project. I hope that at least the article turns out better for it!

There are a lot of individual changes, mostly grammar, concision, and style, but of course I'm happy to explain the rationale for anything that gets challenged. (Apologies for the complicated diff, since some paragraph splicing was also involved.) There are also a few sentences here and there that I removed as OR, adjusted to better reflect the sources, etc. In a few cases that I wasn't quite sure of, I either made my best estimate for the meaning or added a {{clarify}} tag.

Since I'd gotten through the article anyways, I also copied a bunch of material into the lead since it didn't seem to be a good summary of the article content. I'm sure the lead has been contentious (and probably other parts of the article as well), so it should go without saying that anyone should feel free to invoke BRD on any of the changes I've made. :-) Please let me know if there are any questions/concerns. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I would cut some of the brief description about the origins from the lead. It is not like Buddhist tradition had influence on Ayurveda as Ayurveda was established before, I would mention that the adherents of Buddhism, Jainism incorporated in the field of Ayurveda. A few alternative terms have to be placed back. You have changed Dravyaguna sangraha (11th century) by Cakrapanidatta, among others, to and Dravyaguna sangraha (11th century) by Cakrapanidatta. There are texts from 12th - 15th centuries as well that were translated into foreign languages. I have not mentioned all, that's why I would insert and others in the end. I will change some more that is included under the history. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blades! I'm not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment - are you saying we should replace the Buddhism/Ayurveda statement with a statement that its original roots are Hindu and it was later influenced by Buddhism and Jainism (or that Buddhism and Jainism were influenced by Ayurveda)? I'd have no problem with that, or with removing the sentence entirely, if that's what you mean by cutting some of the description of origins. I think this could be a good source for the connection to Jainism.

I removed "among others" because it's redundant with "include," which implies that the list is incomplete. Another option could be to restore "among others" and replace "include" with "are." Sunrise (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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