Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

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: [ Āyurveda आयुर्वेद] 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

'Life-knowledge' works better and it is there. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 19 March 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)

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 Francis Zimmermann, 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

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)

Does anybosy know what "pseudohistorical revisionism" actually means. I asked Blades above, but he either hasn't seen my question, or hasn't answered. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Weekly drive-by visit to page

Hi folks. As you may know, I have unwatched this page because the over restrictive restrictions imposed make it impossible to edit or comment without exposing oneself to unfair admin interference. I tried to pin John down into helping for a change, but he wont. See his talk page for details. The "science" related areas of the article are shockingly bad btw, but I understand that there is little that can be done atm.

How do you impeach an Admin anyway? Does anybody know? I'll be back in a week or so. Best wishes, -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I don't dare make any edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwatching, no longer involved for at least a month

I don't see any solution to the problems here. Given the disputes and current article content, the article certainly needs to be tagged to inform readers and editors. I've unwatched the article and am taking a break from it for at least a month. I'll probably just join the check-in's with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

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^T 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)

If it claims to be effective, that claim is a scientific claim, ergo modern ayurveda is pseudoscientific, and we have RS which say so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I support making this edit based on reliable sources and the discussion above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I support making this edit for the same reasons. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose changes based on misinterpretation of irrelevant citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"The study is also an attempt to scientifically establish the efficacy of Ayurveda which is largely seen as pseudoscience."

References

Siddha

Editors interested in improving this article may also find room for improvement on Siddha medicine. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:0RR and WP:BITE commentary from a random user, clarification needed

Is this page under a WP:0RR discretionary sanction? Under what grounds? Imposed by what Admin? On the basis of what ArbCom ruling? Is User:AmritasyaPutra the admin responsible for sanctions on this page and why, when I reincluded a cited statement from a reliable source did I get a WP:BITE statement from the same? All this seems highly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Please persue the diff for understanding the discretionary sanction which I gave you on your talk page Or it is mentioned at the top of this talk page too Or it is in the section where the discussion for the edit you restored is going on too. The imposing admin is John. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the log, the 0RR restrictions was lifted last year on 19 November 2014. There was no consensus to continue with the restrictions that are incompatible with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok since the demand on my personal talk page to self-revert under 0RR refers to a 0RR that does not apparently exist I will not be self-reverting. I stand by my edit - I saw an improperly removed WP:RS supported statement with WP:DUE weight, in an appropriate category and restored it. Case closed. Simonm223 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And User:AmritasyaPutra should understand that is is not his or her place to impose discretionary sanctions on me, especially not after a single non-controversial edit. Especially since he or she is not an admin. Especially since I'm not violating any current edit restrictions for the page. Simonm223 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

See User_talk:Doc_James#Request. Several editors are being blocked. I got blocked even after self-reverting. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The page is in fact under "discretionary sanctions". (It falls, for instance, under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.) For the exact details you only need to read the edit notice that shows up at the top of the screen whenever you edit the article. For your convenience, I'll reproduce the template here as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Source provides many examples, it is not clear if it is only talking about Ayurveda or having any focus on it. Noteswork (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information. Based on what you've provided I don't think my edit violated any of the actual sanctions on the page. I was not coordinating with User:QuackGuru even if my edit restored some content previously inserted by them, and a single edit can hardly be construed as editwarring by any stretch of the imagination. I may have felt some indignation at User:AmritasyaPutra teling me that I must self-revert my edit but I didn't do any name calling. And I'd hardly call the insertion of a single sentence toward the bottom of a long article a major change. With that in mind though, I'll be cautious. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bite. I am AmritasyaPutra not "random editor". I did not enforce any sanction. You reverted without seeing the back-and-forth regarding it? And after having read the sanction by your own admission still believe there is nothing objectionable with that edit. Doesn't the 4-5 sections of continued discussion regarding it indicate it is a non-trivial change. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What I see is a whole lot of editors who agree, and you, alone disagreeing. Consensus does not equal unanimity. As for referring to you as a random editor, we'd had no prior contact on anything when you went to my talk page and told that I must self-revert. It seemed rather random. That was the entirety of what I meant.Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have struck it now. You are willfully misrepresenting things if you missed the objections of Bladesmulti, నిజానికి, and Littleolive oil among others. Please read earlier RfC too. John, ididnthearthat is going too far here, the chant of there is concensus drowns discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is consensus among people that are using reliable sources. The only objections are coming from people that are quoting ayurvedic sources (or no sources at all), and those sources are irrelevant to the question of whether the modern application of ayurveda is pseudoscience (except, of course, that by adopting the language and appearance of science to discuss the topic, they provide fairly damning evidence that ayurveda is pseudoscience).—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. There is a good consensus that we should follow policy by including what RS say, and then there is a small group of whitewashers who raise non-policy objections and refuse to include what RS say. A minority opinion to not follow policy does not the change the consensus. Their IDHT behavior is obstructionist. That's wrong. User:John, discretionary sanctions should be applied to end this disruption. Maybe some topic blocks? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The so called RS is not discussing Ayurveda or specifically pointing it, that's why it is pity to use that source for a fringed label. VandVictory (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:VandVictory but that's straight up wrong. The source cited explicitly refers to Ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience. I just read it. It is VERY clear. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The source has no authority on Ayurveda and it is not even concerned if it is making a fringed claim. That claim would need more prevalence among scholarship. VandVictory (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"no authority on Ayurveda"??? What's that supposed to mean? We are required to document the sum total of human knowledge by using RS. This is a mainstream opinion about ayurveda found in a RS, so it's allowable content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong in saying that it is an irrelevant citation? How we can use a person as a citation for something that he hasn't even described or has no name in that profession? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, are you saying that you'd only consider an expert specifically in Ayurveda as a WP:RS about whether modern Ayurvedic research is pseudoscientific? Because if so I'd say you need to re-read how WP:FRINGE works. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 29 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 [1], 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^T 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)

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^T 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^T 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^T 15:58, 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)

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)

My personal opinions? Is this a discussion page? Is this discussion based on opinion of the editors here as to what should be included. Is pseudoscience a western term? Are we applying that term to a health care system that is not western. What about that is an opinion? Further I am asking for context for content. That's the bottom line in my comment. What about that is a concern. If we don't look at content we are "cherry picking". And please withdraw your cmt which attributes to me violation of multiple policies and guidelines - an unwarranted personal attack and an assumption of bad faith.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, the standards of whether something has a sound scientific and medical basis does not depend on the cultural with which it originated, and such discussion only serves to obfuscate the issue. Ayurveda is based on a primitive misunderstanding of physiology: it doesn't take a lot of research to demonstrate that srotas simply do not exist, doshas are imaginary, etc. That these may be originally based in religion doesn't make them exempt from being falsified.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Littleolive oil, drop the stick and stop asking us to censor the article because of your personal beliefs. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither off you has directly addressed anything I said. Flinging around accusations doesn't really help anything nor does it advance a discussion. No worries. Thing is guys, I don't have the kind of vested interest in this article you seem to. I'd like to see the topic dealt with in a neutral way showing context and history, exploring the research but I can't at least at this point be bothered to fight you for it. And the piling on of accusations is frankly pretty lame. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Yes, I did, I'll be blunter if it helps: your statement "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." is nonsense, as being "western" or "non-western" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether something is scientifically and medically sound.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kww. I am aware of your position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I concur with Kww and believe his position clearly reflects WP PAG. I suspect @BullRangifer: and @Ronz: also agree. Is there any PAG based rationale supported by RS that contradicts the contention that the pseudoscientific nature of health care schemas is evaluated based on the RS evaluations of their scientific and medical soundness? I look forward to input from @A1candidate:. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's get back to the basics, and that's what RS say. If RS say something, we include it. It's just a matter of how.

The next point is whether we attribute the key wording or we use Wikipedia's voice. If we have multiple good sources showing that there is no doubt the mainstream opinion is that ayurveda is pseudoscientific, we can say it in Wikipedia's voice, while of course providing those sources as references. If we only have a few sources, it's probably safest to attribute the wording. My motto is "When in doubt, attribute."

One thing that is not open for discussion is whether or not we include it. The RS say it, so we must include it. Let's just settle on the exact wording and do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• BullR, drop the stick. There is no such consensus. There is little discussion here and more personal attacks. My question is also unanswered. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is based on PAG and RS supported rationale. There is strong RS and clear policy support establishing the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscientific. The only argument to the counter has been the proposal that "non-western" health care should be evaluated using different (unspecified) terminology or "western" terminology should be placed in some (unspecified) "context". This has been clearly refuted as WP does not use "western" terminology but all biomedical information (and content in general) is held to the same standards as delineated in PAG. There has been no RS provided that challenges the fact that the current practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Substantial RS has been provided that documents this fact. There has been no PAG based rationale for the exclusion of this fact from the article. As has been said, the facts are there, the RS is there, phrasing and attribution are the only questions remaining (the question of whether this is contentious is irrelevant given clear RS). - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You ignore my question. You ignore previous RfC. You ignore the comment at John's page concerning this dispute. There is overwhelming state of denial and repeated self-declaration: "This is the consensus" when there isn't. Wikilawyering and discussion about editors is the focus instead of content. It is not going anywhere so far. Stop the grand unilateral declaration that there is an established consensus ignoring all other editor's remarks. And I am going to be really blunt: if there is consensus go ahead and edit. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • True, can't see any consensus established here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your question of how this differs from the RfC has been answered. The RfC did not deal with the distinction between ayurveda as a historical medical practice and the current practice of ayurveda. Again RS has been provided clearly supporting the description of the current practice of ayurveda a pseudoscience this is not a unilateral declaration this is a fact. Policy clearly supports including such a description if it is present in RS which is another fact not a declaration. Consensus is built upon policy and RS thus I feel comfortable in declaring there is a substantial consensus for describing the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience. Consensus is not invalidated by objections lacking policy based rationale supported by RS. Your question of whether the proposed content is contentious has been addressed by the provision of rationale, the pointers to policy and the provision of substantial reliable sources. "I don't like it" is not a rationale or even an argument. The only significant objection, a proposed different standard for assessing "non-western" medical claims by some alternative standard does not comply with WP's PAG. A number of editors have been extremely patient in attempting to work out the question of how to phrase and whether to attribute the inclusion of the fact that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. I look forward to an edit soon to include this fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You just repeated yourself. If you are resolutely convinced that there is a firm consensus then I really don't understand why are we discussing and why is there a edit-war and four blocks? Is M. S. Valiathan, and Vasant Lad pseudo-academician? నిజానికి and Littleolive oil have also raised questions. You are wrongly re-interpreting the earlier RfC, please re-read. The RfC had run for more than one month: here appears to be no consensus as to whether academic claims for the effectiveness of Ayurveda as pseudoscience. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The modern application of ayurveda does count as a pseudoscience, and yes, I would classify Vasant Lad as practicing pseudoscience wholeheartedly and without reservation. As for why we are having a discussion, it was for editors that have the intent of building an encyclopedia based on scientific principles to discuss the precise details of a legitimate distinction between ayurveda as an early attempt to develop a field of medicine and its current practice as a pseudoscience. The recent RFC got sidetracked and muddled between the issue of treating the entire topic as pseudoscience and not. As for treating the current application of ayurveda as legitimate science, I think that's clearly out of the question. It doesn't have a scientific basis or explanation, yet its practitioners dress up their beliefs in the guise of science. That's the classic definition of a pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 11:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra is right, there has been a lot of editwarring lately, and clearly no kind of consensus could be claimed. Correctly enough, AmritasyaPutra also has a valid point when it comes to the earlier RfC. What is this? Playing a fish? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww, give WP:RS for "I would classify Vasant Lad as practicing pseudoscience wholeheartedly and without reservation" -- you are aware of WP:BLP. If you are not giving a reliable source for your opinion nor challenging the RfC closure with closing admin you may also stop challenging it here repeatedly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous sources discussing ayurveda as a pseudoscience, and I'm not challenging the RFC closure as such: this is a fresh discussion of a related issue. As for BLP issues, I'm confident that I have not committed one: so long as someone publishes work such as Marma Points of Ayurveda: The Energy Pathways for Healing Body, Mind, and Consciousness with a Comparison to Traditional Chinese Medicine, the description is obviously applicable. The current application of ayurveda comes under our definition of "obvious pseudoscience" while the historical practice did not. Hence, this discussion. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion as to how to distinguish the modern pseudoscientific application from the historical application?—Kww(talk) 12:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of pseudoscience within the article as far as I know. That said, I realize my position has been misunderstood. With enough mainstream reliable sourcing that is MEDRS compliant the word could be included. I am suggesting as Bull Rangifer is implying that there be context. In line attribution supplies one kind of context. Content that indicates that in India there is research, possibly reviews on Ayurveda, and that Ayurveda is still a viable and important health care/ medical system is another possible way of adding context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

MEDRS sources don't generally publish much on pseudoscience and are not the standard for establishing the fact that the mainstream scientific community considers the modern practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience (you won't find MEDRS quality sources on phrenology, bloodletting etc. However Pulla 2014 meets MEDRS). Here are references which support characterization of the modern practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience.

References

This is a substantial list of RS of a variety of quality (see also some additional refs in this section above). The research on ayurveda which you mention is a clear indicator that ayurveda is presented as scientific. With this level of RS stating a fact, policy supports including it. What policy and RS would support excluding this fact from the article? I don't have a problem with attribution, the viability of ayurveda as a health care system would need support and clarification. What does viable health care system mean? What RS counters or would balance (or provide context) the above stating that there is a scientifically valid or medically sound basis for the current practice of ayurveda? Without the presentation of policy based rationale supported by reliable sources argumentation here seems a tendentious abuse of some extreme and somewhat arbitrary editing rules for this page. To impede consensus without a basis in policy or sources is a form of disruptive editing. An admin enforcing an extreme set of rules should certainly be aware of the effects of those rules. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my above comment. I am refering to a pattern of impeding consensus by a number of editors that is made possible by the administrator imposed editing rules on the article and talk page, not specifically to one individual editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those citations have discussed or claimed Ayurveda as pseudoscience, you have copied this all from archive and it was already debated too. Only one citation has cited as an example. Even if you believe that there are 1/2 more, still Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view(3rd). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not true, read Pulla 2014 for starters. Semple and Smyth 2013 specifically list ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience. That was debated as a passing mention but it remains a fact that a reliable source specifically described ayurveda using the term pseudoscience. Paranjape 2009 discusses "others who would go so far as to reject ayurveda as a pseudo-science all together." and that "ayurveda projects itself as a knowledge system and not a belief system". How would you summarize and paraphrase Wanjek 2003's chapter on ayurveda? Shouldn't some of that information be included in the article? It was notable enough to warrant the discussion in JAMA. Williams 2013 an encyclopedia of pseudoscience has a listing for ayurveda and describes the 25 basic elements described by ayurveda including "even ur-matter and nonmatter" as example and explanation of the pseudoscience of ayurveda. The presentation and discussion of the current practice of ayurveda in Alter 2011 pretty clearly meets any basic criteria (not OR but assessing if a criteria defined by PAG applies, note that also evaluating if something meets the definition of a word is not OR either). Sarma and Swaminathan 2013 say, "The system known by that name, now practised by those who call themselves professors of ayurveda, is a perversion of the art that originally prevailed." It goes on. There is a difference between OR and reflecting what is in multiple sources concisely and with neutrality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting these citations same way you had done 6 months ago. Are you copying those same comments of yours without grasping the replies that were already made? Example, that "Williams 2013" has no where used the word 'pseudoscience' for Ayurveda. Take your original synthesis elsewhere. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that many of the sources do regard Ayurveda as pseudoscience. You don't need an explicit statement "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience"; as MrBill3 notes, Ayurveda is specifically included in discussions of pseudoscience in these sources. It's blatantly against NPOV not to include in the lead section the information that Ayurveda is regarded as a pseudoscience by many reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly unclear that how any of the citations are relevant or they describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience. You are only following up misinterpretation of citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Williams 2013 has ayurveda as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Semple and Smyth 2013 use the word pseudoscience, give the reason they consider certain practices pseudoscience and list ayurveda as an example. The argument that this is a passing mention doesn't negate the plain fact that a reliable source clearly and explicitly characterizes ayurveda as pseudoscience. The discussion six months ago and the previous RfC touched upon but did not clarify the distinction between ayurveda as historical versus ayurveda as a current practice. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The argument of synthesis and OR does not apply. Using the standards of the arbcom ruling and evaluating if ayurveda meets the standards for being characterized as pseudoscience is editorial practice, paraphrasing discussion that meets the definition of a term is neither OR nor Synth but paraphrasing and summarization. When multiple sources provide both explicit and explanatory information that meets the definition of a term the use of that term is appropriate per policy on WP. To claim it is unclear would seem to ignore the sources themselves and the specific content in them that meets the definition of pseudoscience in describing ayurveda, includes it in an encyclopedia on pseudoscience, states how ayurveda is considered pseudoscience and provides descriptions of the modern practice of ayurveda that satisfy both the arbcom standards and the dictionary definition of pseudoscience. How could that be unclear "how any of the citations are relevant or they describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"...so called research journals being published in the name of Ayurveda..." sounds like pseudoscience how else would you characterize "so called research journals"? "the problem is not primarily with Ayurveda research publication but the process of Ayurveda research itself" seems to point to a failure to actually perform science at the standards and level of what is considered science. Manohar 2013 goes on to cite Beall 2013, "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda." Seems like a reliable source citing another reliable source and stating explicitly, using the specific word that ayurveda is characterized as pseudoscience. Doesn't seem unclear how that's relevant or how they describe ayurveda as pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sujatha 2011 in the section "Integration without foundation" provides a definition of the basis for a scientific knowledge system, pointing to 4 core features. Sujatha goes on to state, "All the 4 features have to be mutually consistent and governed by a standard body of rules for all statements made, for them to be regarded as a valid body of knowledge. Lack of consistency in the objects analyzed, incompatible modes of verification and prevalence of multiple conceptual frameworks are markers of incoherence and lack of rigor. Such discourses may even be termed as pseudosciences because the criterion of science does not lie in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) per se, but the prevalence of internally consistent and rigorous rules of defining objects of study and methods of studying them among a community of experts. If we examine the situation of contemporary Ayurveda in terms of these features, we find that there is no disciplinary boundary or stability in its rules of verification. The objects of ayurvedic research are not always the doshas, dhatus, and mala, but biomedical disease categories." Note the explicit use of the term pseudoscience and the explanation that contemporary ayurveda fails to satisfy at least two of the 4 core features. How is it unclear that this is relevant and that it clearly, specifically and explicitly describes the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience? The sources are multiple, they are high quality and they are not ambigious. I have not seen policy based arguments supported by reliable sources that in any way refute that contemporary ayurveda is pseudoscience or any justification for excluding that fact from the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not talking more than a one liner and they are certainly not claiming that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. That pseudohistorical revisionism was started from this talk page. You are just misinterpreting these citations for your original synthesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Blades, I've asked you before (at least twice, possibly thrice) to tell us what you think "Pseudohistorical Revisionism" actually means, and you have never answered. Why not? Also, I suggest you remove your personal attack before John sees it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not science

Regardless of whether it is pseudoscience (I think it is, and it is established by scientific consensus to be), it is not and has never been science, and that is a significant fact about it which should be stated in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We generally write about what the subject is rather than what it is not, so I'm not sure what the information is why it is pertinent, or how it would be worded.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

What we write about is what the sources state, numerous sources have attempted to present ayurveda as science, there are research centers, journals etc. however the mainstream scientific and academic community so far considers the theoretical foundation and the research to date pseudoscientific, as this is what the sources state, this is what WP states. There is an interesting discourse in the sources regarding the mixture of empiricism and faith in early ayurveda. Historical ayurveda is considered by a good number of sources to be a protoscience, other sources consider it to be a practice based on a religious/faith based belief system. I agree it should be made clear that at no time since the establishment the scientific method ayurveda has never acheived that standard. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit beyond what we can comfortably state, Arthur. A lot of protosciences imagined substances and intertwined themselves with religion (I seem to remember people attempting to weigh souls at one point). I think ayurveda was at least on par with Western science or even ahead for a substantial part of early history.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft

See Draft:Ayurveda. Please edit the draft. There are no restrictions for editing the draft. After the draft is updated we can make an edit protected request. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the draft of @QuackGuru:. Just added the material that I had proposed some time ago but no one continued that discussion. Most of our dispute is based on the classification section. See Draft:Ayurveda#Classification and efficacy]. Hoping to see everyone agree to it. If you doubt the term "trans-science", you can view this de.wikipedia article. Noteswork (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Viewing this de.wikipedia article does not verify the claim. I do not support the OR you added. I spotted other words that appear to be OR such as "some" and "multiple". You removed an image too. You wrote "added the material that I had proposed some time ago" Please provide a diff when you proposed it "some time ago". QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image was not fitting where it was added. [2] I had proposed those wordings there. Trans-scientific is sourced. Noteswork (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That wording needs to be fixed. It is way too confusing. I think the wording should be simpler for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede should summarise the body. I kept it concise for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&diff=653719324&oldid=653643152 I think this link is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree it should probably be removed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links don't have to meet the reliable source criteria. I haven't checked the link but in any case, you'd need another reason to exclude it.--TMCk (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to delete is that we'd be providing a back-door to unreliable information that might harm the overall encyclopaedic tone of the article. Like if we linked Reincarnation to an overtly pseudoscientific group claiming to research past-life regression. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to IAR here and voice my opinion, since this is spam. I won't touch the article though. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Please remove the questionable source. See discussion at Talk:Ayurveda#External links. The page got protected before it could be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree spam link with no useable content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree to removal. Not a good source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• agree with removal fails WP:EL its not at all a unique resource, there are hundreds of sites attempting to wrap Ayurveda nonsense in a white labcoat and pretending its science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree, spam links have no place here, or anywhere on WP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Removed, sorry about the delay here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)