Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Definition of quackery by IMA

IMA defines quacks as Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

-Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. -Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. -Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

It clearly says that those who practice allopathy without proper qualifications as quacks. It does not mention people who practice their own system of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani as quacks So we should change the definition of quacks in the article.

Reference:- Indian Medical Association Sriramk750 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So request to change the line -“Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.” As “Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice modern medicine as quacks.” Sriramk750 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This has all been subject to lengthy discussions and RfCs. Please stop trying to get people to go over old grounds - read through the archives of this talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Modern medicine" is medicine. Per many previous discussions, there is no need for the disambiguator. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a national voluntary organisation of physicians in India, it only practices Allopathic Medicine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine), so in the reference text (https://www.ima-india.org/ima/free-way-page.php?pid=143 ) it clearly says that anyone who practices Allopathic Medicine without proper qualification is considered as quacks. So the apt replacement here is Medicine -> Allopathic Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Review the archives of this talk page. The point you are making has been done to death. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you please let me know the exact reason, I could not find the archives. Sriramk750 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a section at the top of this page called "Archives" - there are 20 (twenty) of them. It is in the bright yellow highlighted section.-Roxy the dog. wooF 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I went into all the 20 archives, there is no definite substantial evidence for objecting the change medicine-> allopathic medicine. So will go forward with change unless someone gives me valid statement. Sriramk750 (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Many of the threads have been deleted as disruptive, however there is a discussion in Archive 19. Regardless, we are not changing medicine to "Allopathic Medicine", as the latter is an archaic term and little used. Also, Allopathic Medicine (i.e. science and reality based medicine) is simply "medicine" anyway, there's no need to disambiguate it. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Medicine is ambiguous general term since it is a superset and it refers to different kinds of medicine practiced all over the world. To be specific to what IMA has mentioned here, we should refer to allopathic medicine. Sriramk750 (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Going forward with final edit. Medicine-> allopathic medicine Sriramk750 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750

• It is not ambiguous. Medicine = allopathic medicine = science-based medicine. Other types of "medicine" are generally referred to as alternative medicine, as you will see from the information box on this page and those of other similar pages; this is a distinction that needs to be maintained. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, that is why Wikipedia has two different pages for medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine ) and allopathic medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine ). In Medicine page it is clearly mentioned that "Medicine encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness." which is not the medicine IMA is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• The Allopathic medicine article is about the use of the phrase - it is not a medical article. Indeed, in its very first sentence, it makes it clear that it is an archaic phrase meaning (science-based) medicine. Again, this discussion has been had many times. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Again IMA is referring to allopathic medicine. Already we had this discussion before. Sriramk750 (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Allopathic medicine" is just medicine. We can repeat this forever but the discussion won't make any progress if you don't accept that. --mfb (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

“ allopathic medicine” is just medicine if you have only one system of medicine in your country. But this page is read by people from different parts of world with different forms of medicines. That is why it is misleading. Sriramk750 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

More than one medicine. That is impossible. There is just medicine and fraud. To explain, the fraudulent bit is that stuff posing as medicine like Ayurveda and Siddha and the other altmeds. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC) -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is subjective and biased towards other forms of medicine. Not relevant to the discussion. Again point of this discussion is what IMA calls as quack. Alternative practioner who is practising allopathic medicine without proper qualification. Sriramk750 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. My statement is just based on how wikipedia sees evidence-based medicine versus non evidence-based nonsense posing as medicine. there are no other forms. Medicine works, nonsense doesn't. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading what I wrote earlier, I have struck a section of my comment above. far too imflammatory and extreme, I apologise. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But Wikipedia only have neutral point of view. editorial bias should be removed by referring “medicine “ ->“allopathic medicine” as per the referenced text. Sriramk750 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This line of argumentation - where you just repeat the same request over and over - is not going to be successful. There is no chance that we are going to start following the example of the alternative medicine industry by referring to modern evidence-based medicine as 'allopathic medicine'. Zero reliable sources do that routinely (outside of instances where they are discussing the term itself). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, Girth Summit, there are multiple recent examples that do utilize the term allopathic when discussing this subject, e.g. this 2017 article in The Lancet [1], this 2016 report from the World Health Organization [2], and 2018 coverage in the Guardian Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine in addition to the existing IMA source in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Then by following your line of argumentation, "medicine" should be written as "modern evidence-based medicine" as mentioned by cited reliable source Indian Medical Association(IMA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Those adjective are unnecessary. "Medicine" is enough to identify it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. These adjectives are necessary to clarify the ambiguity since ayurvedic practitioner cannot practice "modern evidence-based medicine" unless he has the additional qualification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. "Medicine" without qualifiers refers exclusively to modern evidence-based medicine. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Then whether this page Medicine exclusively refers to modern evidence-based medicine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, that article covers the history of medicine - but look at the last paragraph of the lead. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why it has traditional medicine as section? And the last paragraph of the lead that you pointed out has no valid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a history of medicine, and traditional/alternative medicine is part of that history, even if it is generally agreed to be unscientific these days. Lead paragraphs are not required to have sources, as they are a summary of the sourced material in the main article (MOS:CITELEAD). Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you have seen the content list in that page, Traditional Medicine is not under history[7] sub-section. it is present as a separate section[9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

In my assessment, the line of argumentation which ends with "we should say modern evidence-based medicine" necessarily relies on equivocation, because it claims as equal the unadorned word "medicine" with the word found in, e.g. "traditional medicine"; but this is faulty reasoning because, as has been mentioned repeatedly, the unadorned word "medicine" already implies "modern evidence-based medicine". This instance of equivocation reminds me of creationists claiming that "evolution is just a theory" as a sort of gotcha trap card; this word game equivocates the colloquial term "theory" with the scientific term "theory". BirdValiant (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In your brain , if you have been trained from childhood to do the mapping of medicine-> modern evidence based medicine, That is fine. But in Wikipedia universe when you are mapping a entire web page of medicine with all its heterogeneous content to the word ‘ medicine’ and expect others to believe that it’s referring only to “modern evidence based medicine” is impossible. Sriramk750 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no way that we are going to include traditional/alternative medicine alongside scientific medicine under a single word. It is necessary to delineate the two to ensure that we do not suggest to our readers that they are in any way equivalent in terms of actually curing illness. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, agree with you. Then we are going to delineate the word “medicine” in the sentence which is under scrutiny right? Sriramk750 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. You appear to have misunderstood. We delineate by calling medicine "medicine", and alternative medicine "alternative medicine". I'm actually getting a little tired of typing this. Anyway, this A quote by Tim Minchin. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ok fine. Thanks for clarification. Sriramk750 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

obsolete source

The current cancer reference page [12] has updated the content on their page recently and it is not reflected in the article .

From:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease." Check old snapshot of that page in July 2, 2020 ( Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK ) To:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer." Current updated page Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK Sriramk750 (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That information is not "outdated". The Cancer Research page just removed information that does not refer to its own topic, cancer. It's still true, and we still have the old page as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out . It’s not outdated source, it’s obsolete source. Template:Obsolete source. Sriramk750 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what "obsolete" means. Still, we could always use Ayurvedic Medicine: In Depth instead, I suppose. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, [8] is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. It says, Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective and lists some of those. From this sentence, everybody who understand how medical studies work and how much work has been done in this direction will conclude that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure anything. A source that gives that conclusion is better than one which leaves it to the reader because very few readers are competent enough to draw that conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The UK charity is a weak source for a strong claim. The existing NIH source, suggested by Black Kite, is more sturdy. The article should stick more closely to what NIH says and attribute it to keep the matter in neutral, irrefutable territory, (including for those readers in India who have been trained as Ayurvedic practitioners per the system that is recognized and supported by their national government.) The UK charity source is used in the 5th paragraph of the lede to say “There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.” “Good” is a subjective term and it’s a really poor word to use here as it lacks clarity. Better to be clear and say in the article that “The NIH has stated that there are few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews to suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective.” Cedar777 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"NIH source" is misleading. This is the NCCIH, a part of the NIH that exists only because of lobbying by quacks. It should be avoided as a source; it is not a scientific body but a political one. And "Ayurveda does not work for anything" is not a strong claim. Why should it work for anything? It is based on pre-scientific ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

I submit to delete the word Pseudoscience, as this healthcare system is approved by multiple countries globally. Most concepts have scientific explanations, & have Ayurveda experts working at / with the World Health Organisation. Regards Prof Ish Sharma Prof Ish Sharma (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please read previous discussions on the same subject on this talk page and its archives.--McSly (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

The practice of ayurveda is in line with science whereby usage of herbs to treat diseases and overall well being is practiced. Infact the word drug means herbs in French!. Although countries with an agenda ban ayurveda by coming it's use of heavy metals, they fail to provide any scientific backing to it and fail to address the issue that certain allopathic medicines too have heavy metals. 2409:4071:2019:19FB:0:0:1A0D:D8B0 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ayurveda in the East vs. the West

English Wikipedia readers will invariably come to this article for basic information about the history and practice of Ayurveda. It is necessary to provide the range of different policies and attitudes held by nations/regions about Ayurveda by stating these basic facts for readers. Statements that are accurate for one part of the world will appear to be false to readers in another part of the world if the article fails to differentiate the regions or neglects to mention these truths at all.

These following two academic sources both address that the same term, Ayurveda, holds a different emphasis based on location, broadly speaking the Indian subcontinent and the West (UK, EU, Australia/NZ, and USA):

Warrier, Maya (January 2009). Seekership, Spirituality and Self-Discovery: Ayurveda Trainees in Britain. Asian Medicine.

Sujatha, V. (January 30, 2020). The Universal and the Global: Contextualising European Ayurvedic Practices. Society and Culture in South Asia, Special Issue: Globalisation of South Asian Medicines: Knowledge, Power, Structure and Sustainability

They are long but worthwhile reads. Cedar777 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Kerfuffle between Indian govt. & the Indian Medical Association (IMA), 2014 to present

There are a number of RS that cover the dispute surrounding the current practice and regulation of Ayurveda in India. Several sources mention that starting in 2014, the government of India began to more strongly endorse Ayurveda and backed this up by funding offices and activities, e.g., building 65 AYUSH hospitals between 2014-2017. While it remains a politically divisive subject in India, RS are clear in stating that the government changed it policies on traditional medicine incluing Ayurveda which was followed by a series of official statements of objection, national protests, and a hunger strike by the IMA. Including some of this context in the article would help readers to better understand the complexities of how Ayurveda is concieved of in contemporary India, especially if those reader are from the West. Reliable sources cover both the changing views and policies of the Indian government and the protests and concerns of the IMA. Moreover, this is better aligned with WP:PSTS as the sources below are secondary sources, preferable to the existing source in the article that is merely a direct link the IMA's website.

• November 8, 2014. Proposed law to let homoeopaths perform abortions triggers row: IMA protests, body of obstetricians and gynaecologists welcomes move The Indian Express Representatives of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Health Minister Harsh Vardhan “expressing shock” over the proposed amendments and called for immediate withdrawal of the proposed Bill “in the better interest of the health of the general public”.
• July 30, 2017. New symbol to set apart allopathy, Ayush practice. Times of India. Of late, allopathic doctors have raised objections against AYUSH (ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homoeopathy) practitioners, and the government’s efforts to bring them into the mainstream. While the increasing popularity of AYUSH poses a threat to incomes of allopathic doctors, inadequate clinical evidence supporting alternative medicine is often cited as a reason to differentiate between the two.
• July 31, 2017. IMA adopts new logo, traditional med practitioners see red Times of India. The idea behind the new logo is to distinguish doctors of modern medicine from others, including those practising ayurverda and homeopathy.
• January 2, 2018. Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine. The Guardian. "Ayurveda, yoga and other traditional practices have been championed by the current government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, which in 2014 established a ministry to promote alternative remedies. At least 65 Ayurvedic “hospitals” have been established in the past three years, with more planned."
• July 26, 2018. The Billionaire Yogi Behind Modi’s Rise. New York Times Magazine "Patanjali has vastly expanded the market for ayurvedic products, and in late 2014 Modi created an entire new government ministry to promote yoga and ayurveda, elevating what had been an obscure government office."
• December 11, 2020. Over 30,000 doctors in Gujarat join IMA call for protest PTI (Press Trust India) " . . . nationwide protest called by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) on Friday against the Centres decision to allow post-graduate Ayurvedic physicians to perform certain types of surgeries after training." ""We urge the government to take into account the grievances of doctors against this mixopathy. The IMA will continue its agitation till our demands are met," said Saini. Mona Desai, a senior doctor from the city, said the government must not play with the health of people by allowing Ayurvedic doctors to do surgeries after a three-year course as principles of Ayurveda and modern medicines are different.
• February 3, 2021. Kerala: IMA protests Centre's decision to allow Ayurvedic practitioners to perform surgeries ANI
• June 2, 2021.Indian doctors protest herbal treatments being touted for COVID-19 National Geographic. "India’s Hindu nationalist ruling party has long touted the healing powers of yoga and Ayurveda and in 2014, soon after taking office, Prime Minister Modi upgraded a department dedicated to the study of traditional medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy, abbreviated as AYUSH."
• October 15, 2021. A fraud on the nation': critics blast Indian government's promotion of traditional medicine for COVID-19 Science "The Indian government's push for Ayurveda is in line with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's mission to revive traditional medicine. Since 2014, when the Hindu nationalist party was elected to power, it has upgraded a government department for alternative medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), and more than tripled its annual budget to almost $290 million."
• February 27, 2022. In last 7 years, attention has been paid to promotion of Ayurveda: PM Modi ANI "Friends, in last 7 years, a lot of attention has been paid to the promotion of Ayurveda in the country. The formation of the Ministry of AYUSH has further strengthened our resolve to popularise our traditional methods of medicine and health," said PM Narenda Modi.

In this edit, Hemantha you removed content sourced to the Lancet on the grounds of "two co-authors being Govt advisors". However being a government advisor is not a legitimate cause for rejecting the content and source. The government has a position and the IMA has a position and RS address both simultaneously. In a more recent edit, Hemantha, you again deleted content and sources, claiming that it was synth to address the reality that the government changed their policies and IMA responded to those policy changes, well supported by the above list. Cedar777 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read through your long post, but in both my removals I've explained the reasons. On Lancet, there is no reason why a 50+ word quote needs to be carried as is. Read MOS:QUOTE. Is there any such quote from IMA in the article? On the other edit, your edit didn't say IMA responded to those policy changes, it said it was a response to the government of India began to vocally advocate for traditional Indian medicine for which I'm still not seeing a reliable source. Hemantha (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of RS listed in this section. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body . . . but the body barely even mentions the IMA. Something more should be added regarding this situation. Cedar777 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources on the matter:

• December 8, 2020. ‘No point mixing all in one’ — IMA to fight govt move to allow Ayurveda doctors to do surgery ThePrint Under the 2016 regulations, postgraduate medical students of Ayurveda specialise in Shalakya Tantra, Shalya Tantra, and Prasuti and Stree Roga (Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Students passing these three disciplines are granted a master degree in surgery in Ayurveda.
• February 19, 2022. Don’t call practitioners of Indian medicine ‘quacks’, have rights under law, says Commission ThePrint The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) has said that calling registered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine (ISM) “quacks” is in violation of laws that safeguard their right to practice. . . . The Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) national president, Dr Sahajanand Prasad Singh, told ThePrint, “Registered practitioners, whether in allopathy or in the Indian System of Medicine, cannot be called quacks. So we are in agreement of that.” He added, “The IMA opposes mixology, in which Ayurveda doctors can conduct surgeries.”

  The lede is not accurate. It does not reflect what the national president of IMA says in 2022. It does not specify what type of practitioners they are referring to. The statement regarding the IMA should be modified in or removed from the lede and modified in the body. Cedar777 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede reverting

This.Ayurveda First there is no "active discussion" about this matter here, and secondly this text has absolutely nothing to do with "prediction" or WP:CRYSTAL. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s in this section “Serious problems with emphasis and tone tip the article into failing to maintain NPOV”

There have been 2 drafts regarding changes to the lede. Please weigh in there. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL for a market analysis . . . why predict the future value when there is plenty of data to show what the estimated value has been over several years or even decades. It’s preferable to present established facts rather than future predictions. Surely some RS has reported on this 10 or 20 years ago, which could be contrasted with the more updated numbers added from 2017. Are you trying to encourage investment. . . or simply provide the established facts? Cedar777 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Because those proposals were in a rather useless form, just throwing the whole text there instead of specifying what you want to change, I took the trouble to compare the proposal with the current version. It seems that it suggests that the following is added after around 80% of the population report using it:

, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases.[10] The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda. Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.[11] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.

The "no conclusive studies on the efficacy" bit is not acceptable, for reasons outlined above. The history part overlaps with the existing second paragraph, and I don't know if it is supposed to replace it. But "based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit" implies that such a "balance" makes sense. I'd rather say, "based on the concept of a balance between the mind, body, and spirit, which is supposed to be reuqired for health". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling @Cedar777 Found a reference for "no conclusive studies on the efficacy" check if this line "... efficacy was of which was never proved with standardized test" looks fine The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 1: Ancient Science Center Path (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This looks to be an interesting read. I did a quick search and see that the full text is available here. It might take a few days until I'll have a chance to read it fully and respond. Thanks for hunting down something recent from 2018. Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Center Path, The source is high quality: Philipp A. Maas, a scholar at Leipzig University and the chapter Indian Medicine and Ayurveda is in the compendium The Cambridge History of Science Volume 1 from 2018. This is a good find, solid, and certainly useful for the article in general and in several sections specifically. Cedar777 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "never proved". Implying that the default is the null hypothesis "no efficacy" and that the null hypothesis has not been refuted. That is good wording. But "no conclusive studies on the efficacy" is not, because of false balance - it suggests that we cannot decide if it is efficient or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for update in External links

There is a new "WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda" Citation: World Health Organization. (‎2022)‎. WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480

Please update the older one from link to version 2010 to the 2022 suggested in citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apedziwilk (talk • contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cedar777 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

https://main.ayush.gov.in/about-the-ministry/ Igloopupa (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a request for anything, therefore nothing done. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Large edit that relate to multiple disputes and introduce new ones

The changes in that single edit touch multiple talk discussions. I don't know where to reply, so just noting the extensive issues here.

• You've changed IMA describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks to considers unregistered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine who claim to practice medicine to be quacks with no consensus I can see on talk. A specific edit which did this was reverted just days ago.

• Article previously said - Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, using Meulenbeld reference, which said Indian medicine can boast a continuous history, spanning more than two millennia .... You've changed it to The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, referencing the same book. Please tell us where the claim is made.

• You added A Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda, Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period using Philipp Maas as reference. But note that he specifically disconnects Vedic medicine and Ayurveda - In spite of the similarity in names, Ayurveda is not a successor of Vedic medicine. This becomes evident from the fact that basic theoretical concepts of ayurvedic medicine are not mentioned in Vedic literature. Even with a lot of AGF, your addition is highly misleading at best.

• The next sentence added is Later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. The reference you've given actually says something quite opposite. The gist there (can't easily copy from the Google books image) is that in the post-vedic period where there was intermingling of Buddhism, Jainism and other diverse cultures, Ayurveda arose. Also note that P. Maas extensively deals with the origin of Ayurvedic concepts in Buddhism, and goes to say memory of Ayurveda’s origin in the milieu of the śramaṇa-religions was completely lost in the medical tradition. (where sramana, he says, is a religious complex that was different from and largely independent of the Vedic religion... śramaṇa- or ascetic religions of Greater Magadha, which were the ancestors of the Ājīvikism, Jainism, and Buddhism.) You've inverted the cause-influence chain to claim that Ayurveda influenced Buddhism. Your text is also contradicted by the existing text in body, The earliest recorded theoretical statements about the canonical models of disease in Ayurveda occur in the earliest Buddhist Canon

I was going to only raise objections, but on enumerating I'm finding serious errors; so I've reverted your edit. Please do not combine so many different issues in such a large edit; please use small, individual edits each of which concern single dispute. Hemantha (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Some notes to clear obvious counterpoints

• In the discussion above where some of these changes were discussed, no sources were presented at all to evaluate any of the proposed changes. So I had not commented in that thread.
• On the first millennium BC origin, body text The central theoretical ideas of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, and show parallels with Sāṅkhya and Vaiśeṣika philosophies, as well as with Buddhism and Jainism. itself seems to be WP:OR on a review of the two references. Also, taking just one part of that sentence for lead leaves out the nuance being hinted at by the clause on Buddhism and Jainism. Hemantha (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to revert what I contribute not because of inaccuracies, but because you do not agree with the academic sources that I cite and my NPOV, then I am not willing to continue trying to improve this page.

I wish you good luck with trying to make it accurate and historically true.

Bye and best wishes, Wujastyk 16:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Wujastyk 16:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wujastyk, my post above was about the bold edit to the lead which wasn't by you. In the above post, I was a bit confused about some of the things and I have stuck the part about Sankhya/Vaisesika parallels. As I said on your talk, the only issue I had with your earlier contribution was about the first millennium BC origin. I thoroughly appreciate your recent edit which was nuanced and clear. I think that edit was reverted basically due to the sectioning; content-wise I think it was quite great. Abhishek0831996, who reverted your edit, can perhaps clarify? Hemantha (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I didn't understand what was going on and got a bit prima-donna-ish :-)

Best, Wujastyk 20:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Wujastyk 20:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources that address colonialism as a force that shaped the current status of Ayurveda

India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal offer a BAMS degree. Much of the contention between the government of India and the IMA (see above) comes down to the legal definitions of who is a registered practitioner, i.e. how and why is medicine regulated the way that it is in the Asian Indian subcontinent. Several sources address the relevance & impact of colonialsm on the development of current forms/practices of Ayurveda: HRH, Maas/Cambridge, and Smith+Wujastyk. In this edit and prior to this edit, the 1st sentence listed HRH & included Maas in the content, but in reality, all 3 sources support this content. "External pressure from colonialism, during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become politically, conceptually, and commercially dominated by modern biomedicine, resulting in two major new variations described as "Modern Ayurveda" and "Global Ayurveda".(HRH)(Maas 2018)(Smith+Wujastyk intro) Although quotes and passages may help clarify a broader point made by a source, its best to read the full content to have an informed response. HRH gets into it in depth in the article The impact of colonial-era policies on health workforce regulation in India: lessons for contemporary reform but here's a bit more regarding what Maas says in the chapter Indian Medicine & Ayurveda in the Cambridge History of Science vol. 1, p. 533-534: "The association of yoga with modern medical science, for which there is evidence as early as 1889, can be seen as an expression of the self affirmation of Indian intellectuals against the ruling British colonial power, which tended to present the quickly developing bio medicine as a sign of the general superiority of British or western culture." And also "The encounter of traditional South Asian medicine with modern bio medicine from the time of the British colonization onwards led to major and unpreceded challenges to Ayurveda. Ayurveda became politically, commercially, and conceptually dominated by modern bio medicine, which called the very validity of ayurvedic medical theories, practices, and courses of medical education into question."

Wujastyk & Smith mention colonialism several times in the introduction, listing it as the first of 3 major challenges on page 1, going on to state on page 8 "Modern Ayurveda thus comes into being as a reaction to the introduction and patronage of a new medical system by the British colonialists."

Sentence 2 is also supported by multiple sources: Modern Ayurveda is geographically located in the Indian subcontinent and tends towards secularization through minimization of the magic and mythic aspects of Ayurveda.(Maas 2018)(Warrier 2009)(Smith+Wujastyk intro)

It is supported by both Maas p. 549 "Moreover, it de-emphasizes (or even eliminates) the magical and religious aspects of Ayurveda and aims at establishing Ayurveda as an empirical science in the modern Western sense, although the claim that Ayurveda has been a strictly empirical science in the modern Western meaning of the term throughout its history is hard to maintain on the basis of an evaluation of ayurvedic Sanskrit sources" and Warrier who states: "Ayurvedic theory, which traditionally does not make the same divisions and classifications, has thus been reconfigured to match the biomedical paradigm. Additionally, this formalised curriculum has been cleansed of all magical and ritualistic elements"

These scholars are describing the social and cultural forces that influenced the Current status of Ayurveda, describing colonialim as a key force. Hemantha, please discuss your concerns here at talk. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The line I changed was - External pressure from colonialism during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become ... dominated by modern biomedicine. For one, that framing goes much further than saying that colonialism was one of the forces. Moreover, all the quotes you've used, treat colonialization only as an agent for the introduction of a new system of knowledge, which in turn, they say, significantly challenged Ayurveda's theoretical underpinnings and caused its transformation. In other words, was it colonialization or was it the new system - which for example was a strict empirical science and did not depend upon the magical, mythical and religious aspects, that was the cause?

D Hardiman (the ref used by Sriram, Kumbhar et al's HRH article, for the tangential line on "traditional practitioners being at the mercy of 'new' system that arrived with colonialism") for eg, says - 1920s onwards, with Ayurveda being increasingly recognized by Indian provincial ministries. Many Ayurvedic physicians had high hopes for their practice once independence was gained. As it was, Ayurveda struggled to compete against biomedicine in independent India. If it struggled to compete in independent India, how could colonialization be a cause or force for dominance of modern medicine? Again, all of the other refs also align with this view. Hemantha (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not that Ayurveda “struggled to compete” but rather that it remained a separate system, that it continues to be differentiated even today from Western medicine with different schools, different degrees. What is the point of contention between the IMA and Ayurvedic practitioners? RS repeatedly say that it is “mixopathy”, i.e. ‘stay in your lane’ when driving (or at least ‘stay out of my lane’). The answer to why are there two systems of medicine in India (or the Indian subcontinent more broadly since other nations also offer these degrees in Ayurveda) can’t be that it simply struggled to compete. If sources are also pointing towards nationalism as another force at work here, why are the nationalists getting so much traction? Perhaps, in part, because the root grievances run deep. The exploitative legacy of colonialism remains offensive to some despite that there was invariably cultural exchange in both directions between the colonial power and those colonized. The article from the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine listed below addresses it most clearly and I mistakenly cited HRH w/o adding the JPM source when making the initial edit. All are relevant but the JPM article “Evolution of medical education in India” is the most clear. Cedar777 (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This additional article Evolution of medical education in India: The impact of colonialism from the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine also covers the connection of colonialism to the topic at length. Cedar777 (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

At the beginning of the 20th century, modern mainstream medicine was pretty much in its infancy. So, till then the colonists could bring the scientific method to India but not the evidence based medicine, which has appeared after the independence of India.

India, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia do not think that the scientific method is in itself a bad thing: they like to profit from scientific progress and technology, both economically and militarily. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section “The Clash of the Cultures” in the JPM source listed above? or to some other source tgeorgescu? Cedar777 (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to the fact that when evidence based medicine appeared, India was no longer a colony. So, EBM wasn't introduced by "colonists". tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor English

The theory and practice of Ayurveda >>> ARE <<< pseudoscientific, not "is". Likewise, it should be "It was reported in 2008[7] and again in 2018[78] that 80% of people in India used Ayurveda exclusively or combined with conventional Western medicine" and not the dreadful syntax displayed currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.22.185 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The suggested changes have been made. Cedar777 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In the future, please consider not labeling other editors' language as "dreadful," as this is WP:UNCIVIL. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's dreadfully silly, Pyrrho. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar777: The use of the linking verb "are" is incorrect since the noun addressed (Ayurveda) is a singular quantity. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. - hako9 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hako9, I think you might have this one wrong. "The arms and legs of a gorilla is strong"? The wit and joy of an editor wanes if they spend too long on grammar debates"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. - hako9 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the verb must agree with the compound subject which is definitively plural. You wouldn't say "The king and queen of Seattle is outraged." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Roxy the dog might have a different take. Why "is"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Consider -

• The theory and practice of Ayurveda IS pseudoscientific
• The theory and practices of Ayurveda ARE pseudoscientific

I am, as usual, correct. Practice and Ayurveda are both singular. One or the other, we should not mix singular and plural. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably the "of Ayurveda" isn't a factor here, so I assume you'd support "theory and practice IS". Would it be "The editor and admin IS in disagreement"? "The burger and milkshake IS part of a balanced breakfast"?

Could you point to a style guide to back up your (remarkably confident!) assertion? Britannica says

A compound subject whose parts are joined by and usually takes a plural verb regardless of whether those parts are plural or singular:

• TWO SINGULAR: The dog and the cat bother me.
• TWO PLURAL: The dogs and cats fight all the time.
• ONE SINGULAR, ONE PLURAL: Joe and the kids need me.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont do style guides, just grammar and a lifetime of pedantry, so I cannot point to one. "of Ayurveda" is a factor here so I'm not counting your red section above. Dogs, cats and kids make no sense in this matter. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"The king and queen of Spain is fond of turtles"? "The students and teacher of Plato is also famous"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

" turtles all the way down "? Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The taste and smell of good beer are two of my favourite sensations. Seriously, the 'theory and practice of thing' is a shorthand way of referring to the theory of thing and the practice of thing, which are two related but distinct things - plural is correct here. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

People I respect disagree with me. If it gets changed, I wont change it back. However, I shall continue to spell fibre this way, even in Merkian english articles. My fingers and the same pedantic lifetime wont allow it. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Weighing in: Theory and practice can be used as a single aspect of Ayurveda so verb agreement would be singular; "Theory and practice" can also be used as individual aspects of Ayurveda connected by "and" so plural is also correct; both are correct. The words "of Ayurveda" is not the subject of the sentence but object of a preposition-of-so we don't look for verb agreement there. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge that 'theory and practice' of 'thing' could be used as a noun phrase to refer to a singular thing, but I suggest that that would be an unusual construction, and one that would have to be supported by numerous instances of that particular noun phrase being used in sources before I'd consider it 'correct'. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indian government petitioned to sue us

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/plea-seeks-removal-of-defamatory-content-on-ayurveda-from-wikipedia-2950295

" A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent the Ministry of Ayush and the Ministry of IT and Electronics to take necessary steps that compel Wikimedia Foundation to remove references from the articles regarding Ayurveda published on its website." "The petition said that the matter of concern for the petitioner is that the second line of the article published on Wikipedia, which is hosted by the Respondent Wikimedia Foundation, terms Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific, and needlessly at the start of the article cites the statement of Indian Medial Association that describes Ayurvedic practitioners as Quacks. " Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160422023551/http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2015/07/homeopaths-to-jimmy-wales-please-rewrite-reality-to-make-us-not-wrong/ tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No one cares, really. We aren't going to start describing a pseudoscience as "not pseudoscience" because someone is annoyed by it, regardless of who they are. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That may be, but it could also mean an increase in the amount of disruption this page sees. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Nothing new either. Main page already semi-prot, we've done the same for the talk page before (and created a subpage) as well when it gets too bad. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I know, just saying. I don't think this was posted as any sort of "we're getting sued" sense, but more of a heads-up. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree about potential disruption, but the legal bit isn't going to have any real effect anytime soon, if at all. This is a trade group asking a government ministry to take action on their behalf,there's not even an actual lawsuit yet from what I'm reading. Anyway that bit is the foundation lawyers, if anything actually comes of it. The foundation has it flaws, but caving in to this kind of pressure is not one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  True, the problem will just come from individual editors, plus maybe OpIndia and Twitter attacking and maybe trying to dox current editors. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think this might also create a issue. Don’t call practitioners of Indian medicine ‘quacks’, have rights under law, says Commission . And IMA has also changed its stance. The Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) national president, Dr Sahajanand Prasad Singh, told ThePrint, “Registered practitioners, whether in allopathy or in the Indian System of Medicine, cannot be called quacks. So we are in agreement of that.” Center Path (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  In 99.99% of cases that's not an issue; Indian law has no effect on Wikipedia. The 0.01% of a problem might be if you were an identifiable user based in India, in which case it might not be a good idea to introduce text (to any article) similar to that being complained about. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed yes. That's a growing concern from what I observed here and there like (unrelated to Ayurveda but related to your comment) at Talk:Bhavana (actress)#Removal of content (2) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  If the IMA has changed its stance, then we can't really quote them as saying the practitioners are quacks. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. They need to be replaced by another source the Indian government cannot strong-arm into silence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Concur. Currently page looks outdated since it contains old stance of IMA. So till we get another source, shall we remove the existing outdated IMA stance as of now? Center Path (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think that would be prudent. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Center Path, why are you saying it's the old stance? The reference is still live on IMA website. The commission you linked is "The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine" who would obviously say that. And the IMA president's quote, at best supports a bit of rewording, not a wholesale removal. In the article, he continues a bit to clarify that AYUSH doctors should not go beyond their knowledge. Please revert since there is a lot of existing talk page consensus for the broad thrust of the IMA's position. Hemantha (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've heard that there is a groundswell of opinion in India to petition the Government to rename the Ministry of Ayush to "The Ministry of QUACKERY" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  As a publisher, the IMA is . . . well . . . rather odd. IMA also has Unveiling the Unsung Story of Dr. Ketan Desai published on their website. Desai, past president of the IMA, has repeatedly faced charges of corruption, as had the Medical Council of India, supported by the IMA, before MCI was ultimately dissolved and replaced by the National Medical Commission. Should Wikipedia begin describing Desai as an "unsung" hero in the third sentence of his biography just because IMA has published something on their website? Not unless third party independent sources describe him along those lines. As for the IMA itself, there are too many examples where they explicitly state that they are not opposed to Ayurveda itself but to "mixopathy". The IMA website has a whole list of articles dedicated to the topic of "mixopathy" here. In their own words from a letter to Modi also listed on that page: "Indian Medical association proudly acknowledge, appreciate and welcome rich traditional treasures of Indian medicine like AYURVEDA and wish and much more dedicated research, focused uncovering the innate treasures of this system and make it a more people friendly and replicable evidenced based science."[3]. For an example of a 3rd party source, see the Indian Express who stated "IMA doctors insist that they are not opposed to the practitioners of the ancient system of medicine."[4] Cedar777 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious problems with emphasis and tone tip the article into failing to maintain NPOV

After seeing the tone of the article I was not at all surprised at the conflict in the talk page.

While I agree that those attempting to edit the page in ways that make Ayurveda sound more scientifically backed than it is are in the wrong, it seems like a priority on holding the line against them has pushed the article to the point of violating guidelines around [soapboxing],[advocacy], and maintaining a [neutral point of view.]

As written the emphasis on it being unscientific is so prominent that the page reads more like an argument for why Ayurveda is pseudoscientific quackery (i.e. advocacy and soapboxing) than a neutral explanation of what it is. The page on [Iranian traditional medicine] presents a great example of a better way to address such topics. It has an acknowledgement of the pseudoscientific streams among modern practitioners in the introduction (and could maybe stand to mention them more in a dedicated section), but the primary focus of the page remains a very thorough and detailed description of the discipline, set in its proper contexts historically and in contemporary times.

JagKun (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The opening of the lead is indeed heavy handed. But as you may be aware, there are groups of editors who for some reason or another like it to be heavy handed and it's difficult to suggest, let alone make, any changes. If you feel strongly enough about it, I suggest finding a specific change you'd like to make, requesting it here on the Talk Page, and if the conversation is unproductive, creating a Request for Comment, so independent editors can weigh in. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Ayurveda isn't that there are "pseudoscientific streams among modern practitioners", it's that the theory and principles are psuedoscientific, being based on a theory of illness being caused by one's humours being out of balance, like pre-scientific medicine in the west. If Ayurvedic preparations are effective for the treatment of a disease, it's in spite of, not because of, the 'science' behind it. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all true. And also not really what's being discussed. I was agreeing that the tone of the lead is so heavy handed that it comes off as non-NPOV, and reads like a warning label, not an encyclopedia. Britannica's article is an example of how to write a lead. Another example, from Hopkin's, describes it neutrally: Ayurveda, a natural system of medicine, originated in India more than 3,000 years ago. The term Ayurveda is derived from the Sanskrit words ayur (life) and veda (science or knowledge). Thus, Ayurveda translates to knowledge of life. Based on the idea that disease is due to an imbalance or stress in a person's consciousness, Ayurveda encourages certain lifestyle interventions and natural therapies to regain a balance between the body, mind, spirit, and the environment. The current lead is cartoonish, like a PR piece from the anti-quack lobby. It's not about what Ayurveda is or is not, it's about writing in an encyclopedic tone. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that mainstream medicine has said farewell to childish superstition, be it Christian, Jewish, Medieval European, or Greek-Roman. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JagKun and Pyrrho the Skipper that the lede of this article is currently in poor condition and is not aligned with NPOV. Cedar777 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that if we're talking about a system of treatment for which there is little to no evidence of its efficacy, that should be one of the most important parts of the lead - the question of how that is written should be secondary. "Avurdeya is pseudoscientific" is all very well - it obviously is - but it really needs to be more descriptive. Compare Homeopathy, for example. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It could be improved just by removing the third sentence, which is redundant and awkward when placed after the second sentence. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the whole lead could do with re-writing, to be honest. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs go into too much detail about the concepts behind Ayurveda, much of which probably belongs in the main part of the article, and are somewhat confusing, bouncing around between concepts. Meanwhile, the fifth paragraph sort of leads on from the first one in tone. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Here's an example of how I might rewrite it from a copy edit standpoint, but I haven't read the article thouroughly enough to summarize it:

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there is no good evidence that it is effective for treating any disease.

The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts.

Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Preparations are typically based on herbal compounds, minerals, and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, more coherent than the current one. Center Path (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The proposed text would improve a number of aspects of the lede. Three additional considerations:

One, either omit the ending of the first paragraph "though there is no good evidence that it is effective for treating any disease" or modify it to better reflect the source, Cancer Research UK, to clarify they state that there is no scientific evidence it is effective for treating cancer.

Two, shift the second to last sentence to emphasize Ayurvedic preparations are primarily herbal (90%) . . . Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal.

And three, clarify that Ayurveda involves preventative and curative practicies, with the emphasis on prevention and balance. Per WebMD[What Is Ayurveda?]: Ayurveda is "based on the belief that health and wellness depend on a delicate balance between the mind, body, and spirit. Its main goal is to promote good health, not fight disease. But treatments may be geared towards specific health problems." i.e., Ayurveda is predominantly preventative in focus. Perhaps something along these lines could be incorporated into or added at the end of the third paragraph: Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit. Cedar777 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Also we could add the fact that Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda. Center Path (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a modified draft of the above suggested lede that incorporates the concerns raised. I've omitted the content sourced to Cancer Research UK and substitued an article from National Geographic. (added to draft as its a new source. For contentious subjects, I support inline citations for all statements in the lede as global readers are likely to disagree and will continue to challenge the material. Better if readers use the inline cites to fact check for themselves to see exactly what the root source of each statement is and how it is used in the text of an article.)

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases.[5]

The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda.

Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.[6] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.

While there are a number of areas that could stand for further refinement, this would substantially improve the tone of the lede and move it much closer to NPOV than the current description. Cedar777 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy is a layman's way of saying there is no evidence for its efficacy. Using a journalistic source for this will not do; you'll need WP:MEDRS, and those sources put it another way. Inefficiency is the default position, especially since there is no reason why it should work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that Cancer Research UK is a WP:MEDRS source? If not, what qualified source are you suggesting the article use instead? Cedar777 (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. I am just saying that your journalistic source is not good enough for stuff like that. The usefulness of CRUK and the existence of MEDRS sources are different questions. You know, it's possible to talk about one thing at a time. That is the way discussions should work, without people changing the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion earlier in this thread on suggested revisions to lede per NPOV.Cedar777 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

See discussions in the archive or whatever. Journalistic sources are not good enough for that sort of statement, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar777 I too feel its better to use secondary research source(like a scientific research review paper) to the validate that claim. Center Path (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With the word "too", you are misrepresenting what I said in two ways. I don't "feel" that secondary scientific sources are better, the Wikipedia guidelines say they are. And I would be very surprised if that claim were validated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So You are calling this scientific approach simply telling there is not reason for Ayurveda to work! What kind of statement it is? Have you tried, have you studied? have you done anything regarding understanding the Ayurvedic system. SHEKHARTV (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any reliable sources to support you? This article, and what it says, is supported by multiple sources, one hundred and seventy five of them at the moment. you'll need some pretty powerful ones that counter those already there. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That you for taking the lead on improving the article @Cedar777. I didn't have a chance to check back in on it after my initial comment and was pleasantly surprised to see how much better the current draft was when I looked in on it. JagKun (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem at hand is that, unfortunately, some of the lowest quality sources are currently found in the article’s lede. Several editors above recognize that there is a problem with the lede. Where source quality is an issue there are the usual options: omit, revise, or replace the content with better quality sources. Cedar777 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling@Cedar777 Agree. Its hard to find good reference for a broad topic "chronic or infectious diseases". so instead, lets break them down into individual chronic diseases(like cancer, thyroid, diabetes etc.) Find secondary sources against each them and tag all of them. Center Path (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete the statement "The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks". Before you call any science psudo one must be having thorough knowledge about the subject. Simply calling it pseudoscience is childish talk. If Ayurvedic doctor claims to have done surgery you can call him quack but if he treats with medicine following Ayurvedic principles he will definitely do more good to the patient than harm. That truth must be respected. SHEKHARTV (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No. You have provided no sources to support your claim that Ayu is not Pseudoscientific. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Following up here regarding this edit where the new content added to the lede was reverted but retained in the body. I am not opposed to including financial information about Ayurveda and verifiable numbers from the last 5-10-15-20 years showing growth. However, the sourcing needs to be better and more numerous/diverse before there is a legitmate argument for adding it to the lede of a lengthy article. Proposed changes to the lede are discussed in this thread above.Cedar777 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Please delete the statement "The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks"

The Indian medical association does not consider Ayurveda as quack medicine. The statement goes as "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."

Reference: Indian Medical Association. 2604:3D09:8C83:42B0:4D9:5E69:DEB:B406 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There was a large RFC on this wording. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please delete the statement "The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks" I fully agree. It must be immediately corrected. Not at all in line with neutrality of the article being published in Wiki SHEKHARTV (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Then provide reliable sources to support your request, otherwise it cannot be implemented. thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, regarding the IMA statement, consensus below seems to be to remove it; it was done to the lead (with no opposition), and they just missed a paragraph. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. It's just getting to me today. sorry. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

The Ayurveda is globally recognised as an Alternative system of medicine of Indian origin. The epistemology of Ayurveda is based on the relation between microcosm and macrocosm involving five basic elements (mahabhoota), three dynamic principles similar to humors (dosha)concept.In general, Ayurveda is experiential, intuitive and holistic, whereas that of the modern medicine is based more on experimental, analytical and reductive reasoning. The relationship between Ayurveda and modern science is similar to the relationship between the ‘whole’ and the ‘parts’, where the sum of the parts need not be equal to the whole [16]. Modern medicine is based more on rationalism, reductionism with deeper understanding of molecules, cells, organs or diseases as parts. In the process, however, the sight of the whole person seems to have been somewhat neglected. Shikha82 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit request is? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, the actual thing, is that medicine effects effective treatment, and ayu cannot do that, despite all the “holistic” sum of the parts handwaving. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Is there any proof whether Ayurveda is pseudo scientific?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ayurveda is not necessarily pseudo scientific. Some of the remedies are quite logical I feel. They had an idea of how human anatomy works. Charaka and Sushruta took the name of God in treatments only to keep the faith of people in their medicine. It is a bad allegation about a country's previous medical studies. 2409:4060:2E80:67BF:0:0:4B0B:D207 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. See the three references cited after the word "pseudoscientific" in the lead of the article. Thanks. - Roxy the English speaking dog 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

We cannot say that there is no concrete scientific proof as of now based on only 3 handpicked references which are written by authors who has some inherent bias in their study, there are several scientific studies are being done right now which can counter this claim. "A few scientists are testing the fundamentals of Ayurveda using genetic markers and nanotechnology analysis to see if the ancient medical system's efficacy can be explained." https://scroll.in/article/768652/how-scientists-are-explaining-ancient-ayurvedic-wisdom-using-modern-scientific-tools 164.44.0.60 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

When they publish their findings we can take notice. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Or rather, when they publish their findings and we see evidence that the scientific community considers them relevant, we can take notice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you guys read the article fully, they have published the study. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are "being done right now" they have not been finished, or peer reviewed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually referring to the line "The results of the study were recently published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports" in the above mentioned article. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And the rest of the sentence ", which show the answer might very well be yes.", so it does not say it works or can be explained, just that it might. If we can't use three definite statements to say it is, we can't use 1 vague one to say it is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that since 'ayurveda works' is not a scientific hypothesis, it cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. Specific claims regarding particular aspects of ayurvedic practice may possibly be capable of scientific testing, but even if were it to be shown that they 'worked' it wouldn't be proof for anything more general. This reflects one of the ways one distinguishes between science and pseudoscience - the latter tends to be built around sweeping claims, demands that such claims be 'disproven', and assertions that some minor piece of research 'proves' that the entire system is valid. If there is anything of utility in a specific ayurvedic 'medicine' (which is of course entirely possible, given the broad range of things that have been described as such) it needs to be properly tested, on its own merits. Not as 'ayurveda', but as medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Referenced Nature article is a reputable journal accepted in wiki scientific community. Only concern is its premature to label a system such and such when it is under active area of research. Its better to remove labels(like pseudoscientific/scientific) until we get definite confirmation from scientific community. Center Path (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Until the practice is forgotten entirely - which is unlikely since pseudoscience never die out completely - there will always be superstitious people who believe in it and pay for research. It will always be under active area of research, just as homeopathy, acupuncture and every other quackery in the world. The scientific community has already spoken, and we reflect what it says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Active area of research in Homeopathy has many scientific studies which have statistically proven that they are equivalent to placebo. Could you please share such scientific studies for Ayurveda? 164.44.0.60 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you any examples of such studies? - Roxy the English speaking dog 07:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already hyperlinked the study in the above comment. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Which "show the answer might well be yes", it does not say it works, only that it might work. This is not enough to overturn studies to say it is pseudo-scientific. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Some miscommunication is happening, I am actually replying to @Roxy the dog to this comment "Active area of research in Homeopathy has many scientific studies which have statistically proven that they are equivalent to placebo. Could you please share such scientific studies for Ayurveda?" For studies I have hyperlinked this one -https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125589/ 164.44.0.60 (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.", I am unsure if this is actually supportive of the idea homoeopathy (not Ayurveda) works. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am asking "Whether do we have such studies for Ayurveda?" 164.44.0.60 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking, are you asking for studies that say Ayurveda is no better than a placebo? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we need scientific studies to back up the claim that ayurveda is pseudoscientific, As @Hob Gadling pointed out we reflect what scientific community says. In one end of the spectrum in active area of scientific research we have huge chunk of research which shows the scientific aspects of ayurveda, so we need the other end of research spectrum to balance it or totally refute it. As simple as that. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In the lede with have three books, by academics and scientists calling it Pseudoscience. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen nothing posted in this thread to cause me to doubt their findings. This is now just going round in circles. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Subjective remarks by academics and scientist are not enough, we need objective assessment which could done only through scientific studies. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you know they did not? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, how do you know the remarks are subjective? (BTW, there is no need to ping me. I have a watchlist.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As you can clearly see in the referenced text, all the 3 referenced authors do not cite scientific studies to back up their claim. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Scientists are under no obligation to conduct 'scientific studies' on assertions that something or other isn't 'pseudoscience'. If people claim that there is science involved, the burden of proof is on them to (a) make clear exactly what the hypothesis is (which requires specificity and precision, not vague labels like 'ayuverda') and (b) provide evidence that the specific hypothesis has been tested, and that such testing is capable of independent replication. Without that, it is pseudoscience by default. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why did scientist conduct this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125589/ to prove homeopathy equivalent to placebo? They could have taken that by default. They needed empirical evidence. We need such evidence for Ayurveda as well. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not needed for homeopathy either. There is so much evidence against it that any further research is a waste of time and money. It is also so implausible that even the first study on whether homeopathy is effective was a waste of time and money. Still there are lots of superstitious people who want to waste their money and other people's time on this. Are we finished here now? This is also a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Two centuries ago, if someone said “Don’t live near stagnant water, you will become sick.” ; it could have been easily passed as a superstition.

But today we know

stagnant water → mosquitoes → malaria → sick.

Something that was superstition once upon a time, is no longer a superstition today.

After we know the logic, it is no longer a superstition.

If we cannot find the logic, there are two possibilities : either the statement is actually a superstition or science is yet to find the logic (which is the case here).

Please keep the above in mind before dumping something as superstition 49.207.194.44 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So you think that the reason why you did not succeed in convincing us is that everybody here, and the people who wrote the reliable sources we use, are so incredibly stupid that they are not aware of the fact that science changes. It may come as a surprise to you, but you are wrong. We all know it, and the reason why that fact is not very relevant is that at every time, the consensus is based on what we know at the time, and not on what we will know in the future. Science cannot work any other way. Can we stop this now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with you and I apologize, if it sounded harsh. Not to hurt you, I was just stressing the point. 49.207.194.44 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant, what you need is sources saying it is scientific, as we have sources saying it is not. This is now entering into wp:temditious territory, and I suggest it is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why did scientist conduct this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125589/ to prove homeopathy equivalent to placebo? Because they were commissioned to conduct it by the Swiss government. But, as has been pointed out, this is completely irrelevant here. We have perfectly appropriate sources for the statement. Brunton (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We can end this discussion right now and leave pseudoscientific label in the article, if you guys show single scientific evidence (backed up by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study) against Ayurveda. That's all. 164.44.0.60 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is and there will be no serious research if putting coconut oil in your nose makes you immune from Covid, nor any research if cow dung mixed with cow urine heals Covid. Nobody will ever research such craps, preposterous as it is on its face.

And don't think this only applies to India: modern medicine has relegated to the garbage bin of superstition centuries-old Western medical traditions. We're not discriminating against Indians, nor against the Chinese. Superstition has no place in modern medicine. As the saying goes, superstition brings bad luck.

We're equally merciless with all medical superstitions, be them Indian, Chinese, or Western. WP:MEDRS-based editors take no prisoners, because medical superstitions are harmful and dangerous.

This is an intellectually liberated encyclopedia, as in What Is Enlightenment?, so we show superstition the door. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing now. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of source Cancer Research UK for inaccurate and outdated statements

The article uses the source Cancer Research UK (CRUK) to make several statements derived directly from the Ayurveda page on the organization's website. First, it is used in the lede to say "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease." (itallics mine). This statement is not accurate per language currently used by the CRUK website to discuss Ayurveda. Per WP:MEDDATE which advises to "prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic", the article needs to reflect what the charity states in 2022 rather than 2018. Cancer Research UK now states "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer." For wikipeida I propose, at minimum, these changes: good --> scientific; any disease --> cancer; for a more accurate representation when using this source. It is equally important to note that CRUK also covers quite a lot of ground regarding Ayurveda on the very same webpage, (doing perhaps a better job than Wikipedia to provide a neutral overview of what Ayurveda is). CRUK emphasizes in their Research into Ayurvedic treatment section:

• "Researchers have found that some Ayurvedic treatments can help relieve cancer symptoms. It can also improve quality of life. For example, massage can lower stress and help you to relax. Meditation can reduce anxiety, lower blood pressure, and boost general wellbeing.
• Studies have shown that yoga helps lymphoma patients sleep better. It also reduces stress in people with breast or prostate cancer.
• Ayurvedic medicine uses more than 200 herbs and plants. Researchers have looked at some compounds used in Ayurvedic medicine in the laboratory. They tested them on animals.
• They found that some might help to slow the growth of cancer in animals. But, there is no evidence that Ayurvedic medicine can prevent, treat or cure cancer in humans.
• We won't know until we carry out large randomised clinical trials."

CRUK is again used in the Wikipedia article body for Ayurveda under the section Classification and efficacy to state: "Cancer Research UK, a charity, states that there is no evidence that ayurvedic medicine helps treat cancer in people, and some Ayurvedic drugs contain toxic substances or interact with legitimate cancer drugs in a harmful way." The language "legitimate" is not used by CRUK, rather the organization describes the cancer drugs as "conventional". It states in the section Why people with cancer use it "These treatments could be harmful to your health or interfere with conventional treatment such as cancer drugs and radiotherapy." It isn't necessary to editorialize the source by introdcing the value-laden words "good" and "legitimate", NEITHER of which are used by CRUK. Proposed change to body text to better align w/ the CRUK source and with NPOV: "Cancer Research UK states that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer. While the organization recongnizes that researchers have found that some Ayurvedic treatments can help relive cancer symptoms, it cautions that Ayurvedic preparations may contain toxic substances that can negatively interact with conventional cancer drugs." Cedar777 (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not on the same topic, and there is no indication the change would have been made based on updated information, so WP:MEDDATE doesn't apply. It's a narrower statement now, presumably because the website is focused on cancer, but that doesn't make the old statement invalid. Evidence needs to be scientific to be good, so no scientific evidence trivially means no good evidence, but I'm fine with that replacement if that's what others prefer. Similarly, "conventional" drugs are "legitimate" drugs because they have demonstrated their efficacy in scientific studies. --mfb (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a serious encyclopedia, so we may be required to say something more like "no good evidence" would be appropriate, rather than "no scientific evidence" which opens us to FRINGE problems. --Hipal (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• CRUK is super-strong WP:MEDRS and a golden source. I'd be fine with "no good evidence" as wording. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

CRUK is independent, (a charity being a more specific type of non-profit org) and it publishes research on par with many other instutitions recognized in the field. It's listed by Nature as one of the top 200 cancer research organizations in the world: here. By Nature's criteria, it's ranked 149/200 globally based on article share between 2015—2019. Major research universities in the top 25 include Harvard, Stanford, Univeristy of Toronto, Cambridge University.

Several editors have raised WP:MEDRS as an essential policy to uphold in this topic area. That policy states in the first line: Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. (italics mine) The discussion topic is that the source, CRUK, is using different language now on their website, i.e., Wikipedia does not use the current language. It's no longer accurate to say that "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease" by citing an outdated reference to the CRUK website that currently limits their scope to their area of expertise: cancer. The same CRUK webpage, titled Ayurvedic Medicine, describes the topic in their Research on Ayurveda section in a more nuanced and complex way, as listed in the bulleted section above. Essentially, CRUK acknowledges there are some benefits within ayurveda as it can improve qualtiy of life, boost general wellbeing, and relieve cancer symptoms (their words not mine). It also addresses the legitimate concerns with safety and lack of testing. The language in the article should better reflect what the source actually says in 2022. Cedar777 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And what distinguishes the best quality of publishing here? Presumably and in general, the order of reliability in publishing increases from info on a wepage --> to official document w/ medical guidelines --> to reliable, third-party peer review journals aggregating collective research. It appears that the webpage from CRUK on Ayurvedic Medicine offers guidelines for patients rather than medical guidelines. Regardless, the language in the article should be modified to better reflect what CRUK actually says and better still if it could be sourced to actual guidelines from CRUK. If an editor wants the statment to be all encompasing then why not find the best possible quality of sourcing with current research that makes those exact statements regarding all disease? Cedar777 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for Ayurveda, rather the opposite. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd agree (as former Wikipedian in residence there) that CRUK is an RS, but if they have changed the language on their page slightly, we should use the latest version. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, just use what the source says. That's our job as editors. If the source was updated to specify cancer, than say cancer. If there is some other source that is more broad, use that source. We don't know the reason why the source was updated, we just know that the current version is what CRUK is publishing. We should not speculate as to why they updated it simply so that we can use an outdated version of the page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Pyrrho the Skipper and Johnbod: But the new wording by Hipal is not supported by source, nor the quote he inserted as "or any other disease". I hope Hipal can restore the wording from last stable version that "Cancer Research UK has stated that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurveda is effective to treat or cure cancer." And fix the quotation too. Azuredivay (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the good points and explanations.

  I've mostly reverted, keeping "no good evidence" while removing "to prove" to better summarize.

  What did we get wrong in the quotation? --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Use desktop Wiki version and search for "or any other disease" after opening this link. Thanks for fixing that with your new edits. Azuredivay (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The CRUK Wikipedia page has been cleaned up since the start of this thread in March 2022 and is no longer flagged w/ a cleanup reads-like-press-release template as it was here. Identifying and Wiki linking CRUK can only help readers verify and qualify it as a respectable organization. I see no reason to omit the mention of it. It just creates confusion to refer to the acronym CRUK when quoting it in the body w/o breaking down what CRUK is: Cancer Research UK.

As for other sources on the topic, the American Cancer Society no longer publishes basic info on their website about Ayurveda. If I have missed it, please add a link to the appropriate page here at talk. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center does have a page devoted to Ayurveda which mirrors the broader advice provided by CRUK; It both warns of the metals & points out that there are some benefits in quite a similar fashion as CRUK's Ayurveda page. Please see "Mechanism of Action" under "For Healthcare Professionals" on the MSKCC page and the full references provided there. Here is what they say:

"Maharasnadi Quathar, a medicinal used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, increases antioxidant enzyme activity, decreases TBARS generation, and improves symptoms in human subjects (16). Many of the frequently used herbs, such as ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), guggul (Commiphora mukul), Boswellia (Boswellia serrata), gotu kola (Centella asiatica), curcumin (Curcuma longa), ginger (Zingiber officinale), aloe (Aloe barbadensis), and garlic (Allium sativum), have been studied extensively in vitro and in vivo, and show antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, or anti-inflammatory properties."

"Herbs often used to treat diabetes, Gymnema sylvestre, Momordica charantia, fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), Coccinia indica, and Pterocarpus marsupium, show hypoglycemic activity in vitro and in vivo. Mucuna pruriens, used in preparations for Parkinson’s disease, contains L-dopa (17). Rasayana herbs, such as ashwagandha, Asparagus racemosus, Emblica officinalis, Piper longum, and Terminalia chebula that are said to promote positive health showed immunostimulant and adaptogenic activities in an animal study (18). Ayurvedic gold preparations (eg, Swarna Bhasma) have antioxidant and restorative effects in animal models of ischemia (19). The herbal mixtures Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 and -5 have antioxidant properties, inhibit LDL oxidation in vitro, inhibit platelet aggregation, and cause a reduction in aortic arch atheroma in hyperlipidemic rabbits (20)."

"An in vitro study investigated the activity of extracts from eight plants that are traditionally used as immunomodulators in Ayurvedic medicine against HIV: Allium sativum, Asparagus racemosus, Coleus forskohlii, Emblica officinalis, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Piper longum, Tinospora cordifolia and Withania somnifera (21). The extracts significantly reduced viral production in human lymphoid CEM-GFP cells infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-INL4)."

The Wikipedia article needs to keep highlighting the dangers regarding heavy metals as CRUK and Sloan Kettering do, but it is important to also reflect what these sources are actually saying in 2022 about the existing research with regards to benefits to some Ayurvedic herbs. Cedar777 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We need to avoid conflating different issues. The fact that some herbs used in Ayurveda may have benefits does not mean that Ayurveda, as a system, is effective. Brunton (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

MSKCC does not limit their assessment and published guidelines to herbs. They state on their Ayurveda page under the section "For Healthcare Professionals: Clinical Summary" Lifestyle changes and mind-body modalities are also a core component of Ayurveda. Yoga has been shown to improve sleep, mood, and quality of life, and reduce stress in cancer patients both during treatment and throughout survivorship. The effects of meditation in reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and enhancing well-being both in the general population and in oncology settings have also been confirmed. CRUK on their page for Ayurveda similarly recognizes that the yoga and meditation components of Ayurveda offer benefits to cancer patients. Ayurveda, as a system, has beneficial aspects and problematic aspects. If it were a useless system devoid of beneficial practices, CRUK and MSKCC would have statements to reflect that. Both institutions stress that some of the practices have value that are supported by evidence whereas other aspects are not supported by evidence. Editors need to be careful to avoid distorting sources to the extent that they may be depriving readers from recognizing that some Ayurveda practices are supported by the MEDRS sources CRUK and MSKCC to offer quality of life benefits to cancer patients. Cedar777 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"yoga and meditation", not Ayurveda. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A classic ‘bait and switch’. Brunton (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . that's an odd comment. Who or what is doing the "bait and switch"? Are you suggesting that CRUK and MSKCC are erroneously addressing yoga and meditation out of context on a specific page listing they each have created for Ayurveda? Cedar777 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The “bait and switch” is using yoga and meditation as a proxy for Ayurveda. Brunton (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Many are unaware of the fact that Yoga is integral part of Ayurvedic treatment. Yoga is the spiritual face of Ayurveda and Ayurveda is the physical face of yoga. Both are actually two sides of same coin. https://theprint.in/india/ayurveda-yoga-are-two-sides-of-same-coin-says-aiia-tanuja-narsi/906268/ Center Path (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, Ayurveda is thousands of years old, while Yoga, construed as Hindu gymnastics, is less than two centuries old.

And yes, there is an older Yoga tradition, but it has virtually nothing to do with gymnastics.

See Yoga as exercise and Postural yoga in India. I frankly don't know what Patanjali has to do with either. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, as it is Yoga that seems to have an effect, not the rest of it. So (in essence) you can achieve the same results by just doing Yoga. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats exactly true. we can achieve the some of results produced by medicine by doing specific sequence of yoga. Here Ayurveda uses yoga as a tool/method to cure the imbalance. What yoga that you need to do for curing specific disease is governed by ayurvedic principles based on body type. i.e if there is a disease due to imbalance in pitta and person is ectomorph(vata), then there is specific yoga sequence needs to be practiced to rectify the imbalance. https://www.yogavedainstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/David-Frawley-Sandra-Summerfield-Kozak-Yoga-For-Your-Type-An-Ayurvedic-Approach-To-Your-Asana-Practice-autoocr.pdf Center Path (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The idea that any kind of yoga can cure disease is pure quackery, and doshas do not exist. Yoga's effects are not generally distinguishable from other forms of physical therapy (pilates, stretching, etc.) which is why they can be co-considered in academic study e.g.[7] Yoga is not a proxy for ayurveda as a whole either. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

1)Not any kind of yoga, it needs to be personalized based on body type/disease as I stated earlier.

2)Doshas do exist and it is proved by scientific study i. (we had already discussed this before)

3)Yoga is not proxy for Ayurveda, it is used by ayurveda as one form of therapy (other ayuvedic therapies which people are familiar are herbal medicines, special diets, massage etc.) This mode of therapy is given for the people who are able to do, since everyone can not do it.

Please refrain from commenting the subject subjectively (like pure quackery) without proper reference. Center Path (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The quack claim that yoga "cures disease" is the exceptional claim which requires evidence. Reversing the burden of evidence is also a hallmark of pseudoscience. A junk source does not "prove" doshas exist; they do not, and Wikipedia accordingly says so in the Dosha article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Center Path: To cut the craps, this is not a website whereupon you can remove the label "quackery" from Ayurveda. You will never prevail here, so you'd better stop trying. Your fight is futile. This seems increasingly like an argument about desiccating the Pacific Ocean. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The topic raised is that we have two sources CRUK and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center that have dedicated webpages that cover the subject of this article: Ayurveda. Here they are again for convenience. CRUK[8] & MSKCC[9] What they say and how they say it is relevant. They are both respected instutions for cancer research. They cover the current understanding and practice of ayurveda for patients and medical providers, a discussion which includes both herbs and their mechanisims as well as the practices of yoga and meditation within the context of Ayurveda. CRUK and MSKCC speak with balance and avoid inflamatory language on the topic, something which Wikipedia articles should also aspire to. Cedar777 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact MSKCC is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Other publications do not have Wikipedia's requirement for NPOV, particularly in regard to WP:FRINGE topics. Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Example why this is the case: [10] Clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate benefits of homeopathy, but data are limited and results are inconclusive. More research is needed. Bollocks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To point out, that non of the respective writers of the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience are nither scientists nor Ayurveda practitioners. How their words are relevant if they are no where related to medicine and it's uses. Like Wikipedia it's sources are also highly unreliable. From news articles to blogs all are reliable sources for Wikipedia editors as long as it suits their narrative. Out of topic but food for thought. Vis14620 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, see WP:PARITY. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vis14620 Completely agree with you. Biased articles like these is tarnishing the image of wikipedia as reliable source of information. 2406:7400:56:CA21:C874:9102:5E81:C297 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Allison B. Kaufman is Research Scientist in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, James C. Kaufman is a Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. At that, I stopped checking if two of them are in fact professors (one of science, it's in their title) that is enough to say they are qualified to make judgments about this, and being a practitioner is a COI. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as an encyclopeadia, depends on its sourcing to support content, not on who authored the sources. So to be compliant we go to reliable journals to look for reviews or a meta analysis, and also text books, to support content that is health related. It's a given that most of the authors of the papers in journals will be credible. The problem with health-related content is that in the beginning, research could be just a single paper or a preliminary exploration when we need to see that theories or the theory a paper explores have been replicated and established. Non- medical people use Wikipedia to diagnose themselves (unfortunately) so a single, possibly exploratory result is not necessarily a safe support for non-medical or even the medically trained. Whether Ayurveda is useful is not the issue, but whether what we say here on Wikipedia about Ayurveda is supported by robust MEDRS sources, is. I understand the frustration and editor can feel when presenting information that other editors will not support. I remind myself that first, above all Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia, which provides summaries of published knowledge not a place to diagnose or present information that does not have robust compliant support which most often means published content and not ideas, so called facts, or "truth". In some cases, in a few years, there may be such research on Ayurveda but right now, not so much. Because we are dealing with health we have to be hyper-cautious about what we present, thus, reliable content for health-related content and our MEDRS guides. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil I agree with you and like you said in a few years, there may be more research on Ayurveda. But the current narrative in the article seems more like its been done and dusted. 2406:7400:56:42A1:FC29:CBE0:65CE:E88A (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As somebody stated before, some Ayurveda remedies may prove effective, but that does not mean that Ayurveda as a whole has been endorsed by mainstream science. Ayurveda is Ancient superstition containing a few nuggets of truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, Ayurveda is mixed with superstition since its an ancient traditional practice. But the narrative should separate the nugget/part which is actually true(validated by science) and superstition part. 2406:7400:56:42A1:3561:602A:5B02:FFC6 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Exhaustively testing every Ayurveda remedy/intervention would cost many billions US dollars. If not trillions. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And we do, in the articles on those topics, we say those things work. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That is fine. But the reader is not finding any hint of that at the beginning of this main article. It needs slight change in narrative which incorporates that fact. 2406:7400:56:42A1:F5E1:89DB:28FD:3DFB (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Becasue this article is about Ayurveda, not those other treatments/procedures. Thus it would be undue to give it any kind of presence in the lede. I mean what would you want to say, "But some of the practices use by Ayurveda practitioners have to be found to be medically beneficial"? What real use is that to the reader? Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If we are giving importance to cancer treatment out of blue in the lede, I think there is no issue in that. 2406:7400:56:ABB1:49F6:D367:1260:47A7 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That is because it (as a treatment) is being used to treat cancer. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Then we should also add things where it actually works and validated by science in lede. Reader should be aware of both of them (things which do not have evidence and the ones which are proved by science). 2406:7400:56:ABB1:10C:95E:B7D6:A44F (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Becasue this article is about Ayurveda, not those other treatments/procedures. So a user coming here will want to know about Ayurveda specifically. 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd reiterate. "Science" on health related articles means WP:MEDRS compliant and this equals meta analysis, reviews, medical school level textbooks and not single studies no matter how compelling. I don't necessarily agree with the wording of the opening paragraph in total but that content has a long far reaching consensus and of course Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia that relies on a collaborative community. If there is consensus on something in general we have to back away and depend on the community agreement whether we think it's accurate or not. There is consensus here for the lead so... Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil I'm specifically questioning the sources which are not related (even remotely) to the specific subject. And for your "community agreement consensus" my comment on Wikipedia and its sources being highly unreliable stands undisputed. Wikipedia is not a democratic platform to brand anything based on votes, you either have the research based evidence from Medicine practitioners who is well aware of methodology of ayurvedic medicine implications or you don't. Let me know if Ecology and Evolutionary Biology or Educational Psychology have anything to do with medicine. I know it's not Wikipedia's far reaching general consensus but it's common sense. Vis14620 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sources are you claiming “are not related (even remotely) to the specific subject”? Brunton (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience. None of them are "medical practitioners or researchers" of the Ayurveda. Vis14620 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

which ones are those? - Roxy the dog 19:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Toilet Duck#Advertising slogan: "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck". Meaning: no Ayurveda practitioner calls Ayurveda a pseudoscience. That is WP:BLUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

They are perfectly “related to the specific subject”. They are reliable and appropriate sources that say that it is pseudoscience. Brunton (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ayurveda information

Written for assignment 2402:3A80:1658:6875:0:5:CA02:2401 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please explain what yo mean. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court on Wikipedia article on Ayurveda

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition filed by "AYURVEDIC MEDICINE MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION OF INDIA vs THE MINISTRY OF AYUSH - Diary No. 14299 - 2022" https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/you-can-edit-wikipedia-articles-supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-wikipedia-articles-allegedly-defaming-ayurveda-212241 Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the Indian courts saying "You Can Edit Wikipedia Articles" does not nullify our policies or our sanctions. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Some more coverage here: https://m.thewire.in/article/law/sc-refuses-to-entertain-ayurveda-pil/amp including a link to the text of an interesting lecture by an Indian historian of science. I can’t find a court judgment yet. Brunton (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In order to be binding for Wikipedia, such decision would have to be recognized by a court of law in San Francisco County, California. And that would be likely litigated up to SCOTUS.

And, it's preposterous on its face: a court of law can learn the scientific consensus from mainstream scientists, it cannot order them to change the scientific consensus. Any lawyer who pretends it can is deeply idiotic and should be disbarred for losing his mind. Wikipedia simply reflects the scientific consensus.

I don't think that Supreme Court judges will give corporations a free pass to stomp on mainstream science. I guess that's not what they wish for their own country.

There are ways of defending Ayurveda which are not crazy. Asking their Supreme Court to censor Wikipedia is crazy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it be safe to say it falls under Western scientific consensus? I hope this query meets discretionary standards. GraceAnneLove44 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Scientific consensus has no direction. The only reason to call it "Western" is that India is "Eastern" and the government of India is pro-quackery. But that is no reason to pretend that consensus is restricted to a hemisphere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As per above it falls under scientific consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It falls under scientific consensus. There is no variation in science depending on where it is done !! - Roxy the dog 19:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Its surprising to see Ayurvedic methods respected by our physicians.

“ British physicians traveled to India to observe rhinoplasty being performed using Indian methods, and reports on their rhinoplasty methods were published in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1794. Instruments described in the Sushruta Samhita were further modified in Europe. Joseph Constantine Carpue studied plastic surgery methods in India for 20 years and, in 1815, was able to perform the first major rhinoplasty surgery in the western world, using the "Indian" method of nose reconstruction. In 1840 Brett published an article about this technique.” SpringEarth (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

THis is relevant, how? Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether this shows that it is having scientific consensus or whatever that you guys are debating. why it is inspiration behind practice of modern plastic surgery ? Just confused. Enlighten me. SpringEarth (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In 1794, medicine was about equally bad everywhere. This has nothing to do with modern, evidence-based medicine, which works the same everywhere, no matter who does it. Only people who believe in that false Eastern-Western dichotomy people are trying to peddle here would be impressed. Can we stop this? It has nothing to do with improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A, this is over 200 years ago (when they still belived in the Miasmic theory). B, this says " "Indian" method" not Ayurveda. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A) whether rhinoplasty surgery is not inheriting nothing from that period or is it doing everything from scratch now without that experience B) I think Indian method here refers to that sushruta guy’s method. Check about him with relation to Ayurveda ! Kinda godfather bro. SpringEarth (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, I think that closes this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

For "See also"

From wiki article *Traditional Knowledge Digital Library

This is for the "See also" section.

~~Ed~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:3C81:91DB:DE46:136A (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this article is already linked at Ayurveda#India. Per MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN: "the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Refs in History section

The Svoboda ref appears to be in-world rather than a "scholarly source". --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal: So you have problem with only 1 source over the information which is already supported by the second source in the same section. Why do you have to tag bomb entire section for this minor issue when you can simply remove the single source or tag it or use a better source like this one (from Kenoyer published by Oxford University Press)? Since you have already violated WP:1RR on this article you should self-revert yourself. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

So we agree that it's a problematic source. Thank you. That seems to indicate that the tag was removed without addressing the problem. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Your tagging was frivolous because tag bombing entire section was unwarranted since you have problem with only 1 source not the entire section. I am asking you again to self-revert yourself otherwise I will need to report you to WP:ARE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) (Struck part that is not relevant anymore. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC))

WP:FOC.

The single source was identified to demonstrate that more work was needed. That seems to indicate that the tag was removed without addressing the problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward, that one source will be replaced with the source I mentioned above. Is that enough for addressing your concern? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine can be considered a reliable source for our purposes, because it is overseen by the World Ayurveda Foundation, which says that it is dedicated to the "global propagation of Ayurveda" ([11]), rather than to an unbiased evaluation of the practice. Before I could know whether to support or oppose the book by Kenoyer and Heuston, I would need to see which page we are potentially citing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that all of the references haven't been reviewed. When they have been, and found acceptable, then the tag can be removed. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, so I just restored the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: "Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine" (JAIM) is nowhere cited in the history section which you tag bombed again. So far only 1 source has been disputed and there is no need to tag bomb entire section for it.

JAIM is used for a basic fact "Liquids may also be poured on the patient's forehead, a technique called shirodhara" and not for making any 'evaluation' but only describing the practice called 'shirodhara'. I have replaced the source here but again, it has nothing to do with the history section.

The only source that has been disputed here from history section has been removed by me now.[12] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Aman.kumar.goel, for replacing the poor source that you and Capitals00 overlooked.

Thank you, Tryptofish, for taking up the necessary task of actually reviewing all the references. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

ayurvedic medicines for cardiac health journal article

However , a cell line study has demonstrated the efficacy of a classical ayurvedic medicine 'Partharishta' in oxidative stress associated with myocardial ischemic reperfusion injury. [https://www.jdrasccras.com/article.asp?issn=2279-0357;year=2023;volume=8;issue=2;spage=124;epage=133;aulast=Gowri Aryasp88 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that journal is going to pass murder as a reliable source. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant "pass muster", but I kind of like it as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we saying the journal can not pass murder off as a reliable source or can it not pass murder as a reliable source? Either one would be hysterically accepted. Inquiring minds do want to know. --ARoseWolf 19:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Could someone pass me the mustard? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Col. D. Jon Mustard did it in the library with the candlestick. Passing the Grey Poupon.--ARoseWolf 19:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess we've gotten off-topic, and I realize that one should not Poupon the talk page, but at least we did it with relish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops - my bad! I'm travelling and on a mobile phone - predictive text ... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And even if it did, it's an in vitro study, and its conclusions don't support the claim made here.Brunton (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit can you enlighten me on why it is not a reliable source Aryasp88 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's published by or on behalf of the Ministry of Ayush. You don't need to take my word for it - feel free to ask for other opinions at WP:RSN. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

so, basically any study published by the Ministry of AYUSH does not stand as a reliable source? Vd Meera Sudhakaran (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That is correct, because the Ministry of AYUSH exists only to promote Ayurveda and other alternative methods, and therefore we cannot rely upon it to be neutral. To give an analogy, say a company released a product and produced a press release to say how great it was. Clearly, we could not use that press release to source a sentence saying it was a good product. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:rs, this fails wp:primary. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven can you explain why? Aryasp88 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It already is, it is published by the Ministry of AYUSH. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

classification and efficacy

A case report on Allergic Rhinitis was treated with ayurvedic medicine rajanyadi Churna with Guduchi Kwath and in a short span of time patient showed improvement in symptomatology and hematological parameters.[13]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100740 Aryasp88 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Published by JAIM (The Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine), which is clearly not a neutral source. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it more immediately fall under WP:MEDRS policy on case studies? (For my information) ByVarying (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it doesn't matter where it was published, a single case study fails MEDRS by a wide margin. Brunton (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but per previous items from JAIM, they have all failed MEDRS by a large margin anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Please add: "Ayurveda originates from the South Indian state of Kerala, where this medicine is actively practiced." Philipchandy (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Over-capitalization

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Over-capitalization of "ayurveda".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)