Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Notes on Archive 1

Veda does not mean science. It means book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.25.69 (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Lots of complaints about biased article, minor problems, long diatribes on the use of metals in Ayurvedic medicine.
• Indications on the talk page that Hkelkar did a good revision of the article.
• Difference between Ayurvedic beliefs and independent facts or opinions regarding Ayurvedic medicine need to be made clear.
• Consider cutting unreferenced, wordy information down.
• I left some of the more substantive stuff.

II | (t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Salya-Chikitsa vs. Shalya Tantra

The introduction paragraph says that surgery is called "Salya-Chikitsa", but the section on the Eight Branches states that surgery is "Shalya Tantra".

One of these needs to be corrected by someone familiar with the subject.

Oosterwal 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts about where this article is going...

First off, I'm no expert. I'm just your average jane/joe wikipedian, mosying along the wikipedia trail. This article seems to be in flux, to say the least. At best it looks like a brainstorm of ideas (verified and unverified); at worst, it looks like a wall where people just threw a bunch of stuff at and some of it stuck, and some of it didn't.

If I could throw a couple cents your way, I'd say this article needs a restructuring of sections. Something basic like, 1) History, 2) Medical Practicioning 3) Current practice 4) Criticisms. Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of the details are, so I can't really re-structure it competently. I'll make an effort, though, once I've done a little studying. But if you are better educated in these matters, I believe new, more comprehensive sections would spiffy-up this article very well. Rhetth (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - that would certainly help, and I'd love to help with that as well. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Moved from ImperfectlyInformed's talkpage:

All the subjects added in List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs predates sceitific methods. Whether it predates scientific method or not is not the factor to label something a pseudoscience. The same is applied to Ayurveda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that section starts off with the appropriate sentence "spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience". Generally traditional medicines should not be classed as pseudoscience because they don't claim to be a science at all. Modern people might claim that they are scientific, but that shouldn't dominate the fact that they aren't, although they are perhaps protoscientific in that the herbs are often effective because their effects were discovered through trial and error, a primitive form of research. If something is not normally classed as something, then adding the category is questionable. See Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines. Note #7 and #8. You may want to include the section from the list of pseudoscientific concepts in the main Ayurveda article in the criticism section, or in a section on the modern form. I don't really care that much, but it doesn't seem stylistically or logically correct to put the category in. If you put it in again I won't revert, but on record I oppose. And I'm moving this to discussion to the talk page where it belongs. :p II | (t - c) 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I am not adding the category back, but I have added List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts in the see also section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resources relevant to this page

Succinctly link to references on the web here.

• [http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijnw/vol4n1/sumind.xml Pharmacological And Neurobiochemical Evidence For Antidepressant-Like Effect Of Sumind, A Herbal Product In Animals] – the study may not be great, but its bibliography could be useful.

II | (t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also potentially useful: "Herbal Products Sold Online Contaminated in 20 Percent of Cases" One in five herbal products used in so-called Ayurvedic medicine and sold over the Internet contain harmful levels of toxic metals, a study found. — Scientizzle 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the page, see the safety concerns section. I've revised the history section to reduce redundancy. Apparently one of the better sources on the history, the Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine, does not have a website.[1] This is the best website they've got. II | (t - c) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The already-linked version is from 2004. The new one was just published; it analyzed 4x the number of products (bought online) than the prior one, and the results were similar. It's probably worth including both. — Scientizzle 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then include it? II | (t - c) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On Scientific studies and standards

I am not Indian but I know it is certainly wrong to judge or measure any of the Ayurvedic therapies by the criteria of science. Precisely, Ayurveda is alternative to modern medical science – if you insist that the claims of Ayurveda be first proven through research, you are intellectually befuddled, because Ayurveda is beyond science. ‘Critics object to the dearth of rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials of many Ayurvedic products.’ Of course they do! Those critics believe only in science. Like Buddhism, Ayurveda has been there long before science itself was born and clinical trials were invented. If you insist on research to prove any Ayurvedic claim, you are in fact saying that research-based therapy and not folk wisdom is the only way to travel on the road to/of wellness. Even the Father of Modern Medicine, Hippocrates, will tell you that you are wrong. Hippocrates believed in the ability of the human body to heal itself, with a little help from Nature. Frank (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)frankahilarioFrank (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. This is not the place for our thoughts on what Hippocrates would think about contemporary medicine. :p II | (t - c) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank, I think you make a good point. Note that this is one of the biggest debates going on in Wikipedia -- whether the encyclopedia should be written from a scientific point of view vs. a neutral point of view. Right now the SPOV seems to be ascendent, in part because there's a strong bloc of editors who impose that view on articles. See, for example, the social construction thread on this discussion page.[2] It's not an easy issue to sort out. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He makes a point here.After all, modern medicine is also about trial and error. The greatest example is that of Penicillin. There have been several cases where modern medicine has gone wrong too! (ex. Thalidomide). In truth, modern medicine is also a very abstract science. We still don't know how the human body works,too, completely..Shekure (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. If it's not fair to judge it by the criteria of science, that's a special pleading fallacy. If there's any validity whatsoever to this concept, it will stand up to rigorous testing, just like anything else that's actually real. The idea that folk therapy shouldn't have to be tested for validity is idiotic. Nightrose (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Ayurveda has always been based upon observation of results, and then passing on the results to the next generation, in the pre writing period by word of mouth (incantations/poems) and then in Sanskrit. To my mind having access to results over perhaps five or more generations is a far more rigorous regime than the "scientific" approach of fast tracking drug trials or modified foods in less than a generation - often less than a decade. We can see the results of scientific studies with modified food in Western diets - homogenisation of milk and T2 diabetes, removal of Flax plants from wheat fields and the subsequent high cholesterol in bread eaters, etc. There seems to be news articles every week regarding drugs which have to be withdrawn because of inadequate testing or undesireable side affects. Don't forget that Ayurveda is a preventative health/life strategy - what you put into your body is what you get out of it in terms of health and mental well being, whilst it can provide cures to a range of illnesses, focus has always been on prevention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.191.169 (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

JSR's new article replacing the existing one

JSR's article[3] completely removes the existing article. I've copied the discussion from my talk page, as it belongs here. Comments are welcome.

---

I have asked several other editors for their views on how the article needs to be expanded. Their opinions should arrive soon. Kindly let the shorter and completely sourced version stand till then. Regards, JSR (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Much of the version you deleted was sourced. Yes, it uses a website for some stuff: the Indian government's website on Ayurveda. It also uses some scientific journal articles for other information. You apparently have not read it. 2) I don't see why we should be defaulting to your heavily abridged version. 3) Why aren't you using the article talkpage? It sounds as if you are canvassing. How are you contacting these people? I don't see you asking editors in your contributions. II | (t - c) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No canvassing :) I tried to rewrite and then ask for opinions much before your edits. I worked hard on sourcing that draft and would have improved upon it since almost all of the current article is unsourced and untrue. You have the final say (by which I mean I'm too tired to argue so any version you choose is ok, but the shorter version details ayurveda from reliable sources. Please read it. Its still longer than Britannica and Encarta). Good Day JSR (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to finish this today, but I can conclusively say that we're not wholesale destroying the existing article if it's up to me. I don't see why you don't want to integrate the existing information, which has a lot more detail, much of it accurate and sourced, with your new information. Please read the current article, since I've already read yours. ;)

You still haven't let me know how you're contacting these people. Why was there no discussion of this on the talk page? You seem to have no history on the article. Anyway, your draft is nice, and it should be integrated into the current article, although unfortunately it covers a lot of existing ground.

I also prefer to use accessible sources when possible. In this case, we have the CCRAS website. Books are a huge pain to access. Can you understand that? II | (t - c) 07:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

After I rewrote the article I sent a message to a number of editors. Check after '05:56, 14 September 2008' on my contributions (much before your edits). That's when I contacted them.

I can bring quotes from books you know. JSR (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me till tomorrow to try and integrate new info into the article using existing sources. JSR (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just glanced and didn't see your notifications. Another approach may be to post notifications on Wikiprojects, as there's less chance that you're selectively picking the people who you think will back you up. You following me? So WikiProject India, WikiProject AltMed, and maybe even WikiProject Med. But your posts didn't look bad to me.

The benefit of the website is that it is immediate, for all visitors, so they don't have to trust that we've vetted you carefully. And it seems unlikely that the Indian government's website on Ayurveda is less reliable than the sources you used. It is a Pareto improvement over yours. You still don't show much signs of reading the current article. You removed three decent images from the history section, which does not attribute the beginning to gods, and completely removed all the scientific journal articles which I added a week or so ago. Take a half hour and carefully read the article. Even better, read it through the edit window, cutting things which don't make sense as you go.

I'm certainly not saying that you can't use books. Feel free to integrate with your current sources. I'm just saying that all else equal, openly accessible sources are better. II | (t - c) 07:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The invite was before your edits and now that my edits have been reverted I doubt that anyone has anything to say since the message read: "I have just finished rewriting Ayurveda using only the most reliable scholarship. Kindly take a look and let me know if you approve. It would also help if you could point out what more needs to be added to the article (except images of course, to which I get to soon). This edit was made using a draft I had prepared earlier and may not be perfect so please be sure to look and recommend."

Relax, I'm here to try and make the article better and not have any conflict. You have asked me to keep the reliable sources intact and to keep sourced material in the article and I agree to your suggestion. You dispute my edits so its up to me to work and address your legitimate concerns and I intend to address them.

I have read the article and I think we can work something out. Those images dealt with religion and not Ayurveda. I uploaded this one and it deals with Ayurveda. Will do more later.

JSR (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As for accessibility: I'll bring quotes for any line you (or anyone for that matter) need them for. Good freely available sources are relatively rare. JSR (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I placed a convenient link to searches for sources at the head of this page. Note that extensive previews of books about Ayurveda may be read by following the link to books. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that ought to come handy for any researcher looking for sources. JSR (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, I have retained the reliable sources from the previous version and the new, integrated article looks good. Any further suggestions and comments are welcome. I will copyedit later. JSR (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From 12,034 bytes earlier the article now has 21,263 bytes of fully sourced information. I'm sure I'm missing something but will give it a once over later. JSR (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the approach I was hoping you would take, but it is much better. Although much of the existing information was unsourced, it seemed plausible. Gone are the mentions of Gurukul, for instance, or Agnivesha and his book Agnivesh tantra. Bharadwaja is no longer mentioned. Vagbhata_(Ayurveda) is no longer mentioned, although his article has a source. Madhav is the same. Another thing is that you replaced precision with vagueness in the lead. Where before it noted what the earliest literature in the Vedic period was, now it simply says that it developed then. Why? Replacing precision with vagueness is a major pet peeve of mine. Also, do you really think the Encyclopedia Britannica is more credible than the Indian government's website? I don't.

The article does look nice, but it's a misleading niceness based on a switch to extreme simplicity (you've eliminated the more detailed information). You've eliminated the mention of the Trishidoshas, one of the central elements of Ayurveda, and the Ashtanga -- most Ayurveda terms have been replaced with Western terms. I'm tempted to revert, but I'll give you a chance to justify yourself. You also removed the systematic reviews on ayurvedic medicine and rheumatoid and cardiovascular. I can't possibly understand why.

Also, if you're referencing something from an article, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, a shortened footnote is unnecessary. Underwood and Rhodes doesn't need to be in 2 places (the Notes and the References section). The purpose of these footnotes is to reference multiple pages from a single work. Personally, I prefer to just use Footnotes with Template:Rp, because shortened footnotes turns into a big pain of redundancy for both the editors and the readers the long-run. II | (t - c) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points again and I'll try to get to them soon. Adding Gurukul system, sages, etc. with sources can be done but I'll need till tomorrow. I'm using Encyclopedia Britannica in the 'References' section because I use two footnotes from the same article, one with a quote. The information I eliminated was unsourced and the content—drawing from multiple reliable sources—is both reliable and clear unlike the earlier unsourced version. The current version on Wikipedia is far more detailed than either MSN Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia of India, and the Encyclopedia of Modern Asia.

I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a much more reliable source than a Government of India website in this case but have used both since we have to take what we get. Vagbhata has been in the article all along but I see that the link to Vagbhata is redirected to Brhat Trayi. He was at the end of this section. I'll change the link now. Thanks for pointing that out.

Regards,

JSR (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you mean the below mentioned lines:

1. A systematic review of Ayurveda treatments for rheumatoid arthritis concluded that there was insufficient evidence, as most of the trials were not done properly, and the one high-quality trial showed no benefits.

2. A review of Ayurveda and cardiovascular disease concluded that while the herbal evidence is not yet convincing, the spices are appropriate, some herbs are promising, and yoga is also a promising complementary treatment.

I removed 1 because I could not understand what the sentence meant, perhaps it can be reworded (insufficient evidence for what?). I removed 2 because the author tag showed Mamtani R, Mamtani R, which was wrong so I thought I'll remove it and fix it later. I have fixed the tag and replaced line 2.

I know that a lot of tags need fixing and a once-over is due. I'll get to it tomorrow. All the central elements including the three dosas and the eight ways of treatment are given in the article. Both Underwood & Rhodes (2008) and Chopra (2003) have highlighted the major aspects admirably.

JSR (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked a professor from Agra University to take a look and he gave me some advice to expand the article and address your concerns. Some material that I need might take until tonight to arrive so please give me some time (the sourced article right now is tolerable) . I'm confident that by the end of tomorrow (maximum time limit) the article will be finalized. Regards, JSR (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

JSR's edits

I applaud JSR for his efforts to improve the article. His enthusiasm for contribution should not be diminished. However, wholescale replacing of an article created but multiple editors does not fit with the spirit of wiki collaboration and is probably not the best way to proceed. It was probably not JSR's intent, but it can been seen as antagonistic as well.

Why not make several proposals for discussion, maybe discuss even the wholescale replacement of the article, and proceed from there? It might be useful to put this to comment from the WP community as well.

Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On revision as of 13:27, 15 September 2008 by Djma12

In the spirit of Wiki, the article in its previous form was incorporated in this version. The only part missing is the one without sources. The discussion above did start with me replacing the entire article with all but this version. Since the discussions held above I have incorporated all the reliable sources from the previous article into this version, which is completely sourced (every single line).

I'm sure that the above mentioned heading did seem like me replacing a article and removing all the sources bought by the previous editors, thereby violating the 'collective spirit' of Wiki. But since objections were raised after this edit of mine I have undertaken every possible effort to incorporate every source and sourced statement from the earlier versions to create this version (which is a result of countless editors adding sources and this draft of mine).

In other words the sources available in the present version (this version) all existed in the version just before (this one) but the article currently removed every single citation from here without exception. All of the references section here is gone.

I acted on a suggestion of 'incorporate my sources', 'removing all unsourced information' and 'incorporate all sources of those who were here before me'. I did just that but it seems that it has been taken that I was 'incorporating my sources', 'removing all unsourced information', and 'removing all sources of those who were here before me'.

Not the case. I think that misunderstanding has occurred and all sources here have been removed and unsourced information has been added (remember that all sources which stand now were there in the previous version).

Of course I understand why it might have happened. I did replace the content once with an all-sourced version but was reverted and it was suggested that I integrate the sources from the previous articles which is just what I did. The heading 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' was true at one point on Sep 14 but not on Sep 15, when the reverts were made presuming that 'JSR's new article had replaced the existing one' when what happened was 'JSR's new article had incorporated the existing one' by then.

I incorporated all sources from the previous version and asked for feedback. When given then I improved it more and now was in the process of further expansion. The article right now has all the previous sources (which the reverted version also had), all the unsourced information (which is undesirable) and none of the sources from this version.

Regards,

JSR (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation quality

As this is an article about an alternative/complementary treatment, I don't think it requires as high an academic citation standard as an article on, say, chemotherapy. However, when we deal with the Scientific Evidence section, I think we need to stick with the academic citation standard as established by WP:RS.

As such, only original articles should be cited, including the journal they were published from. These articles should be peer-reviewed and accessible through pubmed.gov.

Djma12 ^(talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meera Nanda

Look here, Meera Nanda articles such as this one [4] are not reliable sources. She typically makes libellous (Swami Ramdev) remarks with a far-left bias indoctrinated into her by her ideological mentor, the ultra-Communist revisionist, hesperophobe and Naxalite sympathizer Brinda Karat). She is a FELLOW (no less) of the highly questionable intelligent design promoting John Templeton Foundation. Her articles are neither peer-reviewed (in political magazines) and not really academic (she has a PhD in biotechnology, not an MD in medicine). I suggest you find better articles from peer-reviewed medical journals rather than op/eds from ideocentric yentas. There are plenty of medical journals and studies that have scrutinized traditional medicines in recent years. Why not find a few, and remove this ideological promotion.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's published in a magazine from India. Further, it appears spot-on: there is controversy surrounding the metals in Ayurveda. Your push to divert that attention by taking it out of the lead is suspect. I don't agree with the change, and now that I think about it, I will be reverting. Further, these comments are by the NYTimes. II | (t - c) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the promoter of intelligent design (regarded by wikipedia itself as a pseudoscience) "spot-on" in any way? In addition, if a leftist partisan magazine like Frontline can be included because "it is from India" then thousands of Ayurvedic pamphlets (also from India) can be included on the same grounds. This sort of thing will open floodgates that are best kept off WP. I think I will be reverting too. Your push to enter Undue Weight to recent controversies, while simultaneously selectively quoting medical references to make Traditional Chinese Medicine and other alternative medicine articles free of controversy in their leads are much more suspect(even though skeptics have criticized both systems equally). I don't agree with the change either, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse to revert.Goingoveredge (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down both of you. One source doesn't deserve the kind of attention you two are giving it when we have others. If its such a big deal then remove Nanda, the Indian Academy of Sciences articles I added say the same thing but let the assertion itself stay regardless the source. Its just one source no big deal. Relax and let it go. We have many sources on this Nanda or not. JSR (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. I don't dispute the assertion, just the shitty source used to support it. Blatant promotion of agenda-driven hate merchants like Nanda doesn't conform to wp standards. Any peer-reviewed medical journal that can be used to support the assertion being made is fine. The other issue is the Undue weight given to recent events in this article lead. The article can certainly discuss the toxic metals issue in as much detail as necessary. However, similar controversies have been raised in acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Unani and other alternative treatments from other countries and the relevant articles do not mention those controversies in the lead. The fact that edit-warriors want to place it here so desperately that they are willing to engage in arrogant bullying tactics in order to do so indicates a special systemic bias that ultimately does not do the subject the proper justice.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I have been busy in real life and tomorrow I'll try and address it. The assertion should not be given undue weight so if you can wait till tomorrow I think that we can work something out. Relax, we have other sources as well, and they deal with the issue. Heated passions don't belong in such a trivial debate. One source when we have plenty. Regards, JSR (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Following concerns raised by you, Nanda 2006 has been removed from the article. If you have further concerns then kindly note that the article may not be perfect since its a 'work in progress', as are other Wiki articles. JSR (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation is not "intelligent design" promoting. It is religiously-inclined, but it focuses primarily on the nexus between science and religion. Some of the people with fellowships are strident agnostics and atheists, in fact. While the Templeton Prize has a theistic bent that has been criticized, the foundation gives its fellowships out generously to a wide range of individuals. She is CERTAINLY not a promoter of intelligent design. She should not have been removed from this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

General Bias

There seems to be a general systemic bias in this article, with the predominant references quote mined and selectively placed in order to disparage the subject. Note that far more balanced analyses of Ayurveda can be obtained by simply searching "Ayurveda" in the NCCAM web site. The acupuncture article uses NCCAM extensively to justify it's practices, yet these views are aggressively edit-warred out of this article. Why is that, I wonder? A balanced article needs to mention all the medical perspectives on this subject, not just the bad ones. This seems to be a pattern of hostile agenda-driven editing I'm seeing in many India-related articles.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you see this introduction to Ayurveda given by NCCAM and write this article accordingly. It gives far more balanced information (positive and negative) than this peice-of-crap page on wikipedia.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me until tomorrow and we can figure a way out to address your concerns. Meanwhile, relax. We can always make the article better and input always helps but its important to become an eventualist. JSR (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to be working in real life till at least the 30th. In between, I'm going to try my best to address this in between but no promises. I suggest an eventualist approach since the concerns are not so grave that we stop our general editing and divert all our energies here. JSR (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The lede has been bought on par according to the source you bought or the EB or Chopra 2003 sources. As for bias, Yes, the same thing was said a number of times and sources quoting Saper are still used multiple times when we have Saper 2004 itself. JSR (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little better now. Except that the sentence "Ayurveda has become an alternative form of medicine in the western world, where patents for its medicine have been contested by Western and Indian institutions" is a little misleading. The validity of all Ayurvedic medicine is not the "contest" here. The cited references state that the main "contest" is over intellectual property rights, mainly the contention that medicines developed by pharma companies in the US are based on results obtained by Ayurvedic empiricism in India. I reworded it to say as much.Goingoveredge (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BRANCHES , SUB-BRANCHES AND INDIA PATENTING AYURVEDA (30 MILLION PAGES)....

BRANCHES AND SUB-BRANCHES ARE DISCRIBED IN THE BOOK: HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF AYURVEDA BY PROF. DR. SUBHASH RANADE AND DR. RAJENDRA DESHPANDE. THIS BOOK IS USED BY AYURVEDA COLLEGES IN INDIA AS OFFICIAL COURSE BOOK. THE AUTHORS ARE FAMOUS EXPERTS OF AYURVEDA.

INDIA PATENTING AYURVEDA: READ THE FOLLOWING LINK: http://www.augustayurveda.com/showarticles.asp?id=121 http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Yoga--ayurveda-being-documented-to-stop-patent-misuse-5095-1/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4506382.stm

-samar60 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

History and Philosophy of Ayurveda by Subhash Ranade etc. International Academy of Ayurveda, 1998 is a valid source but we need a page number and a quote. You have to write down the title, ISBN, list of authors, page number again since your version may be new and what I saw does not show any ISBN. You will also have to provide a quote from the page number meaning that if possible try and type down the relevant paras of the book. This is merely a formality to ensure that you have the book since you are a newcomer. I like the idea of finer detail but a source is something that will have to be detailed.

About the 30 million page encyclopedia for patent purposes, sources claim that it will be out by 2007 (maximum) and we still don't have it. I don't dispute that such a project may have been undertaken but lets wait till it gets completed before we incorporate its details into the patents section.

Regards, JSR (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Ayurveda is discussed in the above article, with references, therefore there should be a see also link to this article. Can people please stop editwarring and using socks to remove this list, and instead use the talk page to discuss it? Thanks, Verbal chat 10:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can copy and paste, it would take a few seconds to copy some of that information into a relevant part of this page. I suggested that a few months ago, and now again. It's not that hard. But it doesn't belong on this page when this page has nothing currently about pseudoscience (try CTRL-F "pseudo"). That's just confusing to readers. Ayurveda in general only has a loose connection with the vast majority of the stuff on that page. So that link doesn't really fit. Ayurveda is a historical, traditional medicine first, and a pseudoscience only in the context of certain New Agey modern applications of it. II | (t - c) 10:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do that, and remove the link. Thanks! By the way, to clarify, my sock/warring edit wasn't aimed at you. Verbal chat 10:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If the sources were better, I'd feel more comfortable doing it. But they're fairly shallow. Quackwatch is self-published by a nonexpert, the AMA page has only a small paragraph on Ayurveda. The AnthroSource article is only 2 pages long, and never uses the word pseudoscience. There's plenty of room to criticize many Ayurvedic as very weak scientifically, and I'm sure there are better sources doing it. They just need to be found. Also, who were you accusing? JSR is not banned. He doesn't need a sockpuppet. Nobody has been banned from this page in a long time. I'm not sure why you're assuming that Lungsigns is a sockpuppet, and I don't think it's a healthy sign. Try to keep the faith. II | (t - c) 10:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To Verbal and Otolemur crassicaudatus,

I just went through my watchlist and saw that I have been called a 'sock'. User:Lungsigns may have taken the same line as I have here but he also deleted an entire section in another article on behalf of Hindutva. I have taken every single issue to talk in this article since I've begun editing here and I did not go and ask for that Hindutva editor's help. Kindly do not make unfounded and insulting accusations and spoil the experience for others.

JSR 0562 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mukherjee & Wahile hold that: 'According to a WHO estimate, about 80% of the world population relies on traditional systems of medicines for primary health care, where plants form the dominant component over other natural resources.'

The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts link also covers Traditional Chinese Medicine but a wikilink is not found there so forcing it here makes for lack of precedent. The same link can be potentially used for every form of traditional medicine.

So while the article itself is useful, it may not be the best idea to link it to every other article related to traditional medicine, especially when the editors involved with the article disagree and lack of consensus exists. As an alternative—to make things better (or easier)—we can simply add a link to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts in this template.

JSR 0562 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Within the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts article Ayurveda is mentioned under Topics which 'notable skeptical groups' consider to be pseudoscientific. The section itself begins with The following are 'subjects closely related to pseudoscience' by notable skeptical bodies.

Some clarification is needed. JSR 0562 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious which of those references cited in the "List of" article calls it a pseudoscience. The two-page book review that's cited at the end of the paragraph doesn't seem to be critical, just reading the first page. And the book it reviews doesn't seem to be making the point that it's pseudoscience.[5] Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a relevant article. Ayurveda is not included in Category:Pseudoscience, a see also link to the article where this topic is covered is fine. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a guarded response which gave us a conclusion only. Apparently others disagree with that conclusion and questions remain unanswered. I'm removing the link from the article due to lack of consenseus.

Greek, C. R. & Greek, J. S. (2002) in "The Philosophy of Science: Alternative Medicine and Animal Models", Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans, 36, Continuum: ISBN 0-8264-1398-6:

There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven evidence based data and therapy and treatments that have not been scientifically proven...Alternative medicine is a pseudoscience...Alternative medicine. which includes a wide range of healing practices such as accupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, herbalism, homeopathy, and even faith healing and psychic healing, cannot be considered science because they relay heavily on anecdote, testimonials, and belief rather than evidence obtained through careful study and repeated examination.

The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts covers more than one Alternative medical system. For promotion of the "List of" article move the link to template: Alternative medical systems for better coverage instead of cherry picking articles.

Its just one wikilink and not a major issue. Time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

JSR 0562 05:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the template for traditional or alternative medicine. While it is a relevant see also it should be included. The articles "picked" are those mentioned in the list. Verbal chat 08:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case here: The "cherry picked articles" do not include Traditional Chinese Medicine, another article mentioned in that list. Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy are also eligible for the same treatment as Ayurveda as per the above mentioned citation.

Ayurveda should not be singled out. You have to include other alternative disciplines as well or leave the idea of a 'see also' template in just one health related article on Wikipedia altogether. If you have to promote the "List of" article then add the link to the template, where it will be carried to plenty of articles. Making a case for adding it to Ayurveda alone may seem easier but will require some explanation.

Also try and reach consensus before reverting so much. Consensus helps in adding material. Adding content when people disagree is not worth a six word wikilink.

JSR 0562 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the link in the other articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JSR that this article should be linked in Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy as well as Ayurveda. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for removing this article from this page. Please let's not do it. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is linked in homeopathy. I'll check the others. Verbal chat 11:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What bothers me to no end is that I have raised points which legitimately worry me and have received one line replies announcing conclusions, always followed by a reversion, and never replying to questions that took some energy to be raised, and were put this unpaid volunteer in an effort to do more than just pressing an 'undo' button. If adding content just requires two people and an 'undo' button then my effort to talk, actually talk, and raise consensus seems wasted.

Acting upon the few words that have been spoken by Otolemur crassicaudatus, if I do add it to other articles pertaining to alternative medicine then I'll do it by adding it to : template: Alternative medical systems, in which case there will be two links here. I'll remove the second link then. JSR 0562 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the other articles you mentioned. The list is already a link in Homeopathy, and has been for some time. As for the others, you probably would be reverted as Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Acupuncture are not mentioned in the List of pseudosciences. (Acupuncture has a passing reference, but the topic is discussed fully in the article). Verbal chat 12:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My reply to SciecneAplogist: I was merely suggesting an alternative and asking for hold till consensus was reached on whether the link has to be put in here alone or whether it has to be put in a template that is connected to other articles as well, including this one.

What worries me is that when the same topic can be put into a template and connected to multiple articles in a few seconds (and that way it also stays in the Ayurveda article, among others) then why has it been thought that placing it in one article alone is the only way to do things?

template: Alternative medical systems is also connected to Ayurveda so a removal from 'see also' and a shift to : template: Alternative medical systems would have meant that the link would have stayed in the Ayurveda article without removal.

JSR 0562 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You failed to provide any valid reason why the link is inappropriate and violation of which wikipolicy. Unless you can provide a valid reason, don't play the consensus card. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I never provided 'any valid reason why the link is inappropriate and violation of which wikipolicy' is because I never said it. You said it and have attributed it to me.

Now that you have decided to join in, why is adding the link to Ayurveda more appropriate then adding it to : template: Alternative medical systems?

I see that you have been around asking 'Please help' instead of talking it to out here.

If the link is added to : template: Alternative medical systems then it will have to be removed from the 'see also' section because two links to the same article will exist in one article at the same time.

JSR 0562 11:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is a prolific wikipedian who is well-known for combating pseudoscience in wikipedia and his/her contribution in pseudoscience related articles is excepted and required. If you want to add the link to template: Alternative medical systems, there should be a discussion in the template talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that he is a prolific Wikipedian and I trust that he will think above the 'Please Help' request that has been extended to him.

What are your thoughts on the same topic being put into a template and connected to multiple articles in a few seconds (and that way it also stays in the Ayurveda article, among others) instead of placing it in one article alone? If that happens will you push for two links to the "List of" article (one in the 'see also' and other in the template) in Ayurveda?

JSR 0562 11:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can do it on your own, if you want. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Five months later

The list entry is now called "Maharishi's Ayurveda" and points to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See also list

I removed the see also list from the article because I think it is stupid to have a see also list in an article. It's lazy editing. We should be able to incorporate relevant links into the article and since there are no shortage of editors active here, we should have no problem writing sentences that incorporate each of these links into the article.

See also

• List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
• Traditional medicine
• List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda
• Rasayanas
• Chyawanprash
• Research and innovations in Ayurveda
• Charaka
• Sri Lankan Ayurvedic tradition
• Traditional medicine
• Yoga (alternative medicine)
• Panchakarma
• Gujarat Ayurved University

In particular, I think a link to pseudoscience would be good. Here is an article expressly criticizing Ayurveda as pseudoscience by Meera Nanda who obtained a Ph.D. in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, before moving on to the field of philosophy of science. She is currently a research fellow of the Templeton Foundation. An excellent thing for the LEAD, I would say, wouldn't you all?

This removes this stupid problem of having an unannoted list of "related topics" at the end of the article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est une bonne idée! The section from the PS list could be chopped a bit, as II suggested, to form a section. The title needs thinking about though: "Pseudoscience" as a title is too strong. Perhaps scientific assessments or evaluations? What have we used elsewhere? Verbal chat 11:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, SA. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Its the best suggestion I have heard thus far. Removing the 'See Also' list and adding something from a well published book into the article can solve this issue once and for all. As for Nanda, concerns were raised earlier in the Meera_Nanda section but the idea of adding something from a well published source itself seems to be worth working on.

I need a few hours to add some material in the article as per your suggestion (I need to get to some books or search online for some and that would take some time).

JSR 0562 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The concerns are ill-founded. Her opinions certainly DO NOT make her an unreliable source. Her PhD in a scientific field make her uniquely qualified to judge when something a medicine is evidence-based or not. I shall comment above there. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, another better published source may serve our purpose, and we'll have maintained rigorous sourcing if we can find a better book. Personally, Nanda is just a magnet for attacks even though I don't have anything against the good work she generally does. The thing is that she is replaceable with sources that might be more acceptable and more rigorous. JSR 0562 12:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can use both. There is no real reason to remove Nanda when we can source it to "better books" too. The more sources the better. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source to prove "Nanda is just a magnet for attacks"? The magazine in which the article is published, Frontline, is also India's one of the most notable magazines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think JSR is right that Nanda is a "magnet" for attacks because of her political positions and some of her more strident statements. That's like saying, though, that Richard Dawkins is a magnet for attacks. It is BY NO MEANS a reason to excise her from the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. James Randi is also a magnet for attacks, but that does not make him unreliable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Its an article from a magazine, include it if you wish but better sourcing is always better. A magazine is less rigorous then a scholarly book or journal, and Nanda is hard to maintain in a Wikipedia article. Better citation quality with lesser maintainence problems is something that can be done within a few hours. JSR 0562 12:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus, where did I say that Nanda was 'unreliable'? I recall saying that 'I don't have anything against the good work she generally does'. JSR 0562 12:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an article from a magazine, but per WP:PARITY, since most of Ayurveda is sourced from sources which share in a similar amount of rigor, there is no problem referencing it. I agree with you, JSR, that if there are better sources we can include them as well. However, I have a really hard time with people removing sources due to false claims of reliability or a desire to keep away "magnets for attacks". Bring on more sources, keep the old. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:Parity Nanda would be one of the weakest source in the article if not the weakest. The rest is peer-reviewed journals, books, government websites, Britannica, and such. I have said that 'its an article from a magazine, include it if you wish but better sourcing is always better'. Was 'I have a really hard time with people removing sources due to false claims of reliability or a desire to keep away magnets for attacks' meant for me?

In any event, how many lines should be added? A couple from each source will do? I'm tired and would like to end this dispute over a wikilink ASAP. JSR 0562 12:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article right now and I'm not seeing peer-reviewed sources indicating the principles of Ayurveda. You must consider the author. There are plenty of Ayurvedic texts which are written by charlatans who are referenced in this article. Since Nanda is much more qualified than they are to speak of the observational efficacy of Ayurveda, she is at least on parity with the sources who describe Ayurveda in a positive light. That's what's important.

I was not commenting on you. I was commenting in general.

The number of lines is not really all that important. What we should probably do is follow the sources to see how we should cover the subject. I think if you want to take a break from this article for a bit, there are enough other people here who can take over editing if you are tired of it.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The sources given here are better than Nanda, almost every single one of them. Lets not debate Nanda when we know she generally does good work regardless of this citation quality. In any case, It would be best if you ended the article using a few lines and give the involved parties a rest (although we may have engaged you for too long as well).

The Safety Concerns section can do with a short conclusion. Regards, JSR 0562 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY that Deepak Chopra is a better quality source than Nanda. Your claim that "almost every single one" is better is prima facie false... depending on what you mean by "almost". Let's just agree that there is, in principle, nothing wrong with including Nanda in this article and leave it at that.

I'm not yet prepared to make any edits to the article at this point. This will have to be a work-in-progress. Let's just let people boldly edit with an eye toward describing the pseudoscientific nature of the subject for the time being.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:-) Deepak Chopra is not in the article.

Chopra, A.S. (2003) in "Ayurveda", Medicine Across Cultures, edited by Selin, Helaine & Shapiro, H. 75-83. Kluwer Academic Publishers. United States of America: ISBN 1-4020-1166-0. is A.S. Chopra, who, I have to say, is better than Nanda, as is nearly every other source in Ayurveda. Here is a link to the book on Springer.

But lets not debate over it anymore. I'm reading Nanda now and she seems passable. JSR 0562 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some references.

• [6] - There are many medicines of unproven efficacy sold in the South-East Asia Region. These include medicines from alternative systems, such as Ayurveda
• [7]
• [8] - One to three thousand years ago, when TCM and Ayurveda were born, it was not known that the brain was the seat of intelligence, that the heart pumped blood, and no one had any idea what the liver did. ... Medical systems at this time were based upon philosophies, not science or evidence.
• [9] - The concept of a human energy field is really just a new name to a several thousand year old concept. Most ancient cultures believed that there was some vital force, an animus which made living things alive, and distinguished them from non-living things. ... Today the concept still survives in traditional Chinese medicine and Indian ayurveda.
• [10] - Promoters are pushing hard to establish "ayurveda" as a marketing term for health food products and unorthodox health services. ... Ayurvedic medicine is ancient East Indian folk medicine inseparable from Hinduism. Like all ancient approaches to treatment, it relies heavily upon psychology (ie, magic) and subjective empiricism.
• [11] - As the baby went downhill Hanswille assured the parents that this was merely "the poisons coming out of her body" and that she would eventually become the super baby they desired. Hanswille zapped the failing tyke with his violet ray machine to energize her Life Force, which was part of his mystical, naturalism (you know, the same vitalism that underlies homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, ayurveda, and other philosophical approaches to health care
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16] - physicist Heinz R. Pagels, author of The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature vehemently rejects the notion that there is any significant connection between the discoveries of modern physicists and the metaphysical claims of Ayurveda.
• [17]

Some are scholarly source, some are not. But can serve a good starting point. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I placed a neutrality tag on the article because while reading through it, I found it to be consistently positive about its efficacy, even in the sections "Scientific evidence" and "Safety concerns." While it's true that scientific studies are lacking, it is certainly not embraced by the scientific community or Western medical community as one might think after reading this. I would like to learn more about scientific criticism of Ayurveda, but there doesn't seem to be much available here. Does anyone know where I could find more information about criticism so that I can eventually balance this article out to become more NPOV? --Ships at a Distance (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the first sentence on science: "many Ayurveda products have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials". Or the section on adulteration in the safety concerns? These sections are well-cited and neutrally stated. It sounds as if you want Ayurveda to be reflected as pseudoscientific nonsense. While you and perhaps even the average general prac. doc might think that, if the researchers don't say, then we can't put it in. I've suggested multiple times (see above) that a section on pseudoscience in Ayurveda be created. Nobody has bothered to; most just want to slap the category in so they can feel better. One angle that could be covered is the toxicity, above and beyond adulteration, of the herbs. Haven't yet found a ref on specific to Ayurveda. Do searches on GScholar, PubMed, and GBooks if you want to balance the article. II | (t - c) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I disagree that those sections are neutrally presented, though. "Many Ayurveda products have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials," while probably true, doesn't really convey skepticism, it just sounds like not many people got around looking into it because it's widely accepted. Also, again, the "Scientific evidence" section seems really, really positive about the scientific basis of it. I mean I'll definitely look for refs, but I'm sure you'll agree there must be more criticism out there than expressed in the article currently. Also, about the pseudoscience section, is that really standard in these kind of articles, or should criticism be integrated into the article as a whole? --Ships at a Distance (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as your question and Dawkins, it's not clear that he is a prominent critic. There's no indication that he knows anything about Ayurveda, and the source is to "Digital Journal", and apparently Dawkins attacked some a pop-culture quackish incarnation of Ayurveda. His entire dismissal of traditional medicines seems woefully misinformed -- aspirin was derived from willow bark, which was first noticed in the 5th century B.C. There's a lot of great medical information in traditional medicines -- read up on, say, Avicenna, or check that the scholarly book on the origins of neuroscience which references Ayurvedic cataract surgery. A detailed critique from someone who knows something about Ayurveda would belong, but Dawkins isn't that. II | (t - c) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Imperfectly Informed, this article goes pretty far in being neutral, especially compared to other "alternative" medicine articles. The only reason I can imagine someone disputing this is if the person/party specifically wanted a negative presentation. There probably isn't a lot of scientific information because it's hugely expensive to test substances for medical use. Especially natural substances that aren't used in highly purified forms. And it is also expensive and difficult to prove long-term toxicity. For example, Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, while there is scientific research, there is also huge amount of unsubstantiated findings and off-label use that aren't well documented. Such information is further complicated with a pre-scientific tradition like Ayurveda. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view It means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I'm taking down the neutrality label until Ships at a Distance or others actually comes up with reliable, significant published info that brings the current information into a different light. P.S. I do personally use Ayurvedic medicine, and don't really have strong feelings about it one way or another, but I do respect when articles have integrated Neutrality and when they are POV Cuvtixo (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cuvtixo. Tagging the whole article wholesale is just too convenient and is generally not done. JSR 0562 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

About Dawkins--I'm not sure why he wouldn't be considered a prominent critic. I can't think of many other people who are as famously critical of alternative medicine. He has that documentary "The Enemies of Reason," in which he specifically addresses ayurveda and has an interview with Chopra. I think this indicates that he's well-researched and invested in it, and not just making a casual remark. That article from "Digital Journal" is about that documentary, which was just an easier way of quoting him than linking to youtube or something. And isn't he a lot more famous and mainstream than most of the critics cited in controversial articles?

And about the neutrality tag--obviously I agree that this should be unbiased and supported by reliable, significant published info, but I feel like you guys are reading a different article than me. To me, it seems pretty clear that it is constistently favorable of the subject, and there are definitely other perspectives out there. When there is very little (if any) acknowledgement of critical or skeptical perspectives, I think that makes the article very biased. I mean, it can't really be true that adding a POV tag to an article is "generally not done." If the article already had reliable, significant published info critical of the subject it wouldn't need a neutrality tag. I just wanted to add it so that people were aware that it was disputed, and so that we could pool ideas and info for making it NPOV. I'm definitely not the first person to suggest that this article needs work in that area. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)