Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Lead

When I restored the new edits, my impression was that the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant (is very long and includes too much material, some not necessarily a summary of the article's material) and that making it shorter would be a good idea. I thought that the new edits were an improvement in that direction. I then assessed the article contents and noticed that these edits alone would not have been enough however, as at least some of the important material moved out of the lead should then be replaced by a summary in the lead, of course. Also, Anmolbhat's edit summary was missing; one was provided at the second revert but still suboptimal: Restore long-standing WP:LEAD, removed without discussion; it's understood only means that you prefer the existing lead, without any detail. Per WP:BRD, I invite Zetret to discuss here and attempt to form consensus before restoring their edits. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead should cover the entire article. See talk page archives and also the hidden note on lead. Current lead is a work of many editors over years and seems stable for years as well. Traditional Chinese medicine also did the same. We can't just let some editor unilaterally change it and the same editor who still doesn't understand what is WP:LEADCITE or WP:VANDALISM.[1][2] Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda is more than just modern applications, that's why there is no reason in trimming the lead and moving or removing the content about history already covered in the section. I am also concerned with the recent "trim" of lead done by Zefr, which seemed nothing more than cherrypicked removals of important contents. And without gaining consensus. Anmolbhat (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate, user Zetret here, The edits done by "AnmolBhat" should not be accepted and here is why; 1) The line "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" is added by someone to mislead the public, that conclusion can NOT be drawn from the citation - please review. That is why I removed it. 2) The paragraphs 2 and 4 in the LEAD are bizarre and provide no coherent information for someone trying to get an understanding of what Ayurveda is. I strongly suggest moving those to the "History" section. They are too long. 3) The last line of the first paragraph "In countries beyond India, Ayurveda therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use." is completely incorrect. The citation suggests a GERMAN book and contains nothing to verify what's been written. 4) Paragraph 3 talks about modern day implications, BUT is nestled between paragraphs 2 and 4 which are historical information about some ancient texts and speculation of how this practice MAY have come about. I suspect this is to intentionally trick people into not reading the paragraph where we clearly identify this as a "pseudo-science".

A lot of people are losing their LIVES by going to these fake clinics of Ayurveda, so the least we could do is to have a coherent LEAD for this topic, and to mention how there is no EVIDENCE for the efficacy of these practices.

Based on these four incorrect instances in the LEAD alone, I, I with considerable knowledge on this subject, can guarantee that you have been subject to a form of vandalism. My edits were to simply make this a better read. Thanks, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no valid reason to remove content from the stable lead. With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits accepted. Source clearly support what has been written and this is not Modern Ayurveda like Anmolbhat wrote as well. As for rest of your comment, Wikipedia is not for your WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Also stop deliberately calling constructive edits a vandalism. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits accepted that "POV" is mainstream science/medicine POV, so it would technically be NPOV... —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources exactly supporting his narrowed POV? By the way, we are talking about lead here. Capitals00 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede was certainly verbose with far too much history and baseless justification for Ayurveda as a valid medical discipline, as it is a pseudoscience and folk medicine practice. This edit removed over-discussion of history, some of which was retained for the History section where it belongs; it is not lede material. Weak or non-English sources covered by other references were removed. Having taken a fresh look at this article, the lede sufficiently introduces what the topic is and its general practices, acknowledging its history. This should be a sufficient introduction to the article. --Zefr (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead already said its pseudo-science and there is no substantial evidence of its effects. WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't help, because content is sourced and long standing. Also with the cherry picked removals from lead as well as replacing the terms from entire article without explanation or getting consensus here also shows weakness of your argument. Again, this is not Modern Ayurveda, nor our aim is to remove any details about positive researches or significance on Ayurveda. Even if the article's aim had to be such, your edits are just contrary to NPOV. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Capitals00, Zefr and PaleoNeonate - I PLEAD you to please read my four points again. I am a doctor by profession and these harmful practices are not a joking matter. I don't see any changes in the current version of the article. Paragraphs 2 and 4 have no necessity being in the lead. And there are false claims in paragraphs 1 and 3. I have very clearly mentioned the reasons above. At LEAST, consider moving paragraph 3 to paragraph 2 so it is not nestled between some incoherent statements about history of Ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs)

The article is C-class (lowly) rated (top of this page) because it is poorly written, relies only on pseudoscientific sources, and leads a non-scientific reader to believe it is a valid medical practice. It is a pseudoscience within alternative medicine and does not adhere to WP:MEDRS sourcing. We can learn lessons for revising the lede based on this discussion for the Alternative medicine article. The argument by Zetret about "people losing their lives", although possibly true, is moot and WP:UNDUE because the encyclopedia does not discuss personal or fringe (extreme) views per WP:OR. Other points on lede content made by Zetret are valid. We can employ the well-vetted Alternative medicine article to rewrite this one. Concerning the lede: 1) state that it is a pseudoscience and folk medicine, generally similar to the herbalism article, because there are no WP:MEDSCI sources demonstrating it as a science-based medical practice; 2) remove specific historical content and quotes from ancient sources as laborious and off-topic to introduce the topic; 3) unless valuable for history, remove sources and related content older than 5 years per WP:MEDDATE. These points were the basis for my edit abbreviating the lede here. --Zefr (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. —PaleoNeonate – 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate and Zefr. That's a good start. As this is my first time, who will be making these changes? (I didn't include "losing their lives" in my four points, and was simply to illustrate that. I do have sources (citations) regarding deaths caused by Ayurvedic practices, and hopefully will add them in the future in the respective section, once the lead looks good). Hope that is allowed. It is not a fringe view, just factual occurrences. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You are just providing incorrect understanding of this subject and mispresenting guidelines. It is not "generally similar to the herbalism", but far broader. It is not a newly invented practice that's why it is also called protoscience on lead. Unless there is a policy that would support your one one-sided fringe views and override years of consensus, I would think about it, but right now this is nothing more than POV pushing and attempt to get rid of material that you really don't like. You are citing guidelines where you believe they would suit, WP:MEDDATE speaks of replacing sources, not removing them and content about history is unrelated to that whole guideline page. Using the article's class as excuse for your POV edits is not going to help either because you are only degrading its class with such edits. Article is also a part of Hinduism and Category:Hindu philosophical concepts not just modern medicines. Though your edits are contrary to NPOV even if it was all about Ayurveda as a modern medicine only. Capitals00 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As the discussion above by PaleoNeonate, Zetret, myself, and other editors in article history indicates consensus for lede revision, I am taking recent edits and applicable historical edits to create a new version. Please bring discussion here for changes rather than engaging in edit wars. --Zefr (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Three editors don't make consensus, and not at all when you lack the understanding of the subject and have only misrepresented the guidelines, while Zetret is out there to right great wrongs. You are just edit warring and your version is problematic.[3] See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ayurveda. Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00, three of us have already stated this isn't POV pushing or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, but basic medical (objective) facts. Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph? I am not asking about removing content for now. Paragraphs 2 and 4 talk about historical Ayurveda, but paragraph 3 is about how it is pseudoscience. It is incoherent. What rule are we violating by re-ordering the paragraphs (for now). I genuinely want to understand your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Zetret (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support such a problematic overview? This is not just a "medical" article, but also Hinduism and other Indian philosophical concepts. There is violation of WP:LEAD, policy says that you have to cover all major aspects of the article but you and Zefr are making attempts to change it, so that readers would conceive your POV before anything else on the article, in place of giving them the correct knowledge about Ayurveda. Though you are not misrepresenting sources like Zefr,[4] your comments qualify WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. You need to read how scholarly sources describe Ayurveda, such as [5][6][7][8][9], our lead is already far more critical of Ayurveda than mainstream analysis of Ayurveda by scholars. If you want to make the lead more contrary, then I would suggest you to better write your own blog and read WP:NOT. Capitals00 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 What do you mean? You haven't answered the question, "Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph?". I never asked you advise about why I should write a blog and I am very much aware of WP:NOT. Although I can't prove it, you sound like one of those psuedoscience believing nut jobs which is probably why three of us already disagree with how you've been bullying people for no reason. Zetret (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why I had asked you to provide sources that support your problematic overview and you have failed. 2nd paragraph deals with history and origins of Ayurveda, 3rd one deals with modern research, which one is more significant in context of its entire history? I had also provided 5 mainstream sources that supported my comment. Surprisingly, you still have to ask "what do you mean?". Also read Traditional Chinese medicine, that has been written similarly. I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines that you claim to have read but still you are acting contrary after saying that you "can't prove", and such incompetence is too apparent which is why you have to brag this "three of us" often, since you are also sure that you can't take responsibility of your problematic edits. I go by mainstream scholarly view, not your lowly believed or personal thoughts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This whole intro section is absurd and putting Ayurveda under "pseudo-science" just shows peoples ignorance in anything about it. Most researchers - yes there are legitimate researchers in this area - qualify that Ayurveda follows a different paradigm than western medical research and as such new models are necessitated to validate its procedures and methods. I know this scares most western scientists who think they have a monopoly on "truth", but seriously look a little deeper - there is a vast and comprehensible logic in this system if you bother to study it for more than a few hours, though that would require you to step out of your western based colonialist educational mindsets and attitudes, which I know is hard to do. Perhaps you can start by reading an entry on this topic at a REAL encyclopedia https://www.britannica.com/science/Ayurveda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.116.100 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubious claims made in the history section

I felt that I had to bring this up here because the change that I made by removing a dubious and non-factual claim has been reversed twice. There is a statement in the History of Ayurveda section which claims that the "origins of Ayuveda has been traced to 5000 BCE". This claim is false because even the Vedas in India, which are considered the earliest Sanskrit literature are dated to only 1800 BCE at the earliest. Even the Indus Valley Civilization did not exist in 5000 BCE. How can it be justified to include this obviously false and misleading statement in the History section? None of the sources cited have the actual references (with statement and page no.) and even if the sources do state this, they likely refer to some popular tradition within Ayurveda which dates it to 5000 BCE. Passing off such folk traditions and popular beliefs as history is in violation of Wikipedia policy of excluding fringe theories WP:FRINGE and that exceptional claims require exception sources.

Please exclude this sentence or rephrase it to say that traditions within Ayurveda hold its origin to be in 5000 BCE but it is not a viable belief for the reasons stated above. (Chetan vit (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

At the moment, the statement appears to persist by virtue of an avalanche of dubious sources. Well, the sources themselves may not be dubious, but using them as a reliable source for ancient history certainly is. We have Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act - not one of them constitutes reasonable support for the "5000 BCE" claim. In fact, the Issues in Pharmaceuticals... doesn't even claim 5000 BCE, saying "Ayurveda dates back to the period of the Indus Valley civilization (about 3000 B.C.) and has been passed on through generations of oral tradition." Anyway, I've tried rewriting the history introduction. --21:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• So far, in these 5 years Chetan is the first person to object this. What you are doing is called WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. Vedas are a writing, Indus Valley Civilization was a period. Actually, 5,000 BCE seems to be a under-estimation if we look more. There are many older civilizations in India such as Lahuradewa, Jhusi, etc. than Indus Valley Civilization. Dentistry alone shows its origins to be 7,000 BCE in India.[10] WP:FRINGE doesn't apply when the information is backed by reliable sources and you have no clear rebuttal. As for your claim that none of the source support information, then you are just misrepresenting sources. "Scholars have traced origins of Ayurveda as far back as 5000 BC".[11] (page 12). And Tronvillian, stop edit warring when you started off by misrepresenting sources by using a misleading edit summary [12] Your explanation and removal of sourced content is described by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you found one out of rest of other sources not supporting the content, doesnt means you are allowed to remove entire sentences and edit war by misrepresenting sources. Be careful with what you say here and read the page sanctions. You are not allowed to remove or add anything if you have been reverted already, unless information is obviously wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's just inaccurate. What I'm doing isn't original research, it's looking at what the credible sources actually say. There are multiple high quality sources (ones that are already in the article) saying that Ayurveda has its roots in the Vedas, multiple high quality sources giving age ranges for the Vedas, and multiple high quality sources dating the actual Ayurvedic texts more recently than that. The existing sources parroting the 5000 BCE claim are laughable: Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act. Those are not credible sources for a historical claim, and absolutely do not establish that "Scholars have traced origins of Ayurveda as far back as 5000 BC." Where are these supposed scholars, and why aren't they in the article instead of Handbook of Chemicals and Safety? If there's an explanation other than attempting to shore up a widespread pseudohistorical claim, I'd like to hear it.

That "There are many older civilizations in India such as Lahuradewa, Jhusi, etc. than Indus Valley Civilization" is completely irrelevant to the age of Ayurvedic concepts. It's amazing, and while those civilizations must have had some kind of medical practices, no apparent evidence exists that they were in any sense accurately described as Ayurvedic. Even the evidence for Ayurveda in the Indus Valley Civilization appears to be essentially nonexistent. As one of the sources already in the article (Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity) says, "With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda" and From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge." And that's the references currently being used for the statement "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times."--tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the page accordingly, lets see what happens. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is original research when someone is removing reliably sourced content by depending on own opinion and not providing reliable sources that accurately disagree. I have replaced "Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity" with two another reliable sources. My Lord (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The 5000 BCE claim is not reliably sourced, as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and everything I wrote is as per clearly reliable sources: again, there are multiple high quality sources (ones that are already in the article) saying that Ayurveda has its roots in the Vedas, multiple high quality sources giving age ranges for the Vedas, and multiple high quality sources dating the actual Ayurvedic texts more recently than that. Of the sources you added to the lede, neither is a reliable source for historical claims (the use of "scholars" in that sentence implies an expert opinion), and the one simply says "The origin of Ayurveda is lost in antiquity." Where are historians supporting this 5000 BCE position? --tronvillain (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain, just because one source say something else without making a disagreement with the former, it doesn't means that we can ignore what the former published. We are talking about traces/origins of Ayurveda than completely established concept. Read:

[13]

[14] ("rooted in an oral tradition extending back to 5000 b.c.e.")

[15]("7000 years")

[16] "Ayurvedic medicine has been in vogue for >7,000 years in many parts of Asia.")

[17]("The practice is based on more than 7000 years of traditional use history")

[18] ("evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating back 9,000 years")

[19] (PDF file, says "evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating 9000 years back")

It is clear that they all consider some of the oldest evidence of medical practices in India to be precursor/origins of Ayurveda. Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see...

[20] Presumably you linked to this for "Dentistry In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, made the discovery that the people of Indus Valley Civilization, even from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of medicine and dentistry. This is clearly an unreliable source, which also says "The modern medical science would still envy the mention of the successful division of one foetus into 100 parts and artificial development into 100 full grown childern by Rishi Vyas to fulfill his words of the birth of 100 sons to Gandhari."

[21] An encyclopedia of "pharmacology and society" is not a reliable source for claims like "rooted in an oral tradition extending back to 5000 b.c.e." What would a statement that vague even mean?

[22] This page is completely irrelevant other than having the words "7,000 years" - no one is disputing that ancient Indian civilizations existed. The previous page says "However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."

[23] I finally tracked this one down here, and an offhand mention in an article describing ethnomedicinal flora is not a reliable source for that kind of historical claim. Assembling a collection of sources in irrelevant fields repeating the same unsupported claim doesn't turn them into expert opinion.

[24]Complementary and Alternative Medicine is not a reliable source for a historical assertion like "The practice is based on more than 7000 years of traditional use history." It's completely out of their area of expertise.

[25] What this says is "Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia." The existence of tooth drilling during the Indus Valley Civilization is not evidence of anything accurately described as Ayurveda.

[26] (PDF file) What this says is "The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)." It does indeed also say "There is evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating 9000 years back (51)", but again, evidence of knowledge of medical dentistry is not the same as anything accurately described as Ayurveda. That it is appears to be your own synthesis, because it absolutely does not appear in the text.

All of this, and yet you accuse me of misrepresentation of sources and WP:OR. The available evidence might support something like "The Indus Valley Civilization appears to have had some knowledge of dentistry and some kind of system of medicine, and their oral tradition may have informed early Ayurveda" which is what I intended to convey with "...though some of the concepts of Ayurveda may have originated with the Indus Valley Civilization (2600–1900 BCE)." The statement "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to around 5,000 BCE" may be attempting to say that, but if so, it's not doing a very good job - we can spare some additional words for clarity. The same is true for the second sentence, "Some of the concepts of Ayurveda have existed since the times of Indus Valley Civilization." Which concepts? Tooth drilling certainly, but what else?--tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC); edited 20:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sources don't appear reliable for the information. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Springer, CRC press, and other high quality reliable sources are easily reliable for this information. It's not like they write anything and it is published because they are peer reviewed. Unless we are going to engage in misrepresenting sources and nitpicking, then we also need to remove every negative information, because nearly all of it is not even backed by multiple WP:RS. When tons of reliable sources say that Ayurveda traces it's history over 7,000 - 9,000 years ago because of the archaeological evidence discovered in the subcontinent, then we need to go by the sources instead of using Tronvillian's personal opinion to dispute them. Tronvillian is only using his personal opinion for disputing them high quality WP:RS which is described by WP:OR and WP:TE. We need reliable sources, not personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Capitals00 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pointing at the publisher does not establish a source as a reliable source for given information. From WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable", and as pointed out above, the first two citations for the 5000 BCE number are Handbook of Chemicals and Safety and Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide - those may be reliable sources for chemical safety, but it's laughable to suggest that they're reliable sources for ancient history. The sources that you have been scraping into a pile to support the statement aren't reliable for that kind of information, and the sources that would be reliable for that kind of information don't support the statement, as I point out above. It appears to be entirely your own synthesis that the archeological evidence establishes that "Ayurveda traces it's history over 7,000 - 9,000 years ago.. From sources you posted:

• "The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)."
• "Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia."
• "However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."
• And from the source originally being used for the "prehistoric" line in the lede: From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."

So again, the available evidence (not allowing original research attributing ancient dental practices directly to Ayurveda) might support something like "The Indus Valley Civilization appears to have had some knowledge of dentistry and some kind of system of medicine, and their oral tradition may have informed early Ayurveda" which is what I intended to convey with "...though some of the concepts of Ayurveda may have originated with the Indus Valley Civilization (2600–1900 BCE)." The statement "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to around 5,000 BCE" may be attempting to say that, but if so, it's not doing a very good job - we can spare some additional words for clarity. Would you be open to that, and if not, why not?--tronvillain (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC); edited 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Tronvillain.

We need reliable sources, not personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor And that's exactly what I'm concerned about here, that personal opinions are driving this rather than policy. Context matters.

I think we have FRINGE and cultural history (WP:ARBIND?) issues here. Hand-waving about the reliability of publishers isn't just unconvincing, it seems a WP:IDHT tactic to avoid addressing the breakdown of individual references that's always an appropriate way of analyzing a situation like this. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds about right, but I must confess I'm not entirely sure how to go about dealing with that. As far as I can tell, there should be nothing controversial about removing this statement - it's just not supported by the sources (as I said in my original edit, and clarified here before my later edit).--tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR. Misleading comments like "it's just not supported by the sources" prove it, because multiple sources of the article support it.[27][28][29] Nitpicking a couple of sources out of dozen won't do anything. Rejecting reliable sources and using your personal opinion to dispute mainstream view and repeating comments like "I agree", "I agree with Tronvillain", while lacking any insight on subject shows there is no argument being made. Tronvillain is even wrong about dating of Indus Valley Civilisation, which is not 2600 BCE but 3300 BCE. Misrepresenting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not going to work because a medical source talking about origins of a medical system fulfills the criteria. Do you want a non-medical source to talk about a medical subject despite the writer never researched anything that's medical? That contradicts WP:RS.

Source: "Hindu medicine, an ancient Indian medicine, goes back to 6000 BC." ... "the people of Indus Valley civilization, even from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of medical dentistry. There is evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating 9000 years back."

"literate scholarly system" is not same as the origins, source says "The present paper attempts to re-establish the missing links between Ayurveda, Geology and Archaeology."... "Latter research carried out in the same area found evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating back 9,000 years."

"prehistoric times" is clearly mentioned by [30]. Capitals00 (talk)

There are too many sources. Tronvillain could dispute only 4 out of 10 sources but it didn't really worked. Here are more high quality reliable sources that we have never seen before:

• "Ayurveda is an ancient medical system from India and can be traced back about 8,000 years"[31], by Daniel A. Monti and Andrew B. Newberg, published by Oxford University Press.
• "Ayurveda envisaged such calamities about 7000 years ago and recommended suitable revival or remedial measures in a holistic manner."[32] CRC Press.
• "Ayurveda, whose history goes back to 5000 BC., is one of the ancient health care systems."[33] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• "Ayurveda and yoga date back approximately 7000 years. These systems have survived due to their strengths and the efficacy of their drugs and treatments and have taken care of the health needs of the people." [34] From World Health Organization.
• "Ayurveda, practiced throughout the Indian subcontinent for more than 7000 years."[35] From Demos Medical Publishing, imprint of Springer Publishing.
• "The world population 6,000-7,000 years ago (approximate origin of Ayurveda)". [36], peer reviewed journal found in Jstor.
• "Ayurveda could well claim to be the world's oldest and most comprehensive system of medicine (Heyn 1987, Meulenbeld 1992). Its exact origins are lost in the mists of antiquity but have been placed by scholars at around 6000 BCE."[37] Elsevier Health Sciences, a high quality publisher of health science books and journals.
• "Ayurveda evolved in India some 8000 years ago and is often quoted as the oldest medical system in the world."[38] Elsevier Health Sciences, same as above.

They are all high quality reliable sources and they support the information about dating as well as describe it. You can find a number of reliable sources that dispute these sources, and they have to say it very clearly but that's not possible. The information is going to remain, just like it is doing for many years. If anything can be done right now, it is that we need to change 5,000 BCE to 6,000 BCE, given that enough reliable sources say 6,000 BCE or 8,000 years. Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the relevant portion of WP:RS, but again from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable". Also, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."--14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And I have already pointed out that according to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, using high quality medical sources specializing in Ayurveda easily fulfill the criteria and some of these sources have also attributed to Indologists for the information, such as Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld, Georg Feuerstein and others. We can't reject Oxford, CRC Press, Springer, WHO and other high quality sources and they are only stating a very general fact. Capitals00 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Again this seems to be continuing to selectively present partial information to make a point. This is feeling like a game of Whac-A-Mole.

Please clearly identify the potential refs authored by Meulenbeld and Feuerstein. Note the title of of ref and the type of publication.

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources?

placed by scholars at around 6000 BCE Any idea who those scholars may be? I do not. In reviewing the potential refs above, attributing a time period to "scholars" seems to be as far as any of them go. The actual "scholars" are apparently unidentified. The lack of agreement on the time period across refs is a huge problem and indicator that we aren't working with reliable sources.--Ronz (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[39] mentions Meulenbeld and [40] mentions Feuerstein.

You can click on the source yourself and move along with them. They are much qualified and detailed, hence your misrepresentation is unhelpful.

The essay you linked doesn't recommend us to reject Oxford University Press, CRC Press, Springer, WHO and other high quality sources. Since we have dozens of reliable sources saying same thing, there is clearly no dispute. Capitals00 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The use of "high quality medical sources" absolutely does not fulfill those criteria, since the principal topic of medical sources is not ancient history or archeology or anything relevant to the statement in question; besides which, most of those aren't "high quality medical sources." From that list above, we have books like Integrative Psychiatry and Brain Health, The Genus Syzygium: Syzygium cumini and Other Underutilized Species, WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Chapter 57 (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) of Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice, and Complementary Therapies for Pain Management: An Evidence-based Approach, as well as the articles "A compilation of Bioactive Compounds from Ayurveda" in Bioinformation and "From Witchcraft to Allopathy: Uninterrupted Journey of Medical Science" in Economic and Political Weekly. WP:RS does not mean something like "anything published by Elsevier or Springer is a reliable source for any statement", so it's odd that you insist on listing publisher rather than publication along with your quotes. Interestingly, in the "From Witchcraft..." article, your quote is preceded by Ayurveda is said to be pre-Vedic, 5,000-6,000 years old or even older, (which would only be 3000-4000 BCE anyway) which certainly seems accurate: it is often said to be, as you have established at length. What you haven't established is any reliable sources supporting asserting it as fact in Wikipedia's voice against the many sources that clearly say Ayurveda originates with the Vedas (even the "A compilation of..." paper says "The Ayurvedic concept appeared and developed between 2500 and 500 BC in India." Again, where are these supposed scholars that make this statement, without you engaging in synthesis and original research from ancient dental practices? We could try taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like. --tronvillain (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC); 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would you trust non-expert writers as source who don't know anything about medical when you have reliable sources of subject from great publishers? And in fact why would a person write about medical field when they don't have any qualification? Still a number of Indologists and academics satisfy the made up criteria you are setting up. Ayurveda did developed between "2500 and 500 BC" but has its origins dating back to thousands of years before that. Traces/origins and developed/established are not similar terms like you are incorrectly believing. I had discovered many sources myself for countering your original argument that "no source support dating" for 5,000 - 6,000 BCE, but I think it's not needed now since the fact is too common. My Lord (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is not a medical statement, and I am simply pointing out what sources posted by Capitals00 say despite being offered up in support of the 5000 BCE statement. Now, where exactly are these "Indologists and academics", what exactly do they say, and why aren't they being used as sources instead of Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act?--tronvillain (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to second what users tronvillain and Ronz have said. References for the time of origin of Ayurveda must come from reliable historians, not from Ayurvedic practitioners. It's like asking a pilot about the history of aviation. He may know a little about it. But he surely is not an authority. And like I pointed out in my original comment, this is a very extraordinary claim needing similarly extraordinary evidence. 6000-5000 BCE is the time of early Neolithic in most parts of the world. Doesn't seem reasonable to date any tradition from that time, other than agriculture itself. (Chetan vit (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC))

I've gone ahead and reverted. We're making no progress, as we're right back to dealing that the assertions about publishers. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to Capitals00 with "Clearly we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR", I'm clearly incompetent, so no wonder we aren't making progress.--tronvillain (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Numerous historians, academics have been already provided here. No one without expertise in medical field would ever write anything descriptive about these medical subjects since they are not qualified for it, nor they are recommended to do it. While all of these reliable sources, that I provided, they clearly pass the criteria since they are expert in the field and we can easily state a very general fact that has been reported by all these dozens of high quality reliable sources. You have been also provided the sources citing Indologists, which meets your made up criteria, still you are engaging in same problematic behavior. And the "many source" you talk about, after citing a single weak source yourself, shows no disagreement with the details of origins provided by many reliable sources. You can take this to anywhere you want, but you will only disappoint yourself with this approach and most likely end up getting sanctioned, since no one is going to say that Oxford University Press, CRC Press, Springer, WHO, etc. are not reliable except you. How about you consider removing all negative information about Ayurveda from this article since they contradict "many sources", would you do that? If you can't do that, then stop finding irrelevant sources, that you don't even understand. Repetitive questions like "where are these supposed scholars that make this statement", are not funny, you are clearly ignoring at least 8 reliable sources I proved here at 14:20, 3 April 2018, but given that you have been deliberately misrepresenting everything since your first edit,[41] I would say that we are having a conduct issue, and encourage you to stop this repetitive WP:GAMING right now. And @Ronz: like I said we have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR, don't make useless reverts based on your empty understanding of the subject and relying on misrepresentation of an editor who can't even represent sources properly. You are aware of page sanctions and been blocked and even if this page had no such sanction, such disruption is just not welcome. Capitals00 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Numerous... We seem to be having trouble identifying one.

You're taking this all extremely personal, while at the same time having basic problems understanding how to apply WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:IS. Please WP:FOC. Please suggest an appropriate WP:DR method other than telling those who disagree with you that they're misbehaving. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see you are still "having trouble" when I have already pointed out a couple of times. Wikilawyering is also unhelpful since none of those policies and essays tells us to reject high quality reliable sources, but instead encourage us to stick to them. I am not seeing any arguments at all, only "I don't like this one source, and that's why all other sources are unreliable", that's not an argument. Capitals00 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we are having a issue with glaring incompetence here. Tronvillain in his edits[42] replaces reliable sources supporting the dating with "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare", an outdated and non-reliable source, "An Introduction to Hinduism", that makes no description of Ayurveda[43], and "Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts", that never made any mention of "Ayurveda".[44] I am also sure that this problematic content is being restored without checking the source, itself a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. You can't use sources that are irrelevant and lacks any mention of Ayurveda.

As for this dispute, there are many scholarly journals that [45][46][47] support the statement. Lorstaking (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not the name of the publisher that shows the reliability of a source, but the author. I think it would be great if you could list the authors, their credentials and their exact quotes for the references. If you do that, you will realize that what users tronvillain and Ronz have been trying to say is correct. There are no historical references that support this "5000 BCE" origin statement. All of the sources provided are Manuals and Handbooks of Ayurveda and their authors are not historians. These sources are not admissible therefore. (Chetan vit (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

The one historical source that is included in the article Narayanaswamy, V (1981). "Origin and Development of Ayurveda: (A Brief History)" clearly states

"The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6th Century BC to 7th Century AD there was systematic development of the science and it is called Samhita period, when a number of classical works were produced by several authors and during this period there is evidence of organized medical care."

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow Narayanaswamy, Former Professor, College of Indian Medicine, Madras and should instead follow the references found in books like Handbook of Chemical Safety. Clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Chetan vit (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

Familiarize your with WP:RS, in place of engaging in this frequent WP:IDHT. You have misrepresented these sources are from Ayurvedic practitioners. You are not in position of analyzing sources for many more reasons, and when the author is an expert in medicals, then the source is reliable. We don't have to work hard to resolve your misunderstanding. Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld, Georg Feuerstein are historians and rest of the high quality sources are only stating a very general fact.

You were asked to point "reliable sources that dispute these sources", not cherry picking an irrelevant statement from a small snippet from 1981, written by a former college professor and such source is not credible than the much recent sources I provided, let alone taking him over Oxford, CRC Press, Springer, and more. Even the research on the origins of dentistry (dating 9,000 years ago) was established in 2001. Capitals00 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear case here of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (cherry-picking unreliable sources to push non neutral POV) and WP:IDHT (insisting on not making changes and disrupting due process even after the community consensus has moved on)

I appeal to the other users and community to decide what action is to be taken here (Chetan vit (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

Chetan vit, none of the sources are unreliable, you have already overplayed that card and it is only reducing your credibility. You are relying on a source from 1981, and the writer is "Narayanaswamy, Former Professor, College of Indian Medicine, Madras", did you even checked my linked journals? I find it obvious that you are talking without even reading references. First one[48] from 2012, states: "Ayurveda, derives from the Sanskrit words Ayus (life) and Veda (knowledge) is the most ancient system of traditional medicine of the world. It has been practiced in Indian peninsula since 5000 BC to offer natural ways to treat diseases and to promote healthcare." By Pulok Mukherjee (an Indian Professor of Pharmaceutical technology at the Jadavpur University) and Elsevier published it. Second one[49] is from 1997, by G.K. Sharma, a science professor at University of Tennessee. Journal states: "Ayurveda is a holistic system of medicine which represents an ancient practice of therapies in many parts of Asia. Its history can be traced to 5000 B.C." While third one,[50] by Prasad S Koka, professor of Haffkine Institute, Praerna Chowdhury, professor of SVYASA Yoga University, it states: "induced side effects based on Ayurveda, which is an ancient system of traditional medicine practiced in Indian peninsula since 5000 BC." Even if we were sticking to your standard of reliable sources, still, we can't get rid of the sourced statement. Lorstaking (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me where in India Ayurveda could have been practiced in 5000 BCE? Surely not in the Indus Valley Civilization as it didn't exist then. Was it practiced among the pre-farming huntergatherer communities in India? Can anyone demonstrate that the traditions of hunter-gatherer people in India have a link to Ayurveda?

Ayurveda as it is practiced in India is clearly based on a Sanskrit literary tradition beginning from the late Vedic Age. So we have to follow the dating of the Vedas according to WP:RS (Chetan vit (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

See WP:NOTFORUM and read, "The tradition of surgery in Ayurveda has a long history. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia discovered that physicians in ancient India had developed technology to drill teeth and remove decay 8,000 to 9,000 years ago."[51] My Lord (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out repeatedly, prehistoric drilling of teeth (or trepanation, also mentioned there) has no inherent connection to Ayurveda. As I suggested twice above, we could afford to use a few more words to clarifying exactly what "origins" means. A question occurs to me though: where exactly in the Ayurvedic texts are tooth drilling and trepanation mentioned or recommended?--tronvillain (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC); edited 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source so if you have "repeatedly" pointed out something, it will still remain irrelevant. The sentence right now speaks of oral tradition, which seems enough. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few more reliable sources that says the same thing:

• John NW, Jeremiah AB, Stephen Lock, eds. (1994). The Oxford Medical Companion (2, illustrated, reprint ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 586. ISBN 9780192623553. Ayurveda "can be traced back about 8000 years" {{cite book}}: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (help)
• Devinsky, MD, Orrin; Pacia, MD, Steven V.; Schachter, Steven C. (2012). Alternative Therapies For Epilepsy. Demos Medical Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 9781936287321. Ayurveda originated as a traditional medical system in India nearly 8,000 years ago
• Kligler, Benjamin; Lee, Roberta Anne (2012). Integrative Medicine: Principles for Practice. McGraw Hill Professional. p. 219. ISBN 9780071811910. Ayurveda (pronounced aa-yoor-vay-da), which originated in India around 5,000 B.C., is one of the world's oldest and most complete systems of medicine.

Benjamin Kligler is a renowned academic, expert in alternative medicine and has also researched Yoga.

• . Ayurveda (translation: knowledge of life) is one of the oldest systems of medicine, originating in the Indian subcontinent around 5000 BCE (Meulenbeld & Wujastyk, 1987 Meulenbeld GJ, Wujastyk D) {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Dagmar Wujastyk and Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld are well known indologists and historians of entire Indian history. —MBL ^talk 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As repeatedly pointed out above, with quotes from the relevant sections of policy, sources such as The Oxford Medical Companion, Alternative Therapies for Epilepsy, and Integrative Medicine: Principles for Practice are not reliable sources for statements about ancient history. Klinger being an "expert in alternative medicine" and researching Yoga gives him as much relevant expertise as my hat. And... then we have a "cite journal" with no title, no journal name, and no volume, issue, or page number - a complete failure to be verifiable.--tronvillain (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But your personal opinion doesn't matters since high quality sources are stating a very general fact. You could search the quote to find the journal,Here is the link to journal. Since it includes indologists and historians as sources, your unnecessary criteria is once again fulfilled. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "general fact", it's an extraordinary claim. You are continually linking to supposed "high quality sources" parroting the same claim over and over, but essentially all of them are either provided in passing by sources on a subject not related to the principal topics of the publication, or clearly not reliable sources. What you've linked to there isn't "Meulenbeld & Wujastyk, 1987" as implied by MBlaze Lightning, but "Arya, 2018" in "Journal of the History of the Neurosciences", so again, an offhand mention on a topic not related to the principal topic of the publication. What, exactly, did Meulenbeld & Wujastyk say in 1987? Or rather, what was said and by whom, since Meulenbeld and Wujastyk are the editors of Studies on Indian Medical History: Papers Presented at the International Workshop on the Study of Indian Medicine held at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 2-4 September 1985, published in 1987? The other source listed by Arya for that statement is Mackenzie and Rakel's Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging (2006), which isn't exactly encouraging.--tronvillain (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to comment on the above assertions by Lorstaking: I agree that we are having a issue with glaring incompetence here. Tronvillain in his edits[33] replaces reliable sources supporting the dating with "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare", an outdated and non-reliable source, "An Introduction to Hinduism", that makes no description of Ayurveda[34], and "Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts", that never made any mention of "Ayurveda".[35] I am also sure that this problematic content is being restored without checking the source, itself a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. You can't use sources that are irrelevant and lacks any mention of Ayurveda. First, none of the sources replaced were reliable for the statement, as will be obvious to any neutral observer. Second, it's interesting to make accusations of incompetence when those were clearly citations for the date ranges of the Vedas (see the articles on the Rigveda and Atharvaveda). Third, it's again interesting to make accusations of incompetence when the Ministry of Health page was not used to support dating, but as secondary support for the sentence already in the article, "Ayurveda is a discipline of the upaveda or "auxiliary knowledge" in Vedic tradition". Perhaps we could stop with the personal attacks based on misinterpretations of edits?--tronvillain (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You think you are the only "neutral observer" this article had in last five years? Those sources are much reliable than the sources you added. You can't use sources that make no mention of Ayurveda and there were no personal attacks, users were only pointing out where you are mistaking and how often. Right now your bludgeoning is also becoming a problem. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain Even as I'm still assuming good faith, I have to remark that two discretionary notices have been posted on my talk page since I first edited this article a month ago, although that I haven't made a single edit here since my initial edits from a month ago were reverted. Apparently, disagreeing with the prevailing version of an article on the talk page is equivalent to disruptive editing. (Chetan vit (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

They are two different D/S alerts. One D/S alert is for medicine only articles and other one is for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Bangladesh articles. Don't bring off-topic discussion here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Section break

I'd rather avoid using ArbEnf as a way to settle this dispute, but the continued focus on editors may leave us no choice. Please follow WP:FOC and propose ways to resolve this that follow WP:DR.

I've tagged the section and initial statement as appearing exceptional, noting the sources are all in-world. This appears to be part of the cultural mythos, and questioning it may come across as a cultural attack. Regardless, independent, scholarly histories seem to be the obvious and necessary sources to resolve this. Otherwise we need to take it out of Wikipedia's voice, if we're going to leave it at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's start over. Currently, the sources supporting the 5000 BCE origin are: Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act. These are obviously not reliable sources for a claim about ancient history, and I am completely willing to take that to the reliable sources noticeboard if necessary. Before that, many other "high quality" sources have been suggested throughout the discussion - why not pick the best of those, and try putting them in place of things like Handbook of Chemicals and Safety?--tronvillain (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC); edited 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

How about something like this: [52]? "Lost in the mists of antiquity" fits my own bias. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That is definitely an improvement, since it is a secondary source, but I would still be happier if we could find a reality-based source rather than an in-universe book promoting ayurveda written by people with a vested interest in making it seem legitimate, albeit by fallacious appeals to antiquity. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Let me know about these:

• "Ayurveda is an ancient medical system from India and can be traced back about 8,000 years."[53] By Daniel A. Monti and Andrew B. Newberg, published by Oxford University Press.
• "Ayurveda, practiced throughout the Indian subcontinent for more than 7000 years."[54] By Nathan Zasler, Douglas Katz, Ross Zafonte, published by Demos Medical Publishing, imprint of Springer Publishing.
• Ayurveda: "can be traced back about 8000 years",[55] by John Walton, Jeremiah A. Barondess, Stephen Lock, published by Oxford University Press.
• "Ayurveda (pronounced aa-yoor-vay-da), which originated in India around 5,000 B.C., is one of the world's oldest and most complete systems of medicine."[56] By Benjamin Kligler and Roberta Anne Lee, published by McGraw Hill Professional. Capitals00 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also the third reference on the page: Wujastyk, Dagmar; Smith, Frederick M. (9 September 2013). Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms. SUNY Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-0-7914-7816-5. On page four (which would also be a good citation/expansion for the "life-knowledge" tagged cn in Principles and terminology section) it says "Ayurveda has antecedants in the medicine found in much earlier periods in India, and in texts as far back as the Atharv-Veda of around 1000 BCE (Zysk 1996; Bahulkar 1994). However systematic medical theory began to be formulated only around the time of the Buddha (ca. 400 BCE)." There's also this:Svoboda, Robert (1992). Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity. Penguin Books India. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-14-019322-0.. It's already in the article, and says in its history section "With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda." and "From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge." The assertion "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 5,000 BCE" could be clarified (that is, not implying that Ayurveda itself has been around since 5000 BCE) and expanded, even mentioning early medical practices such as tooth drilling and trepanation.--tronvillain (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your own source say: "It is axiomatic to find statements in nearly all institutional, lineage, and popular presentations of Ayurveda that it is 5,000 years old, with some claiming that it is 8,000 years old".[57] Origins is not same as formation or foundation. Expansion can be discussed, however we would be still fine with replacing the sources of current sentence with the 4 sources I provided here that are clearly of higher quality. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is in no sense my source - it's already in the article. While it does indeed say that, it is an acknowledgement that those claims are made by in-universe sources and not an endorsement of those statements. The rest of that sentence from the section describing the four paradigms of global Ayurveda (not the earlier "The Origins and History of Ayurveda" section my quote is from) is ...that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva-Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nadivijnana), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice."--tronvillain (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oxford University Press, Springer, etc. are reality-based sources and one of the best sources you can get and more reliable than one published from Suny Press. Tantra is indeed a very old practice. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys should head to RS/N sooner rather than later. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain has quoted a very good source for the history. We could also use the Narayanaswami(1981) reference which is already in the article (Chetan vit (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

Tronvillain's quoted source makes it clear that the origin of the Ayurvedic textual tradition lies in the Vedic and Samhita periods while some of the medicinal formulations and procedures may date from before that. Exactly like the kind of consensus we may reach. (Chetan vit (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

Just to be clear Capitals00, those four sources would be what you consider the best from the above discussion?--tronvillain (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Chetan vit, like you have been already told by multiple editors, we don't have to use outdated unreliable sources when we have far better sources from Oxford University, Springer, McGraw Hill and others. We are not even talking about written texts but overall origins. Capitals00 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to jump right back into the old argument. Are those what you would consider the best sources, or not?--tronvillain (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals But that is the issue isn't it? The only traditions that can be confidently labeled as Ayurveda are those associated with the Ayurvedic texts and praxis. Whatever came before that, we can only speculate about its relation to Ayurveda (Chetan vit (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

Another possibility for elaborating on origins (as well as later history) is this English translation of a French book, with introduction by Domanik Wujastyk and Kenneth G. Zysk: Mazars, Guy (2006). A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine. Dehli: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-81-208-3058-5. It says The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given."--tronvillain (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00:: First one is a book on "integrative" practice, promoting nonsense as an adjunct to real medicine. Second is use-with-caution, a tertiary source and a section again written by proponents of nonsense. Third seems OK on the face of it. Fourth is more woo-mongering. In general, it is best to avoid anything devoted to proselytising alternatives to medicine, per WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? RSN? Requests for reliable historical references have resulted in nothing. Requests for identifying the best references have not resulted in any clear identification of such sources. Guy's response above gives us a standout of the last four offered sources:

• Edited by John Walton, Jeremiah A. Barondess, and Stephen Lock. The Oxford Medical Companion. Oxford University Press, 1994. p 586. "...creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years".

This is an edited book. More context from this ref would help. The chapter appears to be titled "Medicine in the Indian Subcontinent". The authors appear to be Chopra, J. S. & Prabhakar, S. I cannot find full context for the quote which spans from p585 through 586.

This ref doesn't verify the information in the article, and we don't have the full sentence from the reference. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely the chapter title, and the authors are Jagjit Singh Chopra and Sudesh Prabhakar, two prominent neurologists. I hate to be a broken record, but while The Oxford Medical Companion is a reliable source in general, that's not the same as being a reliable source for this claim. We may have to get some input on that from the RSN. Anyway, there's a copy at my library - I'll see if I can take a look this weekend. --tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC); edited 19:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, here we go:

"The origin of the art of healing in India is steeped in obscurity. 'Ayurveda' means 'knowledge of life'. The Vedas are believed to contain knowledge of divine origin, pertaining to all aspects of human life, which was passed on by the gods to certain sages, who became teachers and passed on the knowledge to their disciples. Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years.

Not exactly a great context for establishing a claim about history. --tronvillain (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Looks very in-world and dubious.

The IDHT we're getting to reliability concerns, context concerns, the need for sources reliable for historic information, the need for independent sources, etc. will be resolved one way or another. Repeating the concerns at this point seems fruitless at best, escalating ideological biases too likely.

How about just taking the current content and sources currently to RSN and see what we get? An RfC at this point seems a waste of time given what others have been saying about this discussion so far. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain, weren't you using irrelevant and unreliable sources that lacks any knowledge about Ayurveda and a couple of them lacks any mention about Ayurveda?[58] Oxford source is undoubtedly great for establishing a general fact about history, since the authors have researched Ayurveda and received a reliable publication, unlike the unreliable and irrelevant sources you have been professing.

I don't think we will need any noticeboard now, since JzG is here to clarify things. We can use the Oxford source as approved by JzG and other editors since it is undoubtedly reliable and published by acclaimed authors and by Oxford. I have access to the book, and full sentence from the book is: "Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years." We can also use the second source I mentioned, published by Demos Medical Publishing, which is a "tertiary source", but like JzG said that it should be used with caution, we won't use it for writing about efficacy but for dating since same information is supported by other reliable sources.

@JzG: thanks for looking. Going by the standards that you have provided, I would like to know what do you think about this source: "Ayurveda evolved in India some 8000 years ago and is often quoted as the oldest medical system in the world", from Complementary Therapies for Pain Management: An Evidence-based Approach, written by a specialist, researcher of complementary and alternative medicine, Edzard Ernst, published by Elsevier Health Sciences. A journal[59] from Edzard Ernst has been already used in this article for scientific statements for a long time and Ernst dominates the article on Alternative medicine (31 mentions) as a critical and expert source and have been used as a source on other CAM articles (Acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine, Homeopathy). Capitals00 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two different things. First, the existence of the vedas, and what might be termed the ayur-veda, and second, the body of medical superstitions that make up Ayurvedic (capitalised) practice. The source addresses the former, not the latter. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Fine then, we can avoid using the second source. Oxford and Ernst seem reliable enough here for the information.

Alternative Therapies For Epilepsy would be a good source as well. What do you think? "Ayurveda originated as traditional medical system in India nearly 8,000 years ago", it says. Written by Steven V. Pacia, Orrin Devinsky (Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry professor) and Steven Schachter (neurology professor) and published by Demos Medical Publishing. In the next page (28) it gives the details on Ayurveda as medical practice and also the scientific overview. On page 29, there is a conclusion about all these medicines provided, which seems to be mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we could try taking the current content and sources to the RSN, with Oxford as the current best.--tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and qualified the information so it is not presented in Wikipedia's voice, as we've no independent sources. This has been brought up twice now. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been reverted, with the above two sources added. I'm taking it to the RSN. --tronvillain (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the tags and qualifying content. I think the RSN discussion is a good next step. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda

This article is incomplete Wikipedia is used as reference in many studies We should keep this fact in mind while drafting Am interested in editing but never accept by our edit team Sreeretnan (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I'm sorry you'll have to be specific. Are you saying that some of the sources which we've cited in this article, in turn used Wikipedia as a tertiary source? If so that would be a problem, but I can't go through 150 sources for you. None of the article is directly sourced to Wikipedia it's self. What edits were you trying to make which were reverted? you can discuss them here. Edaham (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"General wellness applications" in lead

This phrase is found only in the lead and this reader doesn't really know what it means. Can we improve it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes we can ! -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 14:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Pickled herring for you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we in dense black bread and finely sliced onion epicuriannessity here? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 23:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

And Skåne. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the long standing lead. It can be rephrased but not be removed because it is covered by the article body and it summarizes the section Ayurveda#Other countries on the Indian subcontinent. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Does it? Being common in Nepal doesn't establish something as vague as "general wellness applications" in something as broad as "countries beyond India." Even if it did, why would that tiny section merit inclusion in the first paragraph of the lede? --tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Protoscience in lead

So there has been a slow edit war going on over the sentence "Other researchers consider it a protoscience, or trans-science system instead." in the lead. This is summarizing sourced content in the body which says

Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.

References

We should go back over the sourcing for the current tense "is" proto-science. That was my objection to this. Not a huge deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Classical Definition of The Ayurveda.

The classical text Charaka Samhita defines Ayurveda as knowledge of "Aayu" . Aayu is a combination of four factors (1)Sharira(the body), (2) Indriya ( five senses, karmendriya and manas all totalling eleven indriyas) ,(3)Satva ( similar to the chitta of yoga philosophy), (4)Aatma (the soul) . All four in combination comprise of Aayu and the knowledge and study of aayu is the Ayurveda . Nikhilesh1712 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

So, is that a suggestion for an addition? It would need to be reliably sourced and added to the body before changing anything in the lede. --tronvillain (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is an addition .the definition enhances the lede It has its source in all the main reference books including the charaka samhita in the first sutra sthan section , chapter 1 Nikhilesh1712 (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If this is so important and central to the article, with the Charaka Samhita mentioned and cited numerous times, why have we never heard of this? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 11:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead has never attempted to define what Ayurveda is supposed to be .This should have been done in the begining of the article This classical definition is found in the charaka samhita. It is a extensional definition that describes the purview of Ayurveda. This puts to rest the solely holistic medicine approach that some people may use for Ayurveda . This definition is included in the charaka in the begining verses of charaka samhita . charaka is considered an authorative text of Ayurvedic literature . Its good that Roxy, and Tronvillian are taking tremendous efforts to make the article more authentic, inspite of not being related to Ayurveda, or not having read the charak samhita . 112.133.244.16 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikhilesh1712: Stop edit warring. I think a section called "Etymology" can be created but with reliable sources and not the primary sources that you are using, if others agree. Capitals00 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - note the discretionary sanctions banner at the top of this talk page. Nikhilesh1712, you've performed 5 reversions over the course of the 36 hours, I'd urge you to tread a lot more carefully. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

yes I agree with you Capital00, Girth Summit . A section called etymology can be created to put in the classical definitions of Ayurveda in the above article .The article looks incomplete without these authentic defining concepts.The article on Ayurveda needs to be better than a local newspaper article. It should convey at least some correct meaning to the new reader, or medical practitioner .Or this topic of classical definition can be added on the third topic of principles and terminology after the first line , as it would look like a continuation just to save some space . What do the editors suggest .Let me know 112.133.244.11 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Many editors editing this article are biased. We need fresh authors and editors for this article who can provide neutral ideas to this page. Please call on Requests for bureaucratship (RfB). Don't make Wikipedia a place for personal opine.

thousands of years of islamic rule and the integrity of scriptures

the article should mention that islam destroyed indian texts and had the intent to manipulate texts and the integrity of the vedas may have been compromised and sections of the vedas edited to mislead the hindu population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.204.87 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have any sources for these claims, post them here so that they can be evaluated and/or incorporated into the article. Otherwise, the article cannot be modified. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nov, 2019

Roxy the dog and Retimuko, are you guys suggesting that Ayurveda is not historically tied to Hinduism? I can cite sources which say the contrary.

• "Ayurveda and the Hindu Philosophical Systems - ProQuest". search.proquest.com.
• Leslie, Charles; Leslie, Charles M.; Young, Allan (1992). Paths to Asian Medical Knowledge. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520073180.
• Bhugra, Dinesh (2018). Psychiatry and Religion: Context, Consensus and Controversies. Routledge. ISBN 9780429955303.

Rioter 1 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Restating and relocating

I have not reinstated the reverted edit, but I have restated a significant fact and relocated it with today's edit. Drobertpowell (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why's it "significant"?

I don't think it's encyclopedic nor due. It seems to be an Argumentum ad populum, without background context. A simple survey. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No scientific evidence

The claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of any Ayurvedic substance is false. At lease one meta-analysis and two review articles from reliable sources find evidence for the effectiveness of one Ayurvedic herb. Additionally, opium is used to treat pain in this tradition. This claim is well verified by science. Some rephrasing is needed. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please quote exactly what in the you believe is false? If it's the third paragraph of the lede, then it seems you're taking it out of context. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: I am referring to the third paragraph of the lede: "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no scientific evidence that any are effective as currently practiced." This statement is untrue, or at least overly strong, because there is scientific evidence to support the use of at least two Ayurvedic substances as currently practiced. The statement needs to be weakened. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If some treatments were effective, wouldn't they become part of mainstream medicine practice? In any case, WP:MEDRS sources would be needed to support the claim that they are effective. —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

1) The use of morphine is mainstream. The active ingredient in opium is morphine. 2) The sources cited are WP:MEDRS standard. 3) At one time, about a third of drugs on the market were derived from herbs. The herbs themselves are almost never tested in clinical trials because no one will pay for the trials since you can't patent an herb. As a result, herbs are almost never used in mainstream medicine. But it doesn't make much sense that effective medicines could be derived from traditional medicine herbs that don't work, so we might think that many herbs are effective, but untested. Studies run on one such Ayurvedic herb (referenced below) find evidence for it's effectiveness, invalidating the claim that "there is no scientific evidence that any are effective as currently practiced." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If there's a significant quantity we could expect opium to have some effect, indeed (maybe not a cure for cancer, other than pain relief). The current claim is general and sourced to an article about ayurveda and cancer. I'm not even sure that the sentence really reflects the source, when looking at it... Since it's in the lead, it could be a proper summary of the 'Classification and efficacy' section, but then I see that it's mostly the same sentence sourced to the same source there. There is room for improvement. —PaleoNeonate – 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I not sure that the Rejuvenation Research source is usable. —PaleoNeonate – 14:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I wondered about Rejuvenation Research too, but it is medline indexed. Since this source is corroborated by two other WP:MEDRS sources, I see no reason to be suspicious of it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718 has a fair point in this. Here is one more good link. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how it's a "good link". It reminds me of creationists' baraminology. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Irrelevant source.

In the third paragraph of the initial section, it says "Ayurveda medicine is pseudoscientific.[12]" However, the provided source does not say anything about Ayurveda medicine. The claim should either have a {{cn}} tag or be removed

It's not an exact quote, but the source clearly uses Ayruveda as an example of pseudoscience. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Calling Ayurveda a pseudoscience on the basis of "biased" source is an unethical practice in Wikipedia. There are sources which calls Ayurveda as the most scientific medical system. And, that would still be a bias. Wikipedia article is not a place for personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a good job that we are not calling Ayurveda pseudoscience on the basis of biased sources then, isn't it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Over the internet you are searching for sources that call Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is not a established mechanism. Ayurveda can't be called pseudoscience just because a few sources opine. There are other sources that call Ayurveda as the best medical system as well. Would you keep that in the lead? No, right. I call on Wikipedia bureaucrat to resolve this issue. Your arguments are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from what reliable sources say on a subject. Whether we personally agree or not with what those sources say is completely irrelevant. On WP, the admins (I suppose that is what you meant with "bureaucrat") don't have any control over article content, they deal only with user behavior so they wouldn't be able to help you here. Last thing, please sign your posts properly by adding ~~~~. --McSly (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I know what Bureaucrats do. I know how some of the people select the sources to prove their bias. There are many editors here who have a presumed bias over Ayurveda. The behavior of some of the editors over here must be checked. 103.10.28.56 (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Ayurveda is completely a old science. But not pseudo science. 2409:4065:11E:8ABD:905A:E2E1:EA82:9CB3 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an actual request for anything! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Pls change pseudo-scientific to vedic. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed here. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please change Ayurveda is Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda is though an ancient but still extremely effective internal medicine 2405:201:1805:276E:14ED:99D3:753C:27A4 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not until you provide reliable sources to support your claim. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I am practicing Ayurveda medicine since 25 years and a masters in Ayurvedic medicine. I have many cases which i treated successfully even after other medicine streams could not treat them. I can give many examples. Please tell me the format to submit an example of effectiveness of Ayurveda. Though Ayurveda is Scientific like a maths equation, I am not asking you to call it Scientific, i am just requesting to change Pseudoscientific to Vedic for patients benefit. Calling it a pseudoscientific keeps many patients away from Ayurveda and is an injustice to patients, and not to Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by published reliable sources, not first-hand knowledge. See WP:MEDRS specifically. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Please change Pseudoscientific to traditional ancient Vedic Medicine Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done@Drvijayhatankar1969:, you've been asking the exact same question 5 or 6 times now. Your question has been answered. The Pseudoscientific definition is correct and sourced so there is no reason to change it. It is now time for you to stop. Continuing your behaviour is becoming disruptive and is likely to get you blocker relatively quickly. --McSly (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading Ayurveda as with Pseudoscientific adjective is very painful and disruptive to all Ayurveda practitioners, Indian population and to patients who already have been benefited with Ayurveda science. Its an injustice for all the patients who could be benefited from Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not injustice. This has already been explained to you. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and has high standards for medical content. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

The adjective Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda Is misguider for patients who believe Wikipedia content for true knowledge. This adjective has been added from a books reference which itself is a first hand experience and also from a book whose authors are not related with Ayurveda. My humble request to change Pseudoscientific to Ancient Indian Vedic science. 🙏 Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We follow a strict evidence-based approach to medical sources on Wikipedia. El_C 14:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that if this continues, I shall start giving slightly more bizarre responses each time, while remaing within the bounds of civility of course. Cant have civility warriors all upset now, can we. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed all the other requests above. Drvijayhatankar1969, you need to stop duplicating the same requests over and over again. That is an abuse of process, so you must immediately desist from that. El_C 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I just got a 'thanks' from Drvijayhatankar1969 for my edit above. Not sure what that means. I hope it means that they will stop repeating this edit request. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Ayurveda ia a traditional system of medicine , more than 5ooo yeears old,which is still prevalent in many parts of the world, esp INDIA. Ayurveda is derived from 2 sanskrit words ,ayur (life) & veda (science or Knowledge). 117.193.188.69 (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a request for anything. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Ayurveda is described in the opening sentence to be "pseudo-scientific", which has a negative connotation for a field of medicine which has cured generations of people since millennia. It is documented information that works such as Rasa-Chikitsa are over a thousand years old.

I am a person of scientific persuation although - an Engineer with a Masters' degree handling scientific data eveeyday as part of my employment......hence well appreciate the limits of what is recognised to be science. I therefore do not insist upon calling it science, for varied nature of processes followed.

A negative connotation however can serve to dissuade one who is not in true understanding of what is "Science" and lead to ill opinion with unfair founding. It serves differently to have a section embedded deeper within the article which speaks of variation from processes recognised to be "scientific" - such as basis, acquisition of statistical data and repeatability.

Despite the above, people in thousands continue to be cured each year, of illnesses in a nature friendly (and body friendly) way.

Calling pseudoscience implies writing off positive experiences of an entire civilization (Indian civilization) since thousands of years. This amounts to soft reinforcing of western supremacism after attempts at erasure and alteration of history by ignorant interpretation for geo-political benefit by colonial powers. Effects of damage done by colonial rule continues by such brandings as pseudoscience in present day. The word not understood by most.....and truly understood only by some.

I therefore would like to request that any reference to pseudo-science be removed at the introductory paragraph. Prdasan (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The article reflects what relia le sources say. No reliable sources have been presented to suggest that anyone has ever been cured by Ayurvedic medicine. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I only contested where the term was mentioned in the article.

2. Would please present the sources you refer to as reliable for fairness. Prdasan (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• would you please... Prdasan (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

See the second and third references in the article. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - as Roxy says, there are sources right there after the word, which is an important one and needs to be in the lead for the reader to understand the subject. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Girth and Roxy,

I have had a look at both references. They are not reliabe research from a University. Now, if I presented you with University done research publications containing basis, statistics and repeatability - would that be sufficient evidence to convince you that it is an established form of real medicine to cure a spectrum of illnesses - however limited that may be in comparison with modern modern medication!

Further if I may, I am eager to know your individual credentials in a field of science and perhaps examples of notable publications by each of yourselves.

Please note again, that I am not looking to convince you that Ayurveda is a Science since I am not researched that the breadth of it is documented using the scientific approach in years since forced westernisation of the Indian civilization - but that the term "pseudoscience" is inappropriate for a proven form of medication which is actively practiced and pursued today with great success in the Indian subcontinent and world-wide, including by highly educated individuals in the modern sense.

Warmest regards, Pat Prdasan (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Remove the first sentence it's misleading Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience it's the ancient traditional science based on its basic principles Pousepoulose (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also please see the ArbCom notice on this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Karthiking123 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)ayurvedha is not pseudoscience..it is life science practicing in indian subcontinent for more than 5000 years

Thanks Karthiking123 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific?

Hi,

Based on " Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (12 January 2018). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. pp. 291–293. ISBN 9780262037426. Ayurveda is a long-standing system of traditions and beliefs, but its claimed effects have not been scientifically proven." The topic Ayurveda has been deemed Pseudoscientific in the introductory passage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#cite_note-2

If this book is the definitive guide to describing and defining various Alternative medicines from the world, then please uniformly apply this book's recommendation to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Unani, and Siddha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicineSalilasukumaran (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unani_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha_medicine

Thank you Salila

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAyurveda&action=edit&section=new

Yes, those should probably be classified as pseudoscience too, though that isn't an argument for or against anything on this page. Since you bring it up, have you considered making additions to those pages yourself? --tronvillain (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• The disruptive edit in question was made here by an IP, which I have removed now. Ayurveda isn't some 21st century quakery-based pseudomedicine thus throwing a pointy label on lead is misleading. Siddsg (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's OK now, I have reverted your vandalism. Please dont do it again, it is well sourced. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For one, I am confident that your personal attack by referring my productive change a "vandalism" is disruptive, secondly you are violating the restrictions of this page by restoring problematic content without gaining consensus. @Roxy the dog: Just self-revert yourself, you are 'violating the page-restriction called "consensus required" and "civility"'. @El C: Can you also take a look at this? Siddsg (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Siddsg, Roxy should not self-revert - the term pseudoscientific is clearly justified, it is sourced, and its inclusion on the page is supported by long-standing consensus. You may attempt to gain consensus here to remove it, but I don't think that you are likely to be successful. Roxy the dog, please go easy on the accusations of vandalism - it's not likely to be helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the multiple year on year attacks on this page by people who think that Ayurveda is a real valid working system of medicine, rather than the codswallop mish mash of folklore it actually is, are tiresome, and I regard them as vandalising the project. I apologise to User:Siddsg , and who may be editing in good faith and who astonishingly appears to expect me to revert my edit. I will not. Edits such as this will continue to be labelled vandalism by me. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. Azuredivay (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Roxy the dog must self-revert because he is violating multiple page-restrictions. Where is the "consensus" for this problematic edit? I see great amount of rejection towards this problem edit in archives. It is also clear that you have never read the source. First source does not describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience and 2nd source has never described Ayurveda as pseudoscience but only made a passing mention. Such sloppy sourcing reeks of POV pushing and it is millions miles far from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Siddsg (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No way, Jose. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The archives are indeed full of the wishes of random people on the internet to remove the word. But it does not matter how many random people on the internet want it gone, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on the opinions of random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how you demean the established editors, WP:CON matters. None of those "reliable sources" exists in reality because none we have seen that could meet WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or even slightly describe the subject as pseudoscience. Azuredivay (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Siddsg OK, I see what you are getting at now. The addition of the word 'pseudoscientific' to the first sentence of the lead does appear to be a fairly recent development. The lead has always described Ayurveda as pseudoscientific, but older versions of the page waited until a bit further down before discussing that. We could have a discussion here about whether or not including the word in the first sentence is necessary, but I stand by the assertion that the inclusion of the word in the lead has long-standing consensus, and that it is both accurate and necessary for us to do so; the sources you have quoted explicitly describe it as such. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

But can you exactly quote how this and this source "explicity describe" Ayurveda as pseudoscience? It would take a good ton of sources which "explicity describe" it as pseudoscience than misrepresenting a couple of sources. Yes the lead already mentions "pseudoscience" but what is being done on the very first sentence has no consensus and reads like a blatant POV. Why Wikipedia should tolerate misrepresentation of source and create its own defnition against scholarly consensus on subject should be completely beyond any editor and reader. Azuredivay (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Azuredivay, your first source, in the top half of page 293, applies the word pseudoscience to Ayurveda more than once; it also describes it as "junk science" and "tooth fairy science". Your second source, on page 20, under a subheading literally called "Pseudoscience", lists Ayurveda amongst those pseudoscientific disciplines which "confuse metaphysical and empirical claims". How much more explicit do you want the description to be? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit indeed has no consensus and it is unlikely to gain given WP:RGW and WP:HISTRS are relevant standards required to be maintained for these articles. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, hi - sorry to pester you, but can I just ask you to be specific about which edit you're referring to? Do you mean the edit that added the word pseudoscientific, or the edit that removed it? Sorry to bother you, but in discussions about consensus it helps if everyone is clear about what they mean! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer the above query, I am objecting to the inclusion on "pseudoscientific" in first sentence as well. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, proponents of pseudoscience (such as homeopathy, Reiki, etc.) generally object to it being labelled pseudoscience, but when the reliable evidence is that they're pseudoscience we should make it clearer that it's pseudoscience rather than attempting to remove or make it less noticeable. --tronvillain (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your personal advocacy is irrelevant. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The pseudoscience question has been discussed at length before.[60][61] It is well-sourced and seems kind of obvious. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is pseudoscience, and there's not even really an interesting argument to be had over that. XOR'easter (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No it is not a pseudoscience as evidence by the WP:GAMING of system, misrepresention of sources by the proponents of the term. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If WP:GAMING is alleged, you need to take your complaint to WP:AIN, as it is disruptive to allege it here. As for sources, I have just re-checked them and can confirm we're good. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Vague handwave is not going to be helpful in this case. Show how the source supports the information in a significant manner. Recent revert by Tronvillain is misleading since he falsely claims that the page was "stable for months" despite the mass opposition on this page against the wishy-washy WP:LABEL which makes no sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about it, this is a basic matter of respecting the WP:PAGs. We must follow the sources, which tell us that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. Our WP:PSCI policy then requires us to make this fact prominent in the article. The only thing that can change the situation here are good sources that say Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why you don't prove how it is supporting the information? WP:PSCI does not say we need to cherrypick insignificant information and misrepresent them in Wikivoice. You need to read WP:RGW, WP:HISTRS as already noted above and also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Again, where is the consensus to include this information on first sentence? Siddsg (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Again - the sources already listed in this discussion are clear. In the top half of page 293 of the first one, it applies the word pseudoscience to Ayurveda more than once; it also describes it as "junk science" and "tooth fairy science". The second one, on page 20, under a subheading literally called "Pseudoscience", lists Ayurveda amongst those pseudoscientific disciplines which "confuse metaphysical and empirical claims". Please will you stop telling experienced editors that they need to read WP:SUCHANDSUCH, it's not helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats what I am talking about when I am saying that the text cherrypicks and misrepresents tidbits in wikivioice. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is what it needs to pass, not "grasping at straws". If you are available to find a few critical sources then you are also able to find many sources which say that Ayurveda is "pioneering", "scientific", etc... Why it is so hard to find qualified sources significantly supporting the information (about it being pseudoscience) especially when subject has been covered by millions of academic sources? Answer: Scholars don't right great wrongs. But WP:RGW applies here as well. Siddsg (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, context matters, so when a top-tier academic book considers the topic of pseudoscience, and categorizes Ayurveda as being an example of it, Wikipedia likes to reflect that valuable knowledge. This is what we call WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Context matters, which means the relevant academic/reliable sources which are significantly describing the information in question than making a dubious passing mention which you are misrepresenting in Wikivoice. What you are doing is called WP:RGW, not WP:NPOV. Siddsg (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong about WP:RGW (maybe look at Psychological projection); the source is not "misrepresented" and nothing about it is "dubious" - it is a well-respected textbook. Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are presenting the source in Wikivoice contrary to the source itself which is not even meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then you are indeed misrepresenting the source. Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of cherrypicking must always be accompanied by pointing at non-cherries. Otherwise, they are hollow. So: which reliable sources say Ayurveda is not pseudoscience? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that the page has been in Category: Pseudoscience for nearly five years, by way of a relatively large RfC concluding "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience." Tronvillian --08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I never removed the category (nor anyone else is removing it), only the wording on first sentence on lead is being objected. Siddsg (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So... you're not disagreeing that it's a pseudoscience, you just object to saying so in the first sentence? --tronvillain (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am only objecting to the first sentence yes. I haven't attempted to remove the category. Siddsg (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Siddsg: Then there is no argument. If you accept Ayurveda is pseudoscientific then look at the relevant policy:

The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.

They you will surely agree there is nothing more "clear" and "prominent" than having this knowledge in the first sentence. I suggest we are done here, and that the WP:PROFRINGE editors are in danger of overstepping the mark into becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" is decided by reliable sources meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, not what you are using so far, so this is not the case here. Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Siddsg, I'm sorry, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me. These sources aren't cherry picked - when an academic source about pseudoscience explicitly describes Ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience, that seems like exactly the sort of source we should be using to say whether or not it is pseudoscience. If you are happy to accept it being in the pseudoscience category, and having well-sourced content in the article saying that it is pseudoscience, what is your objection with having that mentioned in the first sentence? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What actually makes that author an expert on Ayurveda? I still don't see if he is describing "Ayurveda" as "pseudoscience" and all your evidence is a mere heading. This is against the millions of sources which is far away from calling Ayurveda a "pseudoscience". Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't want "experts on Ayurveda". We want WP:FRIND sources. The sources do not just have a "mere heading". Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, Siddsg, it kind of sounds like you're still arguing that Ayurveda isn't pseudoscience, rather than talking about where best in the article to present that information. You're surely not going to go down that road? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It is already present on later paragraphs on the lead. Where have I removed it? Why do you think that the original wording of the information was ""Modern ayurveda" is considered pseudoscientific"? Because consensus (according to the link provided by Tronvalian above) was that Ayurveda is both a protoscientific and traditional medicine, but the modern claims of efficacy are pseudoscientific. That alone does not make whole Ayurveda a pseudoscience. This is why the word needs to be removed from the first sentence, it can continue to remain in later paragraphs. Siddsg (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that you'd removed it - just that, by questioning the sources as you were doing above, it sounded like you were making an argument against its being pseudoscience, rather than arguing about where in the lead is best to present that information. Its modern practice is, I would suggest, an important part of what Ayerveda is - it's not purely something that is of historical interest. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between removing the term from first paragraph and removing it from the whole article. I am also supporting the former and I also think that the original wording about "modern ayurvedic medicine" should be restored as it made more sense. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

+1. WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained. Capitals00 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In this edit[62] you've restored text that failed WP:V, gone back to old editions, refs with broken links, and duplicate refs and other markup errors (detailed in all my edit comments). Why did you do that? Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The status quo was the description as pseudoscience [63]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It was an undiscussed edit which has been thoroughly rejected above. Any new edits to lead must be discussed here when objection is well established. Azuredivay (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So how do broken links, out-of-date editions, formatting errors and text which misrepresents the source improve the article? (they also largely have nothing to do with the "pseudoscience" question). This looks like pure disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Article protected indefinitely

In response to editors participating in the discussion above reverting to their preferred version anyway, a request at WP:RFPP, and the presence of this protection for this article in the past, I have fully-protected this article indefinitely. I will not revert to any revision, do not ask me. This may be lifted in either of the following ways:

1. When consensus is reached in the above section, draft the desired edit in an {{edit protected}} request immediately below this notice.
2. If consensus is reached that this protection level should be eased for whatever reason, follow the instructions at WP:RFPP#Current requests for reduction in protection level; you do not need to ask me first.

I'm on vacation starting tomorrow evening so you best get to it. Note that while discretionary sanctions are available for this topic and "consensus required" is already in place here, this action is not intended to be arbitration enforcement; any administrator can modify my protection without consulting me, but I ask you to see the note below.

Admins: please lower protection immediately if either of these two conditions are reached, or on your own discretion; you'll have my thanks either way. I ask only that you restore Favonian's one-year semiprotection (see the logs), and please leave a note on my talk page.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What an unhelpful thing to do, threaten Good Faith editors and the SPAs like that Ivan. We have just rid ourselves of the spectre of John and the shade he cast over this page, and you come along and do this. Most unhelpful, please reconsider. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Get consensus that I should reconsider, and I happily will. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is stupid, Ivan, not only can you not count, per your edit warring warning to me a while ago, you are setting this page back five years to the awfulness of the mid 2010's. Perhaps you should hand in your mop? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Per discussion at WP:AE I have restored the previous protection level. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Was thinking that protection isn't exactly needed because consensus based editing would be still required and you are exempted from reverting if you are reverting a non-consensus. See the rules. Azuredivay (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog, Tronvillain, Alexbrn, and Hipal: and whoever else has engaged in reversion, as already revealed above I would repeat that recent edits that have been disputed on talk page are not allowed to be reinserted without gaining consensus. Reverting any restoration of such problematic edit is not considered violation of 1RR here.

I haven't touched the rest of the edits recently made on the article, only reverted the edits to lead since they are disputed and have no consensus.[64]

The problem is mainly with the addition of "pseudoscientific" in the first paragraph, since it is already mentioned on other paragraph. But we can clearly say that is no academic consensus that it should be considered as "pseudoscientific" because Ayurveda is more of a "pre-science" medicine. For an example, here is a recent reliable book on this subject which critically discusses the traditional medicines but does not describe Ayurveda as "pseudoscience". The book is published by scientific publisher Springer Publishing and written by two experts.[65][66] Now this means that if you really want to label Ayurveda as a "pseudoscience" then at least 5/10 available reliable sources on the subject would also agree, but we are too far from that. Nonetheless, "pseudscientific" still exists in article's lead, body and category which should be more than enough. Siddsg (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Those guys are the book's editors, not its authors. What page contains this "pre-science" description? Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda (as medicine) is barbaric pseudoscience. Unwatched. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, they are experts within the field. Ancient Wisdom and Future Medicine by Rollins College is a good source for understanding how "pseudoscience" and other similar labels do not apply on Ayurveda. Siddsg (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Siddsg, that's a masters thesis from a student of 'liberal studies' from a minor liberal arts college. It's not a reliable source for anything about science, pseudoscience, or anything related to human health. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Siddsg: give the page number (in the Springer book) please (as asked above)! Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Trans-science system in lede

I was in the process of removing "or trans-science system instead" from the lede, when the article was protected. I don't see why it belongs. It seems to violate FRINGE by using a neologism to create false-balance and promote an in-world perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a very true summary of the source. More accurate was what I added earlier (in the body; I agree this is undue in the lede):

Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific".[ref]

Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Neologisms with unclear meaning or meanings not yet established by widespread use don't belong in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Frames this insignificant observation in the right place, yes. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here I would disagree mainly because it is sourced and went without objection for this long. It can be backed with more reliable sources if needed. Azuredivay (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If there are better sources, provide them. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If we can agree to remove "pseudoscience" then we can also remove "trans-science" because both terms are not backed by enough reliable sources. Otherwise it is best to leave as is. Siddsg (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The trouble is the current text is not a supportable summary of the source. What do people propose to do about that? Whether it's in the lede, or body, or both, it is going to be necessary to change the text to avoid violating WP:V. This is kind of basic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This sums up everything: "Ayurveda does not oppose the methods of science, and so it is not correct to call it unscientific. Because Ayurveda does not seek to masquerade as a science, it is not fair to either characterize it as pseudo-scientific. It therefore seems appropriate to understand Ayurveda as a trans-scientific system of knowledge that accepts but transcends the method of science."[67] Siddsg (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an even worse source, and has no relevance to the current violation of WP:V. I propose we use the accurate summary of it (above, quoted) in the body only. Note that policy states that any text failing WP:V may be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We're dealing with WP:BATTLE and WP:ADVOCACY here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Although laboratory experiments suggest"

Remove "Although laboratory experiments suggest" as I did [68] and was reverted. This is typical alt-med whitewashing and pseudoscience, suggesting something that may or may not be, and that it's backed by science. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there is some editing going on which neither improves the article nor respects the time of editors. I suspect this is going to end up at arbcom. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"The main classical Ayurveda texts begin..."

Trim paragraph. This is a standard mythology: information from the gods given to man. Trim the first three sentences, perhaps just summarize them in one sentence. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry

We cite the 3rd edition (2013) but this has been superseded by the 4th edition (2019). It still says the same thing about Ayurveda. I updated[69] our ref to the new edition, but this was reverted by Capitals00. Capitals00, what is you reason for the revert? I propose citing the 4th edition as it is current. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, IAR applies here. But is there a URL for the new revision? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, using the more up to date version is obviously the right thing to do. A URL link would be useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)