Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Paper from UT-Anderson Cancer Center

Request editors opinions and comments on using this this peer reviewed paper for developing the article.

• Paper title: Identification of Novel Anti-inflammatory Agents from Ayurvedic Medicine for Prevention of Chronic Diseases: “Reverse Pharmacology” and “Bedside to Bench” Approach
• Journal Published in: Current Drug Targets VOL 12 ISS 11 http://www.eurekaselect.com/75069/article | Publisher: Bentham Science Publishers
• Authors: Bharat B. Aggarwal,* Sahdeo Prasad, Simone Reuter, Ramaswamy Kannappan, Vivek R. Yadev, Byoungduck Park, Ji Hye Kim, Subash C. Gupta, Kanokkarn Phromnoi, Chitra Sundaram, Seema Prasad, Madan M. Chaturvedi, and Bokyung Sung | Cytokine Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030
• Author Manuscript available on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170500/

Prodigyhk (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on the specific content. I think it would, for example, be acceptable as a source to list examples of plants used in Ayurvedic practice. Yobol (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Yobol The intent is to use it as source to list examples of plants used. Since, it is a very detailed paper, it will take me a few weeks to read through the paper and work out the edits. This is the reason, I request editors to review source and raise any objections now. If not, to hold the peace.Prodigyhk (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of ASSERT

This is a problematic edit because it violated WP:ASSERT. There is no serious dispute presented. Now the text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the recently added claims sourced to a self-published work (see lulu.com, which is on wikipedia blacklist for obvious reasons) by an author with no known expertise in the area.

More broadly: The article should definitely discuss how ayurveda has been variously classification as traditional-/proto-/pseudo- science based on the authoritative sources on philosophy and history of science. Doing a google book search for "pseudoscience ayurveda" and picking up sources at random is not the way to go about this. Find good sources on the topic, discuss and formulate the content here on the talk page, and then add it to the article, instead of adding a broad claim based on a fringe-y source. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Other than Wikipedia:SPS, Wikipedia:FRINGE, it also falls under Wikipedia:RGW. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very poor source. I don't want to start an edit war on this content so left it in with attribution. I'd add that Ayurveda is not a science or pseudoscience either; its is syetem of health care which has elements which may be described as science or pseudoscience or fringe, for example its research. I agree also that classification should be discussed in the article in a section of its own with high quaiity sources that discuss Ayurveda in a substantial and specific way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

It has been mentioned on Pseudoscience which is enough. Unless it is generally considered as pseudoscience, then only it could be mentioned here. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus the source used a pseudoscience is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That consensus was only for this edit. No one said that it can be generalized as pseudoscience. But if it has to fall under the pseudoscience sanctions, atleast a few sources had to be required, and they were presented on FTN. But that was the end. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was helping to answer your question. There are all pseudoscience or related to pseudoscience and fall under the sanctions. In a way you invited me here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My question was about TCM, not AV. Hopefully if you look into archives you would better know why we haven't classified it as pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question was about TCM, which was referring to AV. I am here to help. QuackGuru (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Bladesmulti. We need good sources. Our own articles are not reliable sources for our article content. I may be misunderstanding you. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

I know recognition is the case, AV has been added to for a while on Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Because it has been recognized as one by numerous sources, but it couldn't be established as the main or common definition, that's why it was barred from here. See the archives, consensus was to only add on pseudoscience-related pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does the archives support deleting this text? QuackGuru (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's one [1] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That archived discussion does not explain this revert. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was not about the revert, but the content you were adding. Remember that this page is under 0 revert restriction. Only those changes can be added, where you have achieved consensus. See Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. There was consensus to put under restriction, which has been accomplished. Now as for categorization, there is none. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The archived discussion was not about the content that was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There was not consensus for 0RR there were multiple objections. There is substantial evidence to indicate ayurveda is pseudoscience and there not an indication of serious academic dispute of that. Ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience, this is supported with both direct sources and a preponderance of sources. Per pseudoscience sanctions it may be characterized that way. Objection should be based on policy and sources provided. Semple, David; Smyth, Roger, eds. (2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780191015908. cites ayurveda literally as a textbook example of pseudoscience which "confuse[s] the metaphysical with empirical claims". Notable science journalist David Bradley wrote, "One area of non-western science that many western medics and scientists say is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap is Ayurvedic medicine." These are two sources that clearly support that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience, thus it should be characterized that way per the sanctions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

<ref name="SempleSmyth2013">{{cite book|author1=David Semple|author2=Roger Smyth|title=Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=5h9FAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20|date=28 February 2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-101590-8|pages=20–}}</ref>

User:MrBill3, I formatted the ref. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They are only enough for Pseudoscience and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but not here, even on FTN, others(AndytheGrump, Itsmejudith, etc) suggested that it couldn't be considered as pseudoscience, Because it is far obvious that it is a pre-scientific concept. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think opening an RfC would be an good idea. VandVictory (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a better idea is add the formatted ref and content to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A mention, added as an example would accomplish nothing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A specific description of a type of pseudoscience listing ayurveda is exactly describing ayurveda as pseudoscience which confuses the metaphysical with empirical claims. This contains the explicit term pseudoscience, describes a particular form of pseudoscience and states that ayurveda is that type of pseudoscience. Numerous sources have been provided at FTN that support the fact that ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience, per the pseudoscience sanctions above, it may be characterized that way in the article. Without substantial policy based and sourced arguement, further attempts to revert such characterization will result in requests for assistance from administration and or filings at the appropriate notice boards. Beyond that tendentious behavior on talk and repeated reverts constitutes disruptive editing and is not in keeping with the spirit or policy of WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation must do that, not you. I never disagreed with the mention anywhere on wikipedia, but since it is about generalization, see Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL, it is a broad claim. It contradicts the formal definition of the concept. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Citation must do that, not you." The citation does that explicitly, states pseudoscience, describes type, gives example. Can you give any logical explanation how that is not stating ayurveda is an example of a pseudoscientific theory that confuses metaphysical concepts with empirical claims? Show any way that the source doesn't state that about ayurveda. Good faith is reaching it's end. Tendentious behavior on talk has been pointed out repeatedly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources added

Now that we have reliable sources the text can be added. QuackGuru (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't add anything until there is consensus to add. Especially if it has been established among the experts, not flying mentions, Wikipedia:OR or Wikipedia:SYNTH. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Blades, as stated on your Talk page, please self revert, or John may sanction you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand. Were they? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no SYN or OR. One of the sources was even a direct quote. Not sure why you did this. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[2] a flying mention, [3] unavailable, requires quotation for confirmation. "with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore" is undue, and explained in the sub-pages that have been wikilinked. Quackwatch starts with the lectures of Deepak Chopra and ends with the reports about risks. Clearly undue and article should had been more about Ayurveda rather than the biography of Chopra, or that if the author is expert on Ayurveda, but he is clearly not even close to it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru and Roxy the dog: there is an RFC which is still open, you have to wait for its conclusion, there is no consensus to add 'pseudoscience'. Who is John? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is about a category tag. It has nothing to do with the text that was added. QuackGuru (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

e/c Many editors have agreed over the last few days as to the pseudoscientific nature of many aspects of AV. This is merely confirmation. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No one actually agreed with that revisionism. At least 3 of them have confirmed, want me to call every of them about the content? Because they seem to be totally rejecting such revisionism. If not, then what Certainly not pseudoscience actually means?Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

e/c @Roxy the dog: I see eleven editors who say it is not pseudoscience. Univeristy courses, academic reference and WHO approvals mentioned. And only three who say it is. If you are so confident there are Many editors who have agreed, it is all the more reason to relax and wait for a few days to let the RFC close and then add it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The cat discussion is not about the text. Do you object to all the text? QuackGuru (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Twelve including you. That's a better idea, just wait for a month or 27 days, until Rfc ends. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not relevant to this discussion. So what is your reason to delete all the text and sources? QuackGuru (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant to this discussion, and none of us have agreed. Read above, I have already replied that none of your sources are relevant, same with the information. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the cat and text are two separate issues. The sources are about Ayurveda. If it is not relevent to this page then what page is it relevant to include the text? QuackGuru (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading the votes below, no one seemed to be agreeing with such revisionism. If you have doubt, just call each of them here and re-confirm. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The votes below did not votes about the text and new sources I very recently added. The votes below were about a category. QuackGuru (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait for the discussion on the category to complete. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body

(edit conflict - both comments are on same, new topic --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

'New Physics' "Finds a Haven at the Patent Office" - Incorrect ref. It stated cold fusion, Aliens, astrology but not Ayurveda. I hope this is not becoming a joke now, that someone has to misrepresent source in order to make ridiculous claims. Don't insert false information on top section. నిజానికి (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed Acupuncture, telepathy, clairvoyance, from my post. నిజానికి (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that editors haven't noticed the discussions above concerning how mention of pseudoscience should be added to the article body. To repeat, these are reliable sources being presented with proper context and due weight. [4]:

Ayurveda medicine contends to be scientific when it is not; thus is it pseudoscience.

Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects.

Ayurveda medicine contends to be scientific when it is not; thus is it pseudoscience. Quackwatch stated "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe."

References

I have already analyzed those above, per Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL. :[5] a flying mention, [6] unavailable, requires quotation for confirmation. "with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore" is undue, unless a whole section can be provided to philosophy and it was explained in the sub-pages that have been wikilinked.

Quackwatch starts with the lectures of Deepak Chopra and ends with the reports about risks. Clearly undue and article should had been more about Ayurveda rather than the biography of Chopra, also that author had to be a researcher on Ayurveda, but he is clearly not even close to it.

In the end of the day, you have to read Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view esp. 3rd point. pseudoscience is just historical revisionism. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Science reference. Can someone who does check what it says concerning Ayurveda? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the material is undue, unreliable, nor exceptional. Rather it seems a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARB/PS to exclude it.

Perhaps we need better context to make sure we're addressing current thinking/practise/research rather than the history? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We have, no where we are claiming that it is comparable to science. On lead we have provided that "there is no evidence", if it's about WP:FRINGE. The view of pseudoscience is held by very little minority, and they are far from being academic or scholar on the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference, 'New Physics' "Finds a Haven at the Patent Office" is incorrect. Cold fusion, psychic forces etc as bad sciences, but not Ayurveda. In other book, this author was referred to talk about Astrology, that's all. http://worldtracker.org/media/library/Science/Science%20Magazine/science%20magazine%201999-2000/root/data/Science%201999-2000/pdf/1999_v284_n5418/p5418_1252.pdf నిజానికి (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ibzo7Cc4nK4J:worldtracker.org/media/library/Science/Science%2520Magazine/science%2520magazine%25201999-2000/root/data/Science%25201999-2000/pdf/1999_v284_n5418/p5418_1252.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us worldtracker.org would not open everytime, I have posted google cached. నిజానికి (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the Science reference verifies either. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"We have, no where we are claiming that it is comparable to science." I don't know what you're getting at with this comment. It's a form of alternative medicine, and is used and researched today to treat health problems.

"The view of pseudoscience is held by very little minority..." Seems like you're trying to reverse the requirements of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARB/PS completely. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The view of pseudoscience, regarding AV, is held by a little minority. That's what I said. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In light of FRINGE, ARB/PS/, and the policies/guidelines identified at the top of this talk page, that "very little minority" must have a voice in this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is just a reminder that none of the content should conflict with the contemporary science. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan includes all articles about India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, doesn't means that the articles that fall under these sanctions must mention India or Pakistan or Afghanistan. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its possible there should be a section that discusses Ayurveda in light of and context of Western medicine. Context is critical. We have to remember that Ayurveda is taught in India in multiple academic insitutions, and in other parts of the world. The fact that legitimate research is being done on Ayurveds may disqualify it as pseudoscience although we could possibly describe it as fringe to Western medicine. We have to be careful not to confuse describing research in terms of the development of Ayurveda and using research as sources that underpin health care claims.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

Side note:Ayurveda is a health care system and as such sources discussing its health benefits or lack of must be MEDRs compliant. This excludes Quackwatch. Content that discusses Ayurveda in a historical context does not fall under MEDRS. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

"or lack of" - where are you getting that from? --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That probably wasn't clear. MEDRS applies to health related articles. This includes articles using sources/ research that shows benefits and research that shows there are no benefits. For example, if a review on research in Ayurveda were to show no benefits this also is MEDRs compliant. In other words, its not the benefit or non benefit that makes a source reliable per MEDRS but the review and its quality.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

MEDRS applies to health related claims, regardless of the article. It doesn't apply to everything in any article. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the proposal without the misplaced ref. Is there any reason to exclude this now based on Wikipedia policy? QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since we have only one source[7], a flying mention, and nothing else that would exactly support such revisionism. There would be no reason to add. As for policy read Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, esp the 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The only policy concerns I see seem to confuse WP:FRINGE and WP:ARB/PS requirements with those of WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz:Yes. We are saying the same thing. I would include health related content in any article. I didn't say that here. I am assuming we all know that content that is not heath related does not require MEDRS. I would say content rather than the more restrictive, claims. Anyway, we are on the same page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

Those who are rushing to insert 'pseudoscience': I see that you are totally convinced that it is pseudoscience and have participated in the RFC, It would be fair to wait for it to conclude and then add it with consensus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait for discussion on RFC to complete. We do not have attention to focus on multiple discussions. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not pseudoscience (as a whole that is - it appears to include pseudoscience in modern practice/thinking/research though), nor is there any agreement that the category applies or doesn't based upon such statements.

I think inclusion in the body should be settled first, as it should impact the category decision, but again no one wants to discuss what the criteria is for the category.

So I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for excluding the current proposal at this point. The repeated mentions of OR/NPOV ignore or reverse the consensus on the application of the relevant policies and arbitration decisions. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition of sourced content is, as pointed out by Ronz, a separate issue and can be handled at the same time. I have provided many references and information that should be paraphrased and added to the article as due. Policy and arbitration decisions clearly support inclusion of a significant/substantial amount of content based on the sources and information I have provided above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz had only copied what QuackGuru was inserting and one of the source was misinterpreted. I remember finding dozens of reliable citations that would cite 5,000 BCE - 10,000 BCE as the dating of the Vedas. But remember, that we don't give any priority to historical revisionism and claim of very little minority, read Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, esp the 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested wording

I think that some of the above discussion has been unduly confrontational and, perhaps as a result, unnuanced; mixing classical and contemporary ayurveda, and positing "science" and "pseudoscience" as the only two possible categories. However, it has lately produced some good sources on the subject thanks esp. to User:MrBill3 (even though I disagree with the relevance of some particular sources, for example, the Sujatha article argues against the integration of the Ayurvedic and Western Medical systems (as is prevalent in contemporary Ayurvedic practice) and does not say anything about the scientific-ity of the (purely) Ayurvedic system per se

In an effort to move the discussion forward, here is some proposed text for discussion/inclusion-in-the-article:

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Some scholars, such as Francis Zimmermann, Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected". In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalise its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigourous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Some scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, even regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead.

Of course this is just a start and both paragraphs can be tweaked and significantly expanded; and I'm not even sure where in the article such content should be included. But I am hoping it is an improvement over broad declarative statements ("Ayurveda is a sciencepseudoscience") and can form a basis for further discussion. Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Note: I have added trans-scientific to the list in the last sentence of the article, as per cited source. Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Some scientists doesn't fit, because 2-3 authors doesn't make some, while 1 has only included a flying mention, other has based on speculation like some consider and ANiS's own activist says that the organization use Ayurveda. Knowing that almost all of the citation that MrBill3 has mentioned, he has obviously carried out Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:SYNTH, almost all of them don't even include the mention of the word pseudoscience, yet he claims that they are characterizing as pseudoscience, I guess we can simply drop per Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view esp. 3rd point. As about the claims of it being less scientific and containing lead, something that his citations actually mention, one has to simply look at Ayurveda#Efficacy, whatever you have written until system, has been challenged as unscientific, seems right for Efficacy section. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts of Abecedare as they seem a very reasonable effort to move forward and propose content that reflects the nuance/complexity of the discussion. I think he/she has brought a good framework for contextualizing the issue. I look forward to the input of other involved editors. I disagree that Sujartha 2011 is not relevant, in framing the discussion about integrating ayurveda into a western medical model he provides a clear discussion of consideration of ayurveda in scientific terms. Regarding characterizing my earlier post (now reverted) as OR and SYNTH the extensive quotations I posted speak in the words of the authors, a set of characteristics that meets a definition is neither OR nor SYNTH for the application of the term defined. I am sure appropriately paraphrased content from these sources will be included as due once a number of editors have had a chance to read the sources themselves. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparent enough — that the medicine dates back to historical and pre-historical times, like few other medicines around the world.

I can make it easier for all. Pseudoscience means anything that pretends to be scientific, but it isn't. Ayurveda was developed when there was no science. This excludes any thought of it being unscientific or semi-scientific. If someone has, it could be termed as factual error.

The support is weak and the data are inconclusive, it can be added only if it reflects the prevailing worldview. Noteswork (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda does pretend to be scientific, note Beall's article on the proliferation of (pseudo)scientific journals, the ongoing study and publication in multiple scientific journals and books, the standardization and regulation, etc. Prevailing world view is not the standard for inclusion of content on WP, published in reliable sources is. Multiple reliable sources discuss ayurveda as pseudoscientific. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For Ayurveda, it is impossible to pretend to be scientific because it was invented before the science. Your assumption is completely flawed. We cannot rely upon sources alone if they are inconclusive and considerably promoting a factual error. There are a number of factual inaccuracies, such as Stonehenge were built by the Aliens. Would you link me to the medical journals that have discussed that Ayurveda is ps? Noteswork (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Noteswork: For classical Ayurveda (as for Alchemy) terms like "pseudoscience" are definitely anachronistic. The above draft discusses classical Ayurveda in the first paragraph (and cites opinions of scholars of history and anthropology); and contemporary Ayurveda in the second, which as he draft says has been studied/presented in the framework of (regular) science. If there is a way to make that distinction even clearer, I am all for it. Abecedare (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is well proportioned and appointed, but portion concerning the allegation of it being ps seem obnoxious. Reason may not surprise any of us, there are millions of search results about Ayurveda, and every month there are numerous researches made in the department of Ayurveda. There is possibility that somebody would have made a mention of pseudoscience, either due to less knowledge or just for attacking. But we cannot consider any attack, or factual error. In some circumstances they are actually recognized but even for that, it has to go with the worldview of researchers and educators. I would recommend those who have actually worked in this area. Noteswork (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Noteswork: Given the vast range of practices (across time, geography, and tradition) that are covered/advertised/sold under the rubric of Ayurveda it is no surprise that we can find a range of opinions on how scientific those practices are. But sticking to the draft-under-discussion here, let me expand on the thoughts behind the second paragraph in the draft above:

1. The first sentence summarizes the range of contemporary practices called "Ayurveda" and hints at what distinguishes them from classical Ayurveda (of course there is much more to be said on the topic. The cited work is a whole recent book on the subject, and there are many more references on the syncretic nature of contemporary Ayurveda,; on New Age Ayurveda etc... all of which should be discussed in the History section of the article eventually).
2. Second sentence mentions the two main objections to contemporary Ayurveda being a science:
   1. Too few, and methodologically poor, studies. Note that this critique is distinct from what these studies find, which is covered in the Efficacy Section of the article, since a null-result doesn't make a subject unscientific (science being a process, etc)
   2. The charge that the underlying precepts/metaphysics (dosha etc) of Ayurveda are wrong/false/unverifiable/unscientific.
   3. There is third critique regarding scams marketed as Ayurveda, which Beall and the reference Bad Medicine discuss. I have excluded them from my draft, since these scams aren't relevant to the scientific-ity of the Ayurvedic system (as opposed to Ayurvedic practice)
3. The third sentence summarizes the range of opinions on the scientific-ity of Ayurveda, without trying to adjudicate on the relative popularity of these opinions. IMO these labels are less important than the critiques in the second sentence, and we should not get lost discussing their exact ordering and phrasing; listing the spectrum should suffice, or at least be an improvement over the current article, wich doesn't cover the topic at all.

Any suggestions on how the draft can be further improved? Abecedare (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good that you pinged. According to these sources, there is a single group, that has been termed as 'rationalist groups'. Shall we consider writing that: "In the 21st century, multiple observers have also classified the concepts of Ayurveda as Proto science, pseudoscience and prescient." We have to reflect that these opinions are made after literally many studies and prevailing opinions of writers. If you add different ideas from different texts, you will have to put a reference after each phrase. Noteswork (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We can include a sentence about the on-going scientific research into ingredients used in Ayurveda to identify key agents and create scientifically validated medicines. [One source from University of Texas - M. D. Anderson Cancer Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigyhk (talk • contribs) ]

References

Going forward

I was asked to take a look at this. Here's what I am proposing from now on.

• No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR.
• No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. There should be no reason for anyone to do this either. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to me or to WP:AN/I, in that order of preference.
• Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand. Discussions may be referred to central noticeboards like WP:NPOVN or to WP:RFC, in fact I encourage this.

All participants here are assumed to be aware of these restrictions; I'll ping all the main players as well. Any breaches of these conditions will be met with escalating blocks, without further warnings being given. Anybody unhappy with these proposals is welcome to take it up with me at my talk and if they are unhappy with my response to take it to WP:AN/I. --John (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you; this is excellent. I would love to see this kind of action taken on more articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for proposing this but I think 0RR is not a good idea. I think much better would be that WP:BRD be made mandatory, for some set period of time. We still want to allow editors to be bold or the article will stagnate. So better, would be that bold edits are allowed, and one subsequent revert is allowed and no more, so that the normal WP:BRD cycle unfolds. If the subsequent discussion doesn't achieve consensus, normal dispute resolution processes can unfold. Does that make sense? The rest of it seems fine to me, especially heightened civility requirements. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

See below. It is better not to revert disputed material but to seek a compromise edit. --John (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think 1RR would be better. 0RR encourages people to argue over what exactly a "revert" entails. There are some administrators who think that if you edit the work of another in any fashion that can be construed as a revert. To avoid this kind of pointless arguing over semantics, 1RR helps a lot over 0RR. jps (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

i had been willing to lend a hand providing even handed help but these are not conditions i find reasonable. am taking this page off my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree I have noticed many editors on this page, do take time to discuss and then make changes. It is important especially on contentious edits be discussed on Talk page and then make the changes. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A concern

I appreciate that this article would benefit from a firm hand, John, but:

1. Are you proposing these restrictions, or imposing them? You start by saying it's a proposal, but end by saying that people who break your rules will be blocked.
2. I'm sure these rules are well-intentioned; but with a zero revert rule, anybody can add problematic or WP:FRINGE content to the article and it'll stay permanently. This restriction seems incompatible with BRD.
3. Is there some good reason that concerns about behaviour, or about your rules, should be referred to you rather than to the community? The effect of that would be more like ownership. I would prioritise using this talkpage, and community noticeboards, instead of your talkpage.

bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1 Both.

2 No, there are other far more effective measures for dealing with material you are unhappy with than reverting. Read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary some time.

3 I ask you to raise concerns about editor behaviour with me first as a courtesy but of course you may take them to any other administrator or to the community if you prefer. You may not raise them here though, or in an edit summary. The article improvement discussion needs to happen in a separate place from any editor conduct discussions necessary. Again, this is to facilitate collegial discussion here rather than edit-warring and name-calling. --John (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with points #2 and #3. I, however, echo Jytdog's and Bobrayner's concern about a zero revert rule. There are times when an edit is clearly not an improvement but not "vandalism", where a "compromise" is NOT ideal. I have also seen some significantly, let's say, "unique" interpretations of what a "revert" is, and am afraid someone could get caught in the wash in what others would consider normal editing. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct, toxic, and this imposition does not help. 0RR? What does that actually mean? This is unworkable. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with this proposal, as confirmed above. We have found a way to link the wikilinks and translated medical terms to History sections, it will work and put true edit dispute aside. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy and Yobol, I just don't see how 0RR is workable. I have never, in my 8 years of editing wp, seen such a thing. Perhaps I am not looking in the right place. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is because of the edit warring. Except Blades and Roxy, Yobol and little olive oil technically reverted each other 3 times, no discussion can be seen. VandVictory (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful when making accusations. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

I think this is part of the problem, establishing a 0RR which is a blockable, where the definition of "revert" is going to be an issue. I personally feel that the exchange of edits between Littleolive oil and myself was non-contentious editing, and not reverting. I hope John takes the numerous experienced editors' concerns above into consideration, and perhaps establishes a less strict restriction such as 1RR (even contentious article areas which have revert restrictions such as Abortion or Men's Rights Movement have been 1RR, so I'm not sure why the need for 0RR here, nor any track record of 0RR being useful in contentious areas). Yobol (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Commented below. I like the 0RR in part because it prevents peremptory deletions or additions as well as editors adding or removing content while discussion on that very content is ongoing and underway which derails and overrides discussion, and can become or points to ownership issues. However, I do agree with Yobol that our back and forth was not contentious and rather than reverting content was adjusting it. I would give up that privilege if it meant contentious articles/discussions became pleasant with less ownership issues.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

• If followed, John's rules mean that people will be blocked for making edits like this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this, because the rules have been designed without any exemption for reverting the addition of copyvio, or promotional links, or factual errors, or WP:MEDRS failures, or NPOV failures, and so on - and there's plenty of folk out there who are trying to add such things. There's also the content-blanking problem - always the blanking of words critical of Ayurveda but leaving the positive - that's permitted under John's rules but returning to the status quo is a blockable offence.
• Consequently, these rules make it much harder to maintain or improve article quality; it's a one-way mechanism, a ratchet, which ensures that the article will gradually fill up with that crap. Like Jytdog, I'm walking away from this article until John's rules are either fixed or removed. I already have one stain on my record, for loudly calling out sockpuppetry and canvassing (on wholly unrelated articles); I don't want a second block for trying to fix other policy violations. bobrayner (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @John:, to see if he will amend his proposal, given the feedback of multiple experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on sentence in lead Recognized as traditional form of medicine by WHO and NIH .

Pinging @John: again, to see if he will amend his proposal, given the feedback of multiple experienced editors, and their notification that they will no longer participate in this article due to unreasonable imposition of rather sledgehammer 0RR restrictions. A SPA editor has made an entry to the lead today which would under normal circumstances be justifiably removed straight away. I feel like adding ""This pseudoscientific claptrap..." somewhere in the lead, as nobody could remove it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But everyone is allowed to remove vandalism, so it will be reverted as vandalism. నిజానికి (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When did stating the mainstrean scientific pov become vandalism? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism because it is not complying with any scientific source itself. I failed finding one, don't know if you are dreaming of any. నిజానికి (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the new material should be deleted. I've moved it for the moment. Anyone want to argue for its inclusion? --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=hc2ckCmodvsC - page =232 , http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine/-ayurvedic-medicine-safe-0, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255448/ , Just look up '1978 WHO recognizes Ayurveda'. It should be kept on lead or added to Ayurveda outside Indian subcontinent, not in India because these are based outside India. నిజానికి (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The final link you provided there is almost unreadable due to its incredibly poor writing. (Perhaps it is a machine translation) so I cannot comment on it. The second link looks like a blog post. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I had many edu websites opened on my browser. You can open it again. నిజానికి (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The "recognition" is just a definition, and redundant. It should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz can you write "Recognized as traditional form of medicine by WHO and NIH." It is notable because they don't recognise most of the popular traditional medicine. నిజానికి (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with నిజానికి on the inclusion requested with the changes mentioned Prodigyhk (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"It is notable because they don't recognise most of the popular traditional medicine." Says who? --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, The sentence "Recognized as traditional form of medicine by WHO and NIH." suggested by నిజానికి is acceptable, since WHO & NIH are reliable source Prodigyhk (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are important to add. నిజానికి (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by నిజానికి, "everyone is allowed to remove vandalism, so it will be reverted as vandalism" if it is added. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Roxy: Rules for this page is zero revert. Ronz broke the rule by removing the edit by నిజానికి the edit without any discussion. Yet, నిజానికి has been discussing on this talk to get consensus. So, stop accusing that నిజానికి is a vandal. Just state agree/disagree to the new modified sentence he has proposed. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no revert, and there is discussion. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog don't even know what is vandalism, someone should teach him English before he get into any of these subjects. నిజానికి (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not vandalism. If added it should be discussed before.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

I don't see how it is vandalism if it is discussed and reached to an agreement. Of course we know that Roxy has severe competence issues, he would like to make lackluster discussion about everything but the actual subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"It is notable because they don't recognise most of the popular traditional medicine." So no source? It appears to be personal opinion and intentional misrepresentation then driving the inclusion of the material. If so, then it most definitely doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look below. నిజానికి (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What am I looking for? We're not going to include misleading information in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss it ... and it can be discussed with out personal remarks, and assumptions right, no matter how frustrated everyone gets?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

Partial protection as well?

Given the problem editing coming from SPA ip's, any attempt at imposing 0/1RR restrictions should include partial page protection as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should be semi-protected. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Partial page restriction wont protect against SPAs or regular fringe editors. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Integration into Indian health system to lede

Ronz This has been part of the lead for a long time now. If you want remove existing agreed text, discuss it first here. Get consensus.

• Ayurveda is well integrated into the Indian National health care system, with state hospitals for Ayurveda established across the country.ref name="who01">"Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review". World Health Organization (WHO) Source: [8] (accessed: Tuesday June 24, 2014), c.8.5</ref

Prodigyhk (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

It had been part of the lede for a long time? If so (please provide diffs as to when it was added, removed, etc), then had it been discussed? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz removed it without discussion. It is your responsibility to discuss here before removing. Please put it back. Then start discussion about change of this sentence or removal. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: Note details you have requested. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_5#Lead_-_Indian_state_position_towards_Ayurveda from 24Jun2014. Sentence included in article [[9]] on 29Jun2014 Prodigyhk (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out when it was added. There was no discussion at the time nor since then? How about now? Anyone object to moving it back to the lede? --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I have no particular objection with its removal from the lede, but it is always good if you can add something as descriptive. If there was no discussion when it was added or it may have remained for ages. What would you suggest? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed altogether as WP:UNDUE. recognised by WHO has no real meaning, and doesn't add to our article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz added Ayurveda is recognized as a traditional form of medicine, maybe he can transfer it somewhere else, because this based on the usual recognition which is made by WHO, NIH. నిజానికి (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is about the legal status of Ayurveda in India as documented by WHO. It is important to include in lead. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion could have been made before it was removed. నిజానికి should have discussed before he added, but he was notified by John after he made his edit. Ronz what you have to say about re-including the pre-నిజానికి lead material? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This could be resolved by finding one or more sources dealing with the place of Ayurveda in health care in India. "Well integrated" doesn't sound very neutral. There must be a plethora of academic texts on health care in India, and I suggest that we should look for one aimed at postgraduate students. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern and Global Ayurveda may be useful for discussing the current practice of Ayurveda in India and elsewhere. User:Wujastyk, who wrote the chapter on the Government of India's regulation of Ayurveda in that book, may be able to provide pointers to even more resources. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Repaired above link. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

to achieve consensus, we can remove "well", although the source uses this. Please advice accept / reject / modify with your reasons. New suggested sentence for lead: Ayurveda is well integrated into the Indian National health care system, with state hospitals for Ayurveda established across the country.ref name="who01">"Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review". World Health Organization (WHO) Source: [10] (accessed: Tuesday June 24, 2014), c.8.5</refProdigyhk (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: We could go with something like, "Ayurveda is incorporated in the Indian national health system including a number of state hospitals for Ayurveda." I don't know if it belongs in lead. Just a suggestion. As a note the source seems to support some content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other suggestions/opinions, will proceed to include proposal 2. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2 would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill3's proposal. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to see the above suggestion in the body text, and it is certainly unacceptable in the lead, but I've realised that the proposed text as it stands implies that AV has a benificial role to play in modern medicine in India, which we should not imply. So, how about -"Ayurveda is incorporated in the Indian national health system, including a number of state hospitals, despite the lack of evidence of any benefit to patients." I'd support that in the body. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of OR and synthesis? Don't include anything that is not cited in the citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience? I'll place the warning on your talk page as soon as I figure out how. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of it, and probably since I started to edit astrological articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So now I assume that your accusations of OR and synthesis against me are withdrawn? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

At present, the lead already includes words that Ayurveda has no scientific evidence. The sentence about the legal status in certain countries provides balance and show both positions. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recognition is nothing more than a definition and is unrelated to integration in health system

They are two, unrelated topics. The recognition is simply a definition. Integration into the health system is something else entirely. Please don't conflate the two.

Some editors feel that "It is notable because they don't recognise most of the popular traditional medicine." This is complete nonsense. It does appear to be the WP:FRINGE-violating point of view that editors want included in the article though. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Ronz. Does a reliable secondary source discuss this? Is there anything other than OR that finds this to have any meaning? What is the source for "integration"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many citations including this one, pages from 283- 286 includes every notable organizations that have supported Ayurveda. A good paragraph can be made of it, as we happen to find additional citations. I cannot say that well integrated is accurate, but information can be confirmed from by the WHO source.[11] May be rewritten. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: have created separate sub-section for "recognition" discussion. So, as not to conflate with the "integration" discussion.Prodigyhk (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)