Talk:Ayurveda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Ayurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that you can be bold and fix mistakes yourself.

Cancer Research UK on Lead[edit]

Why we are overstating the opinion of a single organization, we are aware of WP:WEASEL? You cannot add any opinion to the lead, it should be held by the majority. This edit is itself newly added on 1st June. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will support your decision to remove it if you want to - it need not be in the Lead!—Khabboos (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine, as was the Efficacy section which I've restored. Why do you think we can't add opinions to the lede? Are you aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is one foundation(not even a scientific institute) and only one sentence that has been cherry picked. It seems like only one "foundation" that said so. Which is WP:WEASEL, you have to clearly tell that "According to ----, it has....." You cannot add it on lead if it is some isolated view. Right now it is clearly POV pushing, because you are pushing opinion of one organisation and ignoring all other together. So I don't see any logic here. It was better like it was before. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the premier charitable cancer research organisation in the UK, directs scientific research at the highest level, and I believe even has a wikipedian in residence at the moment. Please get your facts right bladesmulty, not a "foundation" and is certainly appropriate to quote from for WP:MedRS and WP:Fringe pseudoscience like this. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Its is a charity, not any big deal in terms of science. So why we are pushing a cherrypicked opinion of charity on lead? While ignoring to attribute any other.?? You are overprotecting it for no reason. It's mention on subsection is clear copyvio too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the premier charitable cancer research organisation in the UK, directs scientific research at the highest level, just in case you didn't read my previous comment. We are quoting one of the leading authorities, CRUK. its fine. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't fit enough. You can try again. So adding flying mention(do they mention any detailed report?) on lead and copying to subsection is copyvio and POV pushing. You know there's one page about it, you can see Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs, you wouldn't need this pov pushing. You cannot even describe their view, since they haven't described anything related to that. 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK is a major charity involved in a lot of research. It's not POV pushing since it is a trustworthy source. 188.30.202.222 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A search on Trip database for "Ayurvedic" gives 44 results classed as "Secondary evidence". I looked at the top half-dozen without finding evidence showing any significant efficacy of Ayurvedic treatments. The Cancer Research UK source reflects what looks like the scientific consensus: some herbal medicines may be better than placebo in some cases, but there is insufficient evidence to support a claim; and massage and relaxation can be beneficial to people who are ill. That's the most that could be said and the Efficacy section seems to encapsulate that. It is important when dealing with alternative medicine topics that we clearly state the mainstream view. The quote in the lead is clearly of due weight and from a MEDRS-compliant source; the only reason for attempting to exclude it would seem to be an attempt to hide the lack of mainstream support for Ayurvedic practices. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto for searching the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology sites. Virtually no mention of Ayurvedic medicine, and what little was there could hardly be considered an endorsement. A search of Pubmed on the word Cancer turns up 3 million hits, "Cancer antibody" turns up 200,000 hits (about 7%), "cancer chemotherapy" turns up 180,000 (6%), and "cancer surgery" turns up 800,000 (23%). "Cancer Ayurvedic" gives 255 hits (0.01%). 0.01% is WP:Fringe Formerly 98 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
provide a scientific research paper to support this claim found on the UK website Prodigyhk (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarise the article. The "Efficacy" section makes it pretty clear that there is no good scientific evidence for efficacy, and this is certainly an important enough point to be included in the lede, but it should probably be a summarised statement along the lines of "there is no conclusive scientific evidence that Ayurveda is effective" rather than a direct quotation from CRUK. Brunton (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the replies. This edit[1] by RexxS was more neutral. If you have to add on lead. Avoid quotes, like Brunton has told. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm adding a comment about the scientific evidence to the lede - a reference in the lede isn't strictly necessary as it is just summarising the sourced info on efficacy that the article already includes, but if anyone feels there should be one the CRUK page should be quite adequate. There seems to be a paucity of systematic reviews of ayurvedic medicine (and perhaps also of RCTs, as noted by one of the few reviews I found), and the best they seem to come up with is that the evidence is not good enough for a robust conclusion, so there doesn't seem to be any real challenge to this statement. Brunton (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
"Robust" is confusing in the lede, if not misleading. Best just summarize. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion to improve on the sentence presently in the leadThere is no scientific evidence....of any disease. with this this well written sentence on US-NIH website that could reword to convey a similar meaning -> There are not enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial.Source : US NIH [2]Prodigyhk (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede should summarize and introduce, while staying on topic. I'm not sure how it would even be helpful incorporated into the article body... --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The present sentence There is no scientific evidence....of any disease. will give a reader an impression that clinical studies prove than Ayurveda is not valid. While the fact is not enough scientific tests done to either prove or disprove the validity of Ayurveda. This the reason the statement made by US-NIH is important to include. It is neutral. It helps the reader understand the risks involved, while keeping the door open for them to experiment at their own risk. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That sentence will not give a reader any such impression. It simply states there's no scientific evidence that Ayurveda works. That is the position of mainstream science and needs to be made clear. It would be contrary to WP:FRINGE to provide a formulation that suggests if only we had a few more tests, we would be able to prove the validity of Ayurveda. The fact is that have been plenty of scientific tests and they don't show Ayurveda working - and having more tests wouldn't prove a negative. That's what we need to be making clear to the reader, not obfuscating the mainstream view. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
1) Ayurveda is not fringe in its country of origin. Refer the WHO report included 2) Regarding the Western scientific community opinion about Ayurveda, the US NIH statement is balanced and correct, that sufficient tests per western scientific methods have been not be done to prove Ayurveda. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
FRINGE does not refer to cultural or national acceptance. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
we are not referring to fringe as in the belief of UFO, etc. This is about a working system in a nation of a billion people. Think about it. :) Prodigyhk (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"we are not referring to fringe as in the belief of UFO" No one is. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Think about it" indeed, such a shame that so many have to rely on this nonsense, when real medicine exists. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Terminalia arjuna - "studies in mice"[edit]

I'm a little dubious about the photo caption at the head of the "Efficacy" section. It states that "the leaves of Terminalia arjuna have been shown to have analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties" in studies in mice, but the reference is to a single study with fairly small sample sizes (n=6 for each group) and no mention that I can see of randomization or blinding (which can have an effect on the results of animal studies, see for example the "discrepancies between single-blind and double-blind methods" noted here). I don't think it quite supports the statement it is used to support. Perhaps we are giving this single study undue weight? Brunton (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say grossly undue. I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for doing so. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead - Indian state position towards Ayurveda[edit]

Roxy the dog regarding your removal of my recent edit [3] This edit in the lead is to inform that Ayurveda is an accepted medical treatment by the Indian state. And to highlight the neglect of Ayurveda during the Birtish colonial rule. Sources used is a WHO document. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you have put your information into the body of the article per my own thoughts. It would be undue in the lead. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It fits well into the Further development and spread section and seems a useful addition there. However, it's just another minor side note in the history of Ayurveda, so I can't see that it warrants mention in the lead.
I was going to suggest that a little more summary of the history would be appropriate in the lead, but I immediately got stuck on one of the unsourced claims of the Origins section, "Origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to 5,000 BCE". Our article on Vedas quotes Flood (Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43878-0 ) who sums up the mainstream view as indicating something like 1,500 BCE would be most likely. We ought to get that right. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
the sidelining of Ayurveda during the few hundred years of Bristish rule is an important part in Ayurveda history. Also, that now the Indian state has Ayurveda hospitals, indicate the support of Ayurveda by the Indian state. Hence include summary in lead. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Who says it's important? Without sources affirming its importance, it's no more important than any other piece of Ayurveda's history which seems to span many thousands of years. We ought to get the early history section sourced then we could work out what needs to be in the lead. I do agree though that the current position deserves mention in the lead, as a reader wouldn't get the impression of how much support Ayurveda has from the present Indian Government. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The ancient history of India is blurred because for the 1000 years, India was under foreign rule. Western academics started serious documentation of the science of India only in the last few hundred years. From my experience in working on WP articles, while dating Indian ancient history, we will end up with multiple reliable sources for different time periods :-) Prodigyhk (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Lot of money is being poured in for it by Government of India for sure. But I do not know what is happening of that. I am a BAMS graduate and seeing today's illogical system of and syllabus here, I cant hold myself to say that - British rule was better in the sense they were respecting simple logic. I am afraid that in the name of 'Indian ness' people can do anything and ultimate sufferers are we all and mostly poor and ignorant in India. Please understand that support by Government of India nowhere means a certificate that it is scientific! In fact GOI is bound the upheld the values of reason and science as they are bounded to do so by constitution of India. But I don't see them doing that enough. Things like propagation of Ayurved without much research is surely a tool of destruction of health of Indians. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Abhijeet Safai Agree that the level of research is pathetic. Also, just checked your page and found link to the article which you mention as the most important article on Ayurveda. Very well written article. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The only thing with which I can compare Ayurved is religion. There are certain 'Holy Books' and they have their 'own ways of testing the truth'! If it is said in that holy book, then it has to true whatever YOUR science tells. They use the terminology of YOUR science and OUR science. I am still not able to understand exactly what this OUR and YOUR science is. Talking or discussing with them is extremely difficult and in many cases almost impossible as they are not ready to listen to anything and not ready to read anything else other than those holy books. Any slightest doubt over these holy books or anything in it is sure way to invite their anger and get insulted. It will be really interesting to see how system of Wikipedia editors and Administrators handle them. I would say that so far it has been handled nicely in my opinion. I am not sure what happens next. If many people with the conviction that 'anything written in those holy books is true' will start editing wikipedia, I do not know what will happen to this page. It is extremely difficult to deal with such people. If they can fool governments, they can do anything. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dating the origin of Ayurveda[edit]

Did some preliminary reading. Was unable to get citation for 5000 BCE dating. Was able to get citations to help date it to 2000 BCE.

  • paper listed on the US-NIH web site [4] attributes the earliest origin of Ayurveda to the Atharva Veda, where mentions are included.
  • Book published by Harvard University dates Atharva Veda to 2000BCE [5]

Suggestion - Using this, we could mention "Ayurveda is estimated to have originated in the 2000BCE and found mention in the Atharva Veda " Look forward to the feedback from regular editors of this article before including in article space. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The first source you cite says "The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6th Century BC to 7th Century AD there was systematic development of the science...". I'm not entirely sure however whether we'd accept it as a reliable source. What we cannot do is "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - that is WP:SYNTHESIS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion #2 - "Earliest texts on Ayurveda are found in the Atharva Veda [6], a compendium of Indian texts dating to 2000 BCE[7] " * Prodigyhk (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As I have already said, that is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not synthesis. Have clearly separated both references. Anyway, suggestion #3 to make it more clear * "Earliest texts on Ayurveda are found in the Atharva Veda [8]. Atharva Veda is a compendium of Indian texts dating to 2000BCE[9] " * Prodigyhk (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste time arguing - it is synthesis, and if you add it to the article I will revert it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
request feedback from other regular editors of this article. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste time arguing - it is synthesis, and if you add it to the article I will revert it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems like there should be sources that clearly make the connection if it is worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Prodigyhk, don't know how you researched but there are already 2 sources that include the 5000 bc dating. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
opps ! missed the sources in the article :) Prodigyhk (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Word Change[edit]

The article states that Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine, which is completely wrong. Other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism have also made significant contributions to Ayurveda. http://fullofknowledge.com/history/buddhist-contribution-to-ayurveda/ http://www.ayurvedas.com/buddha_ayurveda.html There are relatively few sources that state that it is traditionally hindu medicine. Most sources simply claim that Ayurveda is of Indian origin regardless of religion. The word Hindu should be changed to Indian, which is more suitable.Septate (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

2 unreliable sources made 'most', how? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, OK. I want you to give atleast two so called reliable sources other then books which state that Ayurveda is traditional Hindu medicine and reject that Ayurveda is traditional Indian medicine. Lets see how you make them look most and reliable.Septate (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda is tradidional Hindu medicine is obvious POV and original research.Septate (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

POV that predates your gossips is not Pov if there are reliable sources. Even you admit that there are sources, but I can't find any that would back up yours. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, your explanations speak of nothing. I am not going to leave this topic until you provide me reliable sources which state that Ayurveda is Hindu traditional medicine and reject the fact that Ayurveda is Indian traditional medicine.Septate (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No reply yet.Septate (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No reply for more then a week. I am going to change it.Septate (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it back to the verifiable wording. The sources offered above were deemed unreliable, and the arguments seem to amount to WP:OR without accepted sources.--Ronz (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking over the one source being used, it's somewhat ambiguous and not the scholarly reference that I'd hoped. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This paper attributes the origin to the Atharvaveda. --NeilN talk to me 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It's origins are clearly Hindu. Perhaps we should just make that clear in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions[edit]

Request opinions from editors about changing the sentence in the lead about the scientific opinion on Ayurveda.

  • Present lead has sentence sourced from "Cancer Research UK" --> There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease
  • Change to sentence sources from "US National Institute of Health" which is more balanced--> There are not enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial. - Source : US NIH [10]Prodigyhk (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You are proposing to use a document that states that "The mention of any product, service, or therapy is not an endorsement by NCCAM" as a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Both are web sources and have similar clauses in their web policy. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Your proposed source advocates for Alt-Med, CRUK advocates for Real Medicine, so no. Besides, we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago, and the answer was still no. so no. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you claim "US National Institute of Health" is an advocate for Alternate Medicine ?? Prodigyhk (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it is called "The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine" at the top of the page you link to above. The clue is the use of the words "Alternative Medicine" in the phrase "The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Both the US and UK organization advocate Ayurveda as a complimentary treatment that is to be used after discussion with a registered medical practitioners. Both do not advocate Ayurveda as an alternate treatment.Prodigyhk (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think User:Roxy the dog is pretty much right. You should provide more source.Septate (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Who added citation tag? Changes were made after 2 days of consensus. I have added source to lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)