Talk:Ayurveda

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.

Eight components of Ayurveda

Dominus Vobisdu, You should know that every single citation that has been added to Ayurveda#Eight_components_of_Ayurveda cites reliable medical citation, falling well under Wikipedia:MEDRS, that is:- Literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

Before making removal of longstanding, and highly commonly accepted content, you should consider analyzing every citation, that you have considered to be against Wikipedia:MEDRS. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog How about [1] - [2]. Information seems to be common, and non-disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

e/c none of those comply. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason to remove, since each of these sources falls under the Wikipedia:MEDRS. I cannot believe that you can seriously reject ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ as reliable source for meds, it has been used not only on other pages but also this page. Can you explain a bit more? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with this source? May someone please tell me? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It was explained very clearly by (Dominus Vobisdu) in the comment directly below this one, and in further comments to this section. Read it, and stop being disruptive please. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read the whole thread thoroughly. Doesn't answer my question though. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The source takes an in-world perspective, ignoring all evidence-based medicine, so it fails MEDRS in linking Ayurveda to any terms used within evidence-based medicine. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, Jayaguru-Shishya was right here and it seems like you are not aware about the MEDRS usage for these types of content, because it is just a translated term see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, there's clear consensus to use those medical terms, DocJames had told that even any textbook could work for such information, and interestingly it is supported by the tons of MEDRS as well as reliable sources. Just read the discussion carefully, and you would know. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blades, nice to see you around the place, how are you feeling following all the drama recently. I do hope your recent block by John didn't upset you as much as mine did me! May I politely and respectfully remind you that you have no consensus to use these medical terms, despite your polite comment above. Thanks very much, Respect -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to use these terms, if you are talking about your sole opposition,(at least since 18th October) that is not based on any policy backed rationale, like we had confirmed on the same wikiproject discussion, consider that it is irrelevant when it comes to long standing reliably cited content. It is correct that Jyotdog had agreed to add terms and linking to History sections of those articles, which is probably a resolution. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not clear that you have read or understood any of the objections to restoring the material. Could you please do so, so we know you're acting in good faith and trying to work with us? For example, do you understand the discussion in the next section about using historical references/wording instead? Do you understand what it means for a source to take an in-world perspective? Do you understand why it is a FRINGE, MEDRS, and SYN violation to use an source with an in-world perspective to verify information that relates to something outside that perspective? --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion below? Consensus was to add the translated, but use the history section links instead. VandVictory (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If they've read it, I'm not seeing any understanding. The whole differentiation between historical aspects and current practice just doesn't appear to be getting through. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. No way, no how. To make extraordinary assertions like this, you will need heavy-duty MEDRS sources stating that the predominant view among experts in real medicine is that this pseudoscientific claptrap can be compared to real medical specialties. And that just ain't gonna happen because most real physicians and scientists would vomit at the mere thought. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov is well enough for sourcing the whole above. Can you explain how it is not a heavy duty MEDRS ? Or you can cite even a single scientist who consider these as pseudoscientific?Bladesmulti (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it does not state that the predominant view among experts in real medicine is that this pseudoscientific claptrap can be compared to real medical specialties, as I said above.And the burden is on YOU, not on me. You're the one making extraordinary claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not, it is ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Are you saying that source has to explicitly state that it is predominant view among experts? Since it remains non-disputed, considerably cited by multiple MedRS, how will you justify? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets see, I cited Encyclopaedia Of Indian Medicine it has been also considered by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7271/ the author, Ramachandra S.K. Rao had his journals published in ncbi.nlm.nih.gov(there are many, this is just 1 example). Do I have to explain each source now? Though these are enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of what "published" means is disappointing. That is not an example of Ramachandra having "his journals" published in ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Already told by many on Medical wikiproject that it wasn't even required to. So you lacked the understanding of using source from start. Bladesmulti (talk)

Dominus Vobisdu is just doing his daily rounds of puffing up his chest on wikipedia, The information that blade has cited is fine.92.236.96.38 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

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: [3] (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 [[4]] 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: [5] (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.[6] 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)

Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"?

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.

---

As per question, should we categorize this subject to be pseudoscience? VandVictory (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Though Ayurveda predates science, there are no sources to indicate that it has been considered equivalent to scientific concepts. Furthermore, there is no demonstration also of information on the mainspace that would challenge scientific medical properties. VandVictory (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - While it is always tricky when some aspects of an article fit a category and others don't, in this case there are definitely proponents of Ayurveda who represent Ayurveda's theory of the body as accurately representing reality and who represent its treatments as being effective. That is pseudoscience and others have provided more than adequate sourcing for that (see here for one example). If ayurveda was discussed only as a pre-scientific traditional medicine with no validity today outside of specific treatments that have been empirically validated in clinical trials, we wouldn't need the pseudoscience discussion. But that is not the case. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ayurveda is similar to historical and prehistorical traditional systems like Ancient Greek medicine, Traditional Korean medicine and others. None of them would be considered as pseudoscience. Ayurveda is still in use and researched, having over 8 million results, it would be easy to find 3 references for supporting the above motion, just like any other medicinal substance, although when you are really searching 'Ayruveda pseudoscience', hardly third or fourth search result would redirect you to self-published 2nd hand blogs or forums. Making it easier to acknowledge that such a consideration is not determinative in the final analysis. Noteswork (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Provided citations are highly questionable and based on speculations like "some consider it as pseudoscience", or they only include a flying mention. I remember finding dozens of reliable citations that would cite 5,000 BCE - 10,000 BCE as the dating of the Vedas. It is easy and arguable, but we cannot lend any weight to such UNDUE and controversial information. Minority view cannot be pushed beyond a certain limit, it will be added only where it belongs(e.g. Pseudoscience). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Certainly not pseudoscience. Noteswork and Bladesmulti have explained it well enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is traditional medicine, and probably quite scientific by traditional standards. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose How can it be claimed pseudoscience when the the ingredients found and used in Ayurevda have been given prase by modern scientist of today? The use of (Arsenic) is a good example, British Scientist have stated just this week that it may in the future be used to treat breast cancer.[7] Jytdog i don't think this page can progress with you being a apart of it, I'm sorry if this seems harsh but that's just how i and a lot of others feel about the matter.92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Ayurveda is a health care system in current use with roots that are ancient-based. Its is not a science, pseudo or otherwise. Does it have aspects that could be considered in the light of Western science. Yes. These aspects could be considered in a separate section in the article, but an overall claim of pseudoscience is not appropriate. This isn't acceptable here, "Jytdog i dont think this page can progress with you being a apart of it,..." This in an RfC anyone can comment. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC))
• Support We go by the sources and not a personal opinion. No explanation for deleting the text was ever given.[8] David Semple; Roger Smyth (28 February 2013). Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. OUP Oxford. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-0-19-101590-8. This source can be added to the article. The editors who oppose have not provided refs to support their opinion. It is pseudoscience according to the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ayurveda long pre-dates anything that could remotely be called 'science', and accordingly cannot be retroactively be classified in relation to something that didn't exist at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose... Proponents? There are some scientists who have an agenda to prove their theories to be scientific after plagiarizing other medical forms. It doesn't means that the medical form that was established during the Iron age would become pseudoscience after being plagiarized by some 21st century scientist... It is the involved scientist that would be considered as a pseudoscientist. We require expertise, I am very sure that no experts in Ayurveda or even alternative and traditional medicine would call it pseudoscience. నిజానికి (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Few reputed Universities across the world that offer gradutate and post-graduate courses in Ayurveda:

1. Savitribai Phule Pune University: course link
2. Bastyr University: course link
3. Middlesex University London: course link
4. Gujarat Ayurved University: course link

These universities should have library full of academic books on Ayurveda, here are three random picks:

1. Sajid, Abdul (1994). International handbook of medical education. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 218. ISBN 0-313-28423-7.
2. Robson, Terry (2003). An introduction to complementary medicine. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. p. 15. ISBN 1-74114-054-4.
3. Hefferon, Kathleen (2012). Let thy food be thy medicine : plants and modern medicine. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-19-987397-5. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Numerous sources have been provided that support characterization as pseudoscience. Arguments in opposition seem like OR and have not provided any sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Academic sources discussing Ayurveda have been presented above. Do the above mentioned four Universities in America, Britain, and India give graduation degree in pseudoscience? --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, because it is pseudoscience. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Medical authorities in India, Sri Lanka and Nepal have given it legal status. Word Health Organization (WHO) has recognized it as an approved medical system in these countries. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It seems the oppose !voters have two diametrically opposed positions 1) it is not pseudoscience because it does not fall within the boundaries of what is considered scientific or unscientific and 2) it is not pseudoscience because it truly is scientific. No clear statements from reliable sources have been provided to support either contention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please check the three academic reference with page numbers given above. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MrBill3. If the article only discussed ancient practices under the guise of philosophy/religion/magic I'd say no. Modern day implementation apart from Hinduism is certainly pseudoscience. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I can neither support nor oppose the proposal. The problem is that it implies there is a material "either/or" for us to select from. However, there are at least two contexts here, one of which is the context of Ayurveda prior to modern evidence-based medicine, with mystical/religious associations apart from observations/practices of medical interest or merit. To call that science in the modern sense of the term would be a bit over-generous, but to call it pseudoscience would be unreasonable and to confuse the relevance or nature of pre-science, falsificatory science (and less naive versions of science) and pseudoscience, either naive or socially parasitic.

In another context there is the question of Ayurveda in the modern day; here there are several aspects. Unquestionably the term Ayurveda (like most traditional bodies of pre-scientific medical expedients) has been hijacked by the exploiters of suffering, and what they present as Ayurveda not only is pseudoscientific, but criminally fraudulent quackery. Many of their dupes and what I might call naively spontaneous dupes are not deliberately criminal, but either have swallowed the line of the quacks or have fallen into the trap of their own medical ignorance and their fancied expertise. One might sympathise of course, but that is no argument for regarding the field of application of Ayurveda in the context of evidence-based medicine, or of irrelevantly invoking its name to support quackery as anything better than pseudoscience in the present day.

Yet again, there is the question of those who fall into neither of the two preceding categories; they simply use Ayurveda either because of poverty or the traditional values and beliefs of their communities, and they are not equipped to evaluate its merits and demerits. Such people (and no doubt most of their doctors, gurus or whoever treats or counsels them in good faith) can hardly be characterised as either scientific or pseudoscientific; they simply are doing their best to achieve health and life by the best means they can conceive or access. Whether or how to criticise them for it is another question and may not be for the article to judge.

In summary: if the question is to be raised at all in the article, either of regarding Ayurveda as scientific or unscientific in any sense, it would be unrealistic and very likely unethical to do so without clarifying these points. JonRichfield (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ayurveda is far older than any concept of western science. Therefore, I'd need to see quite impressive evidence to convince me that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support As JonRichfield discusses effectively, Ayurveda has elements of pseudoscience and others that are distinct, and we should not conflate those. That said, pseudoscience has become a significant aspect and applying this category to a relevant article is appropriate even when that category does not circumscribe the article. -- Scray (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just like Mozart's music has elements of heavy metal music and it should not be conflated. Let's get real, no ayurvedic or alternative medicine expert would agree, now if I am wrong you can link any of them if you know. నిజానికి (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your analogy (to Mozart and heavy metal) is entertaining but wildly inaccurate. Our Mozart article has no "heavy metal" section (for good reason) but this article has a "Research" section. Pseudoscience is an important aspect of Ayurveda. -- Scray (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fairytale opinion doesn't matter. Problem is with your understanding of pseudoscience, there are some scientists who have an agenda to prove their theories to be scientific, but it means that they are pseudoscientists and their original theories, nothing to do with the Iron Age medicine that they have plagiarized. I had asked for sources and you have got none. నిజానికి (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support No WP:PAG compliant argument supports any other outcome. Pseudoscience is an important aspect of Ayurveda, and no amount of (innaccurate) ancient medical knowledge can change that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For pseudoscientists it can be very important, but concept is older than any science. You got any source to prove your opinion? Sources on alternative and traditional medicines are preferred. నిజానికి (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is by definition pseudoscience. A method or system of methods which are claimed to hold some efficacy in treating an ailment, while being unverifiable, irreproduceable, and lacking in scientific method are blatantly pseudoscience and nothing but.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBay (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• That opinion sounds same as claiming Ayurveda to be "future science". నిజానికి (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When the Ayurveda was developed, science didn't even exist, so it's hard to claim that ayurveda, in it's essence, is falsely presented as scientific. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discusssion

• Comment Can those editors above who oppose categorisation as pseudoscience please supply a policy based argument, and perhaps some evidence that there is a shred of scientific basis to any of the "theories/assertions" of Ayurveda. I don't think they can. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is necessary. Per WP editors must show reason to support adding content. Editors seem to be suggesting that while some aspects of Ayurveda may be pseudoscience and deserve mention in the article, Ayurveda is itself a health care system that predates Western science and that we cannot label retroactively. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC))

Sure it predates the scientific method, sure it is traditional, But traditional doesn't suddenly confer magical validity for any of its "so called" treatments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't supported any kind of mention. If its added, then there will be chances to categorize it as well as add the other definitions. I wouldn't be supporting it, unless there is huge consensus among the experts of Ayurveda and traditional medicines that Ayurveda - is a pseudoscience. I was talking about the overall scope and have described my position on this issue. IMO, an opinion that is originated in 21st century about an Iron age medical form is just extraneous to common sense. నిజానికి (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How about actually addressing the point that Littleolive oil and I have raised? Why should Wikipedia label subject matter long predating science as pseudoscientific? That is simply absurd, and has no place in a historical account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A historical account? Have you read the article Andy? true believers want to say things like "well integrated into the Indian Health system." how historical is that? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. It clearly has flaws. That doesn't however justify pseudohistorical revisionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you agree it isn't purely "a historical account"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere have I stated that it is purely an historical account. I have made it entirely clear that modern claims regarding efficacy of Ayurveda may be labelled as pseudoscientific. My objection is that the label is being applied to the entire subject - which to a great extent predates science, making the label absurd. Please address this issue directly, and explain why Wikipedia should be engaging in historical revisionism in such a manner, and stop erecting straw man arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by pseudohistorical revisionism. I didn't do an Arts degree. Plus you cant deny that you implied the article was a historical account, so I excuse my pseudostrawmanning. What we have to do then is to frame the article in a modern context, keep non-pseudoscientific history separate from the modern medical claims of true believers which obviously are pseudoscientific. Two articles, "History of Ayurveda" and "Ayurveda (alternative medicine)" one of which is categorised "pseudoscience"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to create another article, and you think it can be justified, do so. Meanwhile, this article, as an overview of the entire subject matter will not make absurd claims that a topic predating science by 2000-odd years is pseudoscientific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nor will quackery be allowed to go unremarked. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But doesn't means that you will need historical revisionism. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All the editors who oppose have no supporting evidence for their opinion. On Wikipedia we go by the sources not your personal opinion. See WP:BATTLE. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is plenty of supporting evidence in the article that Ayurveda long pre-dates anything that could remotely be called 'science', and accordingly cannot be retroactively be classified in relation to something that didn't exist at the time. Certainly, modern claims regarding specific aspects of Ayurveda may be pseudoscientific, but that doesn't justify an anachronistic attempt to label the entire subject as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And, what exactly is `science' supposed to be? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Including sourced information that it is considered a pseudoscience is fine, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. I don't know if that means it fits being categorized as pseudoscience. Could someone please summarize current consensus on how the category is applied? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What is 'considered pseudoscience' though? Vedic texts dating back to the 6th century BC, or modern claims regarding the effectiveness of treatments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Whatever they say, it needs to be clear in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, hardly 2 or 4 sources mention Ayurveda to be pseudoscience, although, based on flying mention or speculation like "some consider it as pseudoscience", it is added where it belongs, Pseudoscience and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously possible to find sources that say that modern claims regarding the effectiveness of Ayurveda may be pseudoscientific. That isn't the issue under debate here however - what is being discussed is an attempt to retroactively apply this to the entire subject matter, which simply defies logic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the topic of pseudoscience being addressed in the article body. It should be and it's exclusion puts these discussions in a bad light.

Again, can someone please summarize the consensus for applying the pseudoscience category? --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• University courses including graduate and post graduate courses certainly cover pseudoscientific subjects. Of particular note in the list of universities provided at least one offers degrees in naturopathy and has courses in homeopathy. Not exactly evidence something is not pseudoscience by association. Regardless published sources that challenge the categorization as pseudoscience or provide a contradictory characterization are what is needed. Please provide some quotes to clarify what is in the texts cited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• MrBill academic references that discuss Ayurveda in comparison to other sciences and no where give a slightest hint that it is a pseudoscience have been presented above. Can you show me even one University course list that declare they are teaching pseudoscience? How are the various years old reputed Universities across the world(listed above) giving post-graduation degrees? Based on pseudoscience syllabus? Why does the Government of different country and WHO recognise their right to practise it? You are going overboard with a call for an exact phrase "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". Yet another academic reference, from Oxford University Press, 2012 publishing (the latest you can get), the author is a scientist in Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, Cornell University in the book Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine: Plants and Modern Medicine page 56: In India today, more than 100 colleges offer standardized degrees in traditional Ayurvedic medicine. In the United States, the National Institute of Ayurvedic Medicine, located in New York, carries out research based on Ayurvedic practices. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health devotes a portion of its annual budget to research on Ayurvedic medicine, in an effort to determine how this form of alternative medicine stands in the context of Western medical science. As a traditional medicine, many Ayurveda products have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials; however, a few that have been tested show promising results. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not looking for the exact phrase "ayurveda is not a pseudoscience". The reputed universities offering courses in a subject in no way substantiate it is not a pseudoscience. As I mentioned those universities also offer courses in homeopathy, so they do offer courses in pseudoscience. Of note is although graduate degrees are offered in India, they are not in the United States. The WHO recognizes that it occurs, it does not endorse it as scientific. The reasons various governments allow practices do not support a contention that something is not pseudoscientific. That study is/has been applied and there is no evidence that supports the theoretical underpinnings or the practices speaks more to it being a pseudoscience than not. Money has been spent studying UFOs, remote viewing and a host of other pseudoscientific things. What distinguishes something as not a pseudoscience is a robust body of evidence that supports it, general acceptance of a scientifically plausible theoretical framework and successful application of the scientific method to study the subject. A field which claims to be medicine, a part of science (and art), makes claims about curing illnesses or improving health but lacks studies demonstrating efficacy these are evidence that ayurveda is a pseudoscience. Please provide some quotes from the texts you state discuss ayurveda in comparison to other sciences. What other science lacks a robust body of scholarly work? What other science relies on discredited and discarded theoretical foundations such as astrology and five basic humors of the body? - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

California is in USA and London is in Britain. Check the University list above. Quote has been given. Other references also given with specific page numbers. I may not reprodce "comparisons" in their full here because of copyvio. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the principles proposed by Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience, my opinion is that Ayurveda can be classified under either →3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. →4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.Prodigyhk (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some 2 and 3 attributes (maybe 1 as well), but it is up to the sources, not our original research. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources which support characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience

Quotations previously posted with these sources have been removed as a copyvio objection was raised.

References

- - MrBill3 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not even close to consider it as minority and you claim that it falls under general classification? It took you exactly 5 days to research, and only 2-3 base their opinion on speculation and one has only made a flying mention, while rest are have to do nothing with the classification as pseudoscience. Read Wikipedia:SYNTH and Wikipedia:OR. There are few ten-thousands of articles about Ayurveda, online, it is possible that couple of non-experts would be trying to right great wrongs, but again, historical revisionism has no acceptance. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (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.

A nonsensical close with strange conclusions. Are you also saying that the Flat Earth Theory is not pseudoscience? This result has nothing to do with policy, but just endorses some sort of "wisdom of the ancients" "its traditional so it must be real" superstition. Jimbo's "lunatic charlatans" have notched their belts on this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright material removed

I have removed form this talk page some quotations from copyright sources. Copyright law must be adhered to, even on talk pages. Please don't re-post the material. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Formally warned.[9] Bladesmulti (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the lengthy quote from Sujatha, I am of the opinion that the quoted text falls under WP:FAIRUSE. To wit, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." I am not restoring the text pending input from more knowledgeable editors, but I request the editor who removed the content wholesale to restore the content which falls under WP's fair use policy. Most was clearly brief quotations used to illustrate a point, some of the content removed contained no quotations at all and was not appropriate to remove. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti issuing formal warnings when you posted on this talk page, "unavailable, requires quotation for confirmation" seems hypocritical. "Some scientists doesn't fit" seems IDHT as Paranjape and Bradley both state that and it has been pointed out more than once. This article is under ArbCom sanctions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Quote doesn't means Wikipedia:Copyright violation. Bradley based his opinion on a speculation, just like Paranjape, and they haven't named any scientists really, but they went on to show how such opinion could be incorrect. You seem to have got it very late, but every article is under the ArbCom sanctions that falls under {{Wikiproject India}} Now because you are not aware of those sanctions, I have just reminded you about them. See your talk page Bladesmulti (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not clear how you assert that Paranjape and Bradley are basing their opinion on speculation. Paranjape has published a statement in a scholarly work from a reputable publisher. Paranjape did not say he speculated that, he stated it as fact. Similarly Bradley a published science journalist presented a fact from his knowledge, not a speculation. As you have pointed to the ArbCom sanctions on India related articles might I remind you that the decision states, "5) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site." WP:Disruptive editing states, "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors." and "Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." and § Failure or refusal to "get the point". - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When you are not clear, you should re-ask the question or re-read. But you don't seem to have done. Since both of them haven't named any of the scientists, neither there is any existence of those some scientists, which could have been proven with the extensive research that you have made. It becomes uncertain that how such historical revisionism can be blamed upon them. You don't have to copy policies over here, atleast when I am aware. Instead we have to concentrate on the discussion. I wonder if 13 people, who have opposed this historical revisionism would be considered disruptive, and they are not the part of Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, when they are. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When a scholar is publishing a statement they have researched and found an opinion held by a variety of scientists they don't attribute it that is common practice in academic writing. Paranjape is a reliable source based on qualifications and publication by a reputable publisher, WP does not require a source to give specific attribution to a view they state as held by some scientists or many western scientists and medics. The quality of the source determines how the content is weighted. Multiple reliable sources have been provided that characterize ayurveda as pseudoscience. Consensus is based on policy and supported by sources not majority rule. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When such scholar poet/professor has no relevance in the field of Ayurveda, and you can find only these few, it makes even better to think that citation is irrelevant for such historical revisionism. It can be found among a very little minority, thus it has to be ignored per Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, esp 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not OR, the opinion of an editor, it is a position held by many and presented as held by many in reliable sources. It is also in multiple sources as the position of the authors in addition to the position held by many in the authors' research. It is what the sources say repeatedly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of them, and actually far reliable have a opinion that Vedas were composed during 5000 - 10000 BCE, but we have never cited any of them, because they fall under the 2nd point of the above policy, here it is falling under 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick note:

1. The quotes being ascribed to Paranjpe in this and some earlier discussions, are actually by P Ram Manohar, a practitioner and researcher of Ayurveda (bio here), as the citation in my draft above specifies.
2. The discussion in this section is getting circular, and repeating points that both sides have already made earlier.

Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree and Manohar was saying that after a few forged publications about Ayurveda, Baell claimed that it is pseudoscience, and he writes that Baell is biased against the Ayurveda. May be that part was summarized by Paranjape. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. I was referring to the PR Manohar's quote, "There are people who would rate Ayurveda as a proto-scientific system of thought, yet others would go so far to reject it as pseudo-science altogether..." from here, which was wrongly being ascribed to Paranjpe. Not this other article by him, which discusses Baell. Abecedare (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, issue was that some scientists has been clarified by Paranjape, though it hasn't been. Manohar or Paranjape were talking about the varied views of people. Views can be of any type, scholarly, non-scholarly or beyond that. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As no policy based argument against my fair use contention has been presented I will repost all but the last excerpt. The removing author indicated they felt as the sources were [mostly] available online a pointer and link were adequate. This doesn't address the issue of did the [mostly] short quotes fall within fair use. Pending an interpretation of policy that argues against fair use I will repost. As it is common practice to provide quotes of sources on talk I think general consensus supports this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Outside the Subcontinent

Proposal for addition to the "Outside the Subcontinent" section:

"In the United Kingdom the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's sixth report dismissed ayurveda as unscientific this lead the Indian High Commissioner and the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine to protest saying ayurveda has the backing of 30 years of research and clinical trials."

References

The notability and reputation of the BMJ, the House of Lords Select Committee and the official position of the Indian government official give due weight to this summary of the sixth report and the response. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You got the link to the citation? If correct, it will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The doi is a link. The content is paywalled. I can assure you the paraphrase is accurate (perhaps a little on the close paraphrase side). I can't post the exact quote due to copyright concerns. I have access to BMJ through the WP Library. Most decent public libraries should be able to provide onsite access. Thank you for collaborating, pending input from other editors I will make the edit. The subject (ayurveda in the UK) has received a good deal more in depth academic discussion and hopefully there will be some improvement in the article overall. The entire question of how to cover both historic and contemporary ayurveda in an encyclopedia could be handled in a better manner (that includes my behavior). I look forward to the contributions of editors who are able and willing to read and summarize a large body of scholarly writing. This article provides a wealth of material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Group 3, where Ayurveda was added, it referred to those medicines that have no effect on medical treatments. After some proof was submitted by an representative of India, it was switched to Group 1. It can be extended and explained.[10]-1#v=onepage&q=group 1&f=false Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree the subject of ayurveda in the UK is more complex than that simple statement and has more recent information. I'm open to a proposal but I would prefer better sources. I think the article I link to above provides more uninvolved scholarly sources that cover the subject with some recency. Although somewhat primary the links on the ayurveda practitioner's website are to official publications and could be used. Feel free to make a proposal. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would begin by qualifying the content with a date. In 2001, in the United Kingdom..... This gives context and allows for more recent information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC))

• Wujastyk, Dominik (200). "Policy Formation and Debate Concerning the Government Regulation of Ayurveda in Great Britain in the 21st Century". Asian Medicine: Tradition and Modernity. Vol. 1. Brill. pp. 162–84. Provides an analysis of ayurveda in the UK. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text :- In 2000, in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's excluded Ayurveda from Group 1, consisted of the medicinal treatments that are likely beneficial, to Group 3 that included the ineffective or alternative medicinal treatments. After the provision of medical evidence by an expert from the Government of India, and protests from the Ayurveda practitioners, Ayurveda was placed back to Group 1.

References

Bladesmulti (talk)

suggest separate sub-section "United Kingdom" Prodigyhk (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

One paragraph about each country seemed enough for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

History

Read one of the middle para that mentions Agnivesh, it is linking to someone who was born in 1939, and not the historical person. నిజానికి (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a basic error. I don't see a problem correcting it, just unlink. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

He's talking about Agnivesa. Last time when I had read, (about 10 months ago) I hadn't really observed, but today I have found some. There's nothing like Chakaka, nor Bheda, it is Charaka Samhita and Bhela Samhita. The period of Vaghbhata have been supported by the citation but not any others. People, excluding Vagbhata, Madhava, lived during as well as before the period of Buddha. Vagbhata lived during 8th century, and Madhava lived during 9th century.[11] I will edit these, with clear citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that means we have got a page about Agnives. The section will require a re-write and more sources, current source is from 19th century and it is no more in use, writer has not established any periods. My apologies for this delay. నిజానికి (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text for Ayurveda#Main_Texts:-

There are three principal early texts on Ayurveda, they are Charaka Samhita, the Sushruta Samhita and the Bhela Samhita. The Sushruta Samhita is based on an original written during the 6th century BCE, this work was updated by 2nd century Buddhist scholar, Nagarjuna. The Charaka Samhita, written by Charaka, it is dated to the period of 6th century BCE. Bhela Samhita is also dated to a period of 6th century BCE, and attributed to the sage Atreya Punarvasu, who was the personal physician of King Nagnajit of Gandhara Kingdom. During early centuries of common era, Dridhabala had added about 120 chapters to Charaka Samhita.

The Bower Manuscript, is also of special interest to historians due to its inclusion of Samhitas and its concepts in Central Asian Buddhism. A. F. R. Hoernle in his 1897 edition identified the scribe of the medical portions of the manuscript as a native of India, using a northern variant of the Gupta script, who had migrated and become a Buddhist monk in a monastery in Kucha. The Chinese pilgrim Fa Hsien (c. 337–422 AD) wrote about the health care system of the Gupta empire (320–550) and described the institutional approach of Indian medicine, also visible in the works of Charaka, who mentions a clinic and how it should be equipped.

Other early texts, mentioned alongside the Sushruta, Charaka and Bhela samhita, are Agnivesha samhita, Kasyapa samhita and Harita samhitas. The original edition of Agnivesha Samhita can be dated to 1500 BCE, it was written by Agnivesa and the text was later modified by Charaka. Kasyapa samhita includes the treatise of Jivaka Kumar Bhaccha and it is dated a period of 6th century BCE. While Harita samhita is dated to an earlier period, it is attributed to Harita, who was a disciple of Punarvasu Atreya. Some later texts includes Astanga nighantu (8th Century) by Vagbhata, Paryaya ratnamala (9th century) by Madhava, Siddhasara nighantu (9th century) by Ravi Gupta, Dravyavali (10th Century), Dravyaguna sangraha (11th century) by Cakrapanidatta, among others.

Extended content
References

Bladesmulti (talk)

There is only one problem, it should mention Dridhabala and not Gupta empire, Dridhabala was the writer according to that source, period is less important than the writer. నిజానికి (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed it. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

0RR revisited

As I may not override the clearly unworkable 0RR, I'm protecting the article, without checking current content, per WP:WRONGVERSION. I ask that all blocks due solely to 0RR be reversed with an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you override 0RR? It was imposed without any consultation on a whim by an overreaching admin who actually had the gall to warn Jimbo Wales as well as me (haha). Editors have informed us that they will no longer watch or contribute to this page because of this imposition, and the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority. It sucks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

He claimed it was an arbitration enforcement ruling. Those can only be overturned by clear consensus or an ArbCom ruling, even if absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@John: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no arbcom ruling, 0rr was imposed by John for stopping edit war, see Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If there isn't an arbcom ruling, or discretionary sanctions in effect, then he is not permitted to apply 0RR without consensus. If it isn't Arbcom enforcement, I would release it to 1RR, or possibly 0RR* (you cannot revert to a previous version which you created, even in part). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Ayurveda WP:AN#Ayurvedra. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no objection to removal of full protection if 0RR is reversed, the article is reverted to the state it was at when 0RR was placed, and all editors who said they left because of 0RR are pinged. This would allow for determination of a consensus with all editors concerns being considered. Thinking about it, I prefer Future Perfect's proposal to mine, (1RR), which John seems to have accepted. I will probably not be active enough this week to keep track of the issues.

The question of whether John should be restricted from taking administrative actions related to the article should be considered, but should not be required, provided that any uninvoved admin can apply such restrictions if he commits any other obvious errors in attempting to moderate the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a proposal to restrict John's admin actions on this article? Who is proposing this restriction? Could that be clarified please.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC))

I'm proposing it, as there is consensus that imposing 0RR on an article relating to pseudoscience is always wrong, and he wouldn't agree to reverse it for quite a while. (There is general consensus that 0RR is almost always wrong, to begin with.) Personally, I feel that he is blocking for indirect incivility (applying epithets to unnamed editors on the other side) at the expense of allowing civil POV-pushers. But I'm involved, as I have had non-admin-related interactions with QG and RtD in the past. My imposing full protection is questionable, per WP:INVOLVED, but 0RR clearly damages Wikipedia the the extent of causing good editors to quit, even without claims that they were violating any guidelines or restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. But I don't agree with you. In any article, in any situation editors have the right to stay or leave as they see fit. Suggesting that because editors don't like something, means we should go after them and placate them seems wrong to me. Further, I don't see that John's actions are wrong. ORR affects all editors equally; saying that some editors benefit while others don't seems illogical. So in total I would not support your proposal that John be restricted from acting in his admin capacity. I guess I don't understand why you protected an article knowing and admitting you are involved. My opinion of course and I have only been intermittently involved here and don't care much one way or the other about some of these issues. I do care about civility and that those who are here edit freely with out name calling and accusations. POV pushing can go many ways. Isn't it preferable to deal with the content and edits rather than assuming editor motivation which just dirties the water. I just don't see why issues can't be discussed and consensus reached with out edit reversions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC))

Hi Littleolive a couple of points that you raised deserve an answer from your two posts at 2:05 and 5:07. First of all, John has on more than one occasion declared his indifference to this page. He doesn't care what we say about Ayurdeda, much like yourself, and this indifference is a concern. If you have been following the saga of John's failed sanctions, you will note that he has ignored the concerns of well respected editors since his sanctions were unilaterly imposed, without consensus or consultation. (There are other concerns with John's behaviour which go to this.) See the sections on this page entitled "Going Forward" and "A Concern" (you commented in both sections) and think about those editors, who you have interacted with. To dismiss these legit concerns is wrong. Nobody is asking for editors to be placated, simply that silly editing restrictions which do not work be lifted. Good editors such as those can easily find equally interesting pages to edit with a much less hassle, and with far more rewarding results. Thing is, we need those good editors at troubled articles like this one. Finally for now, to say that edit reversions are not necessary as you do shows a certain naivete that I had not expected from you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, isn't it your behaviour that has been found disruptive when editing this article (among others), Roxy the Dog? Please correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you got banned blocked (multiple) times with respect to this article among others?

Anyway, I do expect that you agree that not engaging in talk page discussion yet reverting disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanction", right? Therefore, nobody has a need to make redundant reverts; they can kindly participate the discussion at talk page. Thank you WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

Moreover, it is said: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." Isn't that a guideline good enough? Does it suggest that reverting edits is the answer? No, it doesn't. Instead, it encourages one to attend the discussion at talk page. I don't see that as something too much to ask. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am correcting you. You are wrong. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for your correction, Roxy the Dog. You've been recently banned blocked for this article only. However, your behaviour has been found disruptive when editing this article among others. Anyway, I'd like to emphasize the importance of engaging in talk page discussion and paying special attention to the quality of argumentation instead of merely reverting disputed material. And this concerns all of us. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome Jay. I suppose the take home message from this is that if your edits in article space are as accurate as that one, the need to be able to revert your, and other innaccuracies, is demonstrated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I disagree with you on several points. This article is under arbitration and any non involved admin has the right and responsibility according to the arbitration committee to impose sanctions, and those sanctions will likely be in many instances unilateral. This is very different from unilateral editing in a contentious area which is not a great idea. I wouldn't confuse indifference to positions on issues in an article with indifference to Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Nor would I confuse that kind of indifference with an inability to understand and research a subject. I no longer have the interest in immersing myself in unpleasant article situations even if I believe the content is skewed. Its not worth it to me to fight for neutrality on articles at the expense to my personal life. But don't confuse that with indifference or lack of knowledge to Wikipedia and its standards. If I walk away I liike any other editor forfeit my right to complain about the article. If any editor walks away that is their decision and I do not see the need to run after them. Nor do I consider the editors working here not good editors. Andy the Grump for example, is an excellent editor and he stayed and made his points. Why should we identify editors as excellent or not because they are supporting a particular POV which seems to be what you are implying. There is no reason in a collaborative environment for editors to revert each other. Mature editors can agree and compromise especially if they are removed from a personal position that demands certain kinds of content. I think our time would be better served if we got on with editing the article rather than fighting John. My opinion such as it is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC))

Littleolive has made perfect explanation, if it is impossible or still not possible to gain consensus for some edits, it is better to just leave them. Like I am not asking for adding WHO and NIH mention as recognition. Why article is still protected? నిజానికి (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So, Category:Pseudoscience should be restored? And the article is still protected because the details of revoking (preferably retroactively) 0RR have not been established, although consensus for that has been established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No and you are right about 0rr never works without protection, but the new rule about BRD that is written below was to be applied retroactively, so that the article can be edited. నిజానికి (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the restrictions

After recent blocks and various commentary, some more informed than others, I mentioned last night that it is time to review the restrictions at this article. This is complicated by the fact that an involved editor, User:Roxy the dog added an Arbcom restriction template on 30 October, after I had imposed the conditions, as explained further up the page. I did not notice this at the time and nor was I informed. I have some concern that an involved editor adding this in the middle of a dispute resolution process was gaming the system somewhat.

Nevertheless, on reflection, I tend to agree that this template is merited; while the inclusion of ayurveda as a pseudoscience is controversial, ArbCom restrictions tend to be wider ("broadly construed") than articles or categories. I propose that we modify the restrictions, as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has suggested, to "(a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute."

This will be in addition to the existing prohibition on personalising disputes, and will now come under arbitration enforcement. In a way this is a stronger sanction than we had in place previously. Let editors thinking of this as a return to a free-for-all be under no doubts about this. Trash talk from any editor on whichever "side" (and the idea that there are "sides" is one of the main problems here, in my opinion) will result in a block, whether it is directed at a particular editor or against the other "side" in general. I hope this will provide a fruitful path towards resolving the disputes here. I look forward to those who contributed to the discussion at various other places assisting in maintaining proper behaviour here, towards a return to normal editing. The restrictions, both before and after this modification, are only there to remind editors of what proper editing behaviour is supposed to look like. Let's see what we can do. Finally, I say again, if you are reading this and are unhappy because you regard it as important that you be allowed to repeatedly revert the work of others without discussion or to call other people names, you should consider that you may well be part of the problem. --John (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, Lovely to see you here for the first time since the 19th of October. I am concerned that in your polite comment above, you seem to politely imply that I have in some way misbehaved, gaming the system, when I added the ARBCOM pseudoscience/fringe tag to this page. Surely this is not true, as you agree that the placement of the tag is merited. Surely anybody is entitled to place such a tag. Please could you clarify, and I would politely suggest withdraw, what could be construed by some as a personal attack. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John for taking this discussion on in an ongoing manner. Would you consider extending discussion time on contentious edits to 6 hours or even slightly longer so that editors in all time zones have time to see and respond? Just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC))

I doubt there'd be any serious disagreement about whether pseudo science applies here -- anyone who has a problem with that can file a WP:ARCA. I think 0RR is really bad idea because of WP:V. The idea that someone could inject total crap in an article for a set amount of time is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Also, I've never seen it done -- is anyone aware of a 0RR anywhere else on Wikipedia? I think a more common 1RR would be appropriate, along with blocks for name calling (after the alert required by WP:AC/DS, of course). NE Ent 00:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

4 hours is probably reasonable, others would probably wait if content is helpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So, if an IP adds a statement like "Ayurveda is the worse quackery in the world, and any practitioner should be jailed for life" or "Ayurveda cures cancer and HIV" to the article, which is patent nonsense and should by all rights be reverted on sight, we have to wait until someone posts a comment on the talk page, and wait another four hours, before removing it? How is this beneficial to the encyclopedia? Yobol (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here isn't vandalism, it's portraying Ayurveda as having a factual basis. If there's going to be a criteria that permits immediate reversion, it should include portraying pseudoscience as legitimate science.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I had same question as Yobol, and I read the {b}"nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute." That's the best criteria for immediate reversion. నిజానికి (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that there is no indication that the second clause allows for a revert; just that if an editor does put in a contentious edit, this would be grounds for blocking. This, however, does not stop outside editors who do not have a clue about these restrictions, from putting in those contentious edits in the first place. I'm not sure why we just don't put in place a 1RR on this and call it a day. This seems to work on numerous other, frankly more contentious, articles. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's four hours not 4 weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(Haha Somebody tell John, 4 weeks is about his average response time based on this page. For clarity, this comment was a joke, not a personal attack)

Just a suggestion, but I feel that it may be worth just lifting the failed sanctions imposed by John, leaving the well established and well tried Arbcom sanctions in place. This has the advantage of lifting the present chilling effects on mainstream editors. All those experienced fringe editors who have left this page are well used to working with them, and the results have been good for the project. SPAs, IP editors with vested interests, COI eds and fringe theory advocates have all been successfully prevented from disrupting the project on very controversial pages simply by using said sanctions. Please consider this, bearing in mind that Arbcom sanctions were not explicitly imposed extant on this page when John's Ad Hoc sanctions were imposed. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop labelling editors here? And Ayurveda has a "factual basis. If Ayurveda is pseudoscience or fringe that's another issue, but fact based it is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC))

Perhaps you could get some of those facts into the article, cos they aren't there at the moment ;) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many articles not "explicitly" and currently under sanctions. However ARBCOM tends to suggest in that certain cases that their ruling are to be broadly interpreted. Instead of wikilawyering I think I'll just ask John a question. @John: I think above you suggested this article falls under the fringe theories or pseudoscience ARBCOM case, I'm sure but what ever the ARBCOM case in question, did the case suggest that articles in relation should be broadly interpreted? I also don't think I saw this question asked on ANI or elsewhere. John since it doesn't seem that you became an ADMIN yesterday I feel that you are aware 0RR is quite restrictive and I would assume that you do not generally apply 0RR sanctions when you take action on a page. Is there a particular reason that you choose to apply 0RR, something about the situation on this page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A 4 hours wait is reasonable. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rules requiring pure nonsense to stay in an article for at least 4 hours (from the time that someone notices the nonsense and posts on the talk page) seem antithetical to building a respectable encyclopedia, especially when we have no track record that such a sanction actually works and we have other options available. Why would we want to have any constraint on editors from removing nonsense from the article? I just don't get it. Yobol (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are hardly 4 issues with the article, once we see that they are solved, we wouldn't require any of these sanctions and article can be brought back to its pre-18 October mode. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that we should never put in place rules that make it harder to build and maintain a good encyclopedia. I also see no indication that there is a specified time limit to these new rules. Yobol (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct and since this talk(page) is edited by at least 10 active editors, they can ask on AN, they can seek the lifting of sanctions. Just updating, I had proposed content for 2/4 issues, and they have faced no objections. See History and outside Indian subcontinent. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would venture that any changes to the article that have happened since the imposition of the failed sanctions are suspect, as I have seen suggested recently. Once lifted, we really should return the article to that point before the chilling effect chased many of those maintaining consensus away, and a real consensus can emerge, rather than a questionable one we might see at the moment. I see that contributor here suggesting that his 4 issues just need to be cleared up 'under sanctions' then everything will be ok, why do we need failed sanctions to help clear up those issues? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion went as follows: " "(a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute.""

So, if one makes a contentious edit without prior discussion, Yobol, what's the problem? Just revert it. I think the suggestion is really clear, and I am in support of it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Except we can't revert even blatant nonsense for at least 4 hours until after someone posts on the talk page. Rules that requires that no one remove nonsense from the encyclopedia for 4 or more hours do not make any sense to me, as we are here to build an encyclopedia, not make rules that make it harder to maintain it. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You guys have mentioned the normal guidelines and rules, not much about the sanctions. RTD has well said about the sanctions, if they are not working they should be removed. Edit war should lead to protection of page, not unique sanctions. నిజానికి (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Update

All right, this has been open for five days and various people, involved and uninvolved, have had their say. Here's how it's going to be going forward.

*No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR.

• No edit-warring, broadly construed. This includes team edit wars where A adds something, B removes, C restores and D re-removes. In this new restriction, editors C and D would be eligible for warning or a block depending on their previous conduct. This was the concern that led to the imposition of 0RR in the first place.
• 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.

Only the first provision (highlighted in red) is changed; the other two remain as they were. All three will now be treated as Arbcom enforcement. --John (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you consulted anybody on this, or are these sanctions unilaterally declared as before. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed on John's talk page with some input from myself and TParis. Technically though John has the right to unilaterally declare the sanctions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The problems which led to full protection are still not resolved. If

1. The article is reverted to the state it was when 0RR was declared (or some earlier state, if consensus can be reached),
2. All discussions since then except those related to the sanctions be "hatted" as irrelevant, as a number of editors have dropped out because of their (in the opinion of many admins, justified) belief that it would be impossible to improve the article under 0RR,
3. All such editors should be informed of the revocation of 0RR, and
4. The revocation of 0RR is appropriately publicized because not all editors who have dropped out have stated so where it can easily be found (here, WP:ANI, WP:AN, User talk:John),

then it would be worth trying unprotection. Otherwise, I would argue against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be determined until points 3 and 4 are implemented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I see no need for imposing anything more than the extant ARBCOM Pseudoscience sanctions. I'd also like to see the purging of the record of sanctions against Blades and QG as well. QG was unaware of the sanctions, and I'm convinced that Blades didn't understand what John meant. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

John claims that QG's and Blades's block were not for 0RR, but for edit warring. In that absence of an Arbcom finding that John is lying, I see little hope of overturning the sanctions.

I believe there is an consensus of admins that the 0RR restriction was unproductive, although there is lack of agreement as to remedy. I'm imposing what I consider to be a minimal remedy, but, if John decides it's invalid, we go back to WP:AN or WP:RfAr. This is not a good time of year to go to Arbcom.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The most edit wars seem to be happening in the lead, as it is seen to be important place to push POV. If John can have restrictions placed on the lead, I believe we will solve most problem. Editors could then spend quality time on discuss and develop the various sections within the body. And after consensus is arrived in each section of the body, a single sentence summarizing that section can be included in the lead. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No mas

Quit talking about other editors on article talk pages, per WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:TPNO. Dreadstar ☥ 05:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Science oriented editors should leave this article to its fate. The first-mover advantage that John has given to those adding dubious and unencyclopedic content means that attempting to keep the article neutral is futile. His unwillingness to practice what he preaches does not reflect well on him. Sometimes you just need to walk away and let things go to pot. 216.3.101.62 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Systems Health"

Desoto in your recent edit [[12]] you mention that "systems health" is a trademarked term. Do not find any relevant info about it being a trademark. (rewriting to correct) you have removed the sentence --along with Siddha Medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine, forms the basis for systems medicine--. But, in your comments you mention "systems health" is a trademark term. But, the text in the sentence relates to systems medicine. Request your feedback. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Prodigyhk (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The change deleting "systems medicine" also changed some commas to periods. I assume that was unintentional, but I told John I wouldn't edit the article. Any comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I have screwed something up. What I removed was: and along with Siddha Medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine, forms the basis for systems medicine.

If you clicked on the provided link, you were taken to a website promoting a trademarked "Systems Health" run by Dr. VA Shiva Ayyadurai.Desoto10 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC) In addition, I did not see that this subject was addressed in the body of the article and so wondered why it was brought up in the lead paragraphs.Desoto1 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was weird--I am not Desoto1, but rather, Desoto10.Desoto10 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Desoto1and I am not Desoto1 Thanks for the "joint" explanation :D . Agree lead should summarise contents from body. Also, the link could be self promotion. When we have a few more relevant sources, we could plan on if/how to include about Ayurveda and Systems medicine in the body. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Other changes since 0RR for review

Including that, I have examined some of the changes that were made during last few weeks.

• Under Ayurveda#Natural_medical_substances_used, you had added:-

“ A variety of alcoholic beverages known as Madya are used in Ayurveda. It enhances Pitta dosha and mitigates Vatta and Kapha dosha. They are grouped by the raw material and fermentation process and classified as: sugar based, fruit based, cereal based, cereal base with herbs, fermentation of vinegar and tonic wines. Madya are used for various purposes including to cause purgation, improve digestion and taste, to create dryness and to produce looseness of joints. Ayurveda texts describe it as non-viscid, quick in action, enters into minute pores of the body and cleaning them, spreads quickly.

In some cases, alcohol was used as a narcotic for patients undergoing operation.

Purified opium the dried latex from the plant capsule is used in eight Ayurvedic preparation. It balances Vata and Kapha Doshas and enhance Pitta Dosha. Used for treatment of certain conditions of diarrhoea and dysentery, and also to increase the sexual and muscular powers and produce stupefaction of brain. But, sedative and pain-relieving properties of opium on the human organ was not considered for Ayurvedic treatment purposes. The use of Opium is not found in the ancient Ayurveda texts. Although no exact time is known, it is possible that that Opium was brought to India along with or before the Mohammedan conquest. The therapeutic usage of opium is first mentioned in Sarngadhara Samhita, a book on pharmacy written between 1300-1400AD that was referred by physicians of Rajasthan in Western India, as ingredient of an aphrodisiac to delay seminal ejaculation.

The book Yoga Ratnakara written in 1700-1800AD by an unknown author and popular in Maharasthra uses opium as an ingredient for a herbo-mineral composition for treatment of diarrhea.

In Bhaisajya Ratnavali, opium along with camphor is used in treatment of acute gastro-enteritis. In this drug, the respiratory depressant action of Opium was counteracted by the respiratory stimulant property of Camphor. Later books have included the narcotic property for use as analgesic pain reliever.

Cannabis Indica, a plant of Indian origin is not mentioned in the ancient Ayurveda books. Its use as medicine is first mentioned in Sarngadhara Samhita, a book on pharmacy written between 1300-1400AD, for the treatment of diarrhea. Later, in Bhaisajya Ratnavali it has been used as ingredient in an aphrodisiac

Both oil and tar were used to stop bleeding. Traumatic bleeding was said to be stopped by four different methods: ligation of the blood vessel; cauterisation by heat; using different herbal or animal preparations locally which could facilitate clotting; and different medical preparations which could constrict the bleeding or oozing vessels. Various oils could be used in a number of ways, including regular consumption as a part of food, anointing, smearing, head massage, prescribed application to affected areas, and oil pulling. Also, liquids may be poured on the patient's forehead, a technique which is called shirodhara.

”

We can remove the unsourced, and use BCE/CE for eras, there is no issue with other sentences.

• On outside Indian subcontinent, the proposed text should be included and M.D., P.H.D can be removed like before.

• Under Ayurveda#Efficacy, Abecedare had included :-

“ A 2001 systematic review of Ayurvedic treatment of diabetes concluded that some of the herbal formulas merited further study, while noting the heterogeneity in the Ayurvedic treatment regimens and the significant methodological shortcomings of the reviewed studies. ”

Extended content
References

With both of these changes, there was no opposition, we can include them again. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

agree Prodigyhk (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A systematic review that finds something merits further study is not significant. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For me, No merit = no inclusion, sorry. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, because it is still in progress. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The stated conclusion of the diabetes review was:"Therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn on the effect of these therapies on insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (type 1) patients." Desoto10 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just discussed that above, it is still in progress thus it is alright to keep it removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I went through the edits mentioned at Talk:Ayurveda#Recent edits, and no objections on my behalf so far. I agree with MrBill3 and Roxy the Dog however, the 2001 quote above makes rather a non-existent contribution by simply saying that "some of the herbal formulas merited further study". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Efficacy

I fleshed out a few of the comments in this section. I forgot the edit summary on the last one--just clarified that the promise in the herbal treatments stems from animal experiments. Desoto10 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not happy that these changes have been made without discussion, but due to the unusual circumstances of this page, it is unclear if it is permissable for me to make modifications to those changes without incurring the wrath of the Admins, and thus incurring unjustified blots on my copybook. I shall instead register this objection. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope he is aware of Talk:Ayurveda#Update. Desoto10's changes were fine and he has explained them, he was just expanding the information per citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't fine. That is why I objected. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there something going on here that I don't know about? The only restriction that I see are is the administrative sanctions bit which is usual for many of these kinds of articles. Why would you not be able to change my edits?Desoto10 (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to some vigorous edit warring in the recent past an admin has imposed restrictions based on the arbcom ruling allowing an admin to do so. They are on this talk page at the link provided above. My interpretation is Roxy is required to provide smoe more detailed explanation of the objections and perhaps have some consensus or level of support. I don't really understand the restrictions that well as they would seem to imply that before making the edits Desosto10 should have discussed them and sought/gotten support/consensus. What I see as best for this article is propose and discuss edits before making them if they could be considered substantial or controversial (although anticipating controversy requires both common sense and a crystal ball). Whatever, I anticipate Roxy will provide an explanation of their objections shortly and discussion will follow. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Real life gets in the way sometimes. this diff over eggs the pudding somewhat, suggesting far more promise for future herbal treatments than wikipedia should express. The changes here are a backward step - meaning is the same, but clarity is lost. Will readers know what RA is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 November 2014‎

I think meaning is also lost in the second change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I intend to change it back then, as there are no objections. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Destoto can explain whenever he has enough time. నిజానికి (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The reverted edits have been explained. They are an expansion that closely follows the sources and should be restored. There is consensus support. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits were made despite civil and good-faith objections above from other editors. This contradicts the spirit and letter of the sanctions extant on this article. User:Prodigyhk may have been unaware of this component of the sanctions, so I would invite him or her to self-revert. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-insertion of these edited were discussed here. The objections were regarding the 2nd part of the discussion "Outside Indian Continent" section Prodigyhk (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Prodigyhk. Since there appears to be a difference of opinion regarding the nature of these edits, I have invited an administrator to give his opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Other changes since 0RR for review - Only the part under Ayurveda#Efficacy was objected, not other changes. He had notified when he had added these, last month. See Talk:Ayurveda#Natural medical substances used- further additions. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris I hope you have reviewed the reasons from Bladesmulti and myself on why this edit was made. Please advice if you are satisfied with our response. If not, please advice the specific objections raised by other editors on this edit that has raised your concern. This will help us understand better the difference of opinions and respond effectively. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also see the section called History, some sections above. Some errors are still appearing on the page. నిజానికి (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Had to be done by now, terminology would need to be edited in order to meet the proposed edits to history. నిజానికి (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed it now. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

The article currently states: There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease.

There are a few issues with this statement that make it unsuitable:

1. An absolute negative is, of course, impossible to prove, and quite a high hurdle to even support reasonably well.
2. There are countless examples, including some mentioned in both the cited article and this Wikipedia article, of ways that Ayurvedic treatments have been effective at treating an assortment of diseases. The cited article includes 5 examples. (Many statements about the efficacy of Ayurveda concentrate on major disorders. But, eczema, as one minor example, is a disease which is readily treated by Ayurveda. So, it may be appropriate to state that there is a lack of evidence showing its efficacy for treating "certain diseases", there is no way to support the claim that there is no scientific evidence as to its effectiveness in treating "any disease".)
3. If there were strong evidence supporting the likelihood that "no scientific evidence" existed, then it may be a suitable statement. But, such an strong statement requires strong support. The only supporting evidence is one article which is not an academically rigorous source, and which, itself, offers 5 examples of scientific evidence supporting that certain Ayurvedic medicine is effective at treating certain disorders.
4. The statement that "there is no scientific evidence [...]" is a claim, and not a supported fact. For this claim to stand, it should be better supported. Or, it might better be reworded.

I propose that the above claim be replaced by: Though some studies suggest the efficacy of some Ayurvedic treatment for certain conditions, the science is inclusive as to the efficacy of Ayurveda as a complete system of treatment.

This statement is supportable and non-controversial.

I may come up with a list of disorders with supporting evidence as to Ayurvedic efficacy to broaden the claim that Ayurvedic treatments have been shown to be effective at treating certain conditions. However, in the interim, I think there is sufficient cause to remove the claim that there is absolutely none unless such a statement could be at least strongly supported.

Baustinca (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I assume you meant to write, "the science is inconclusive as to the efficacy of Ayurveda..." which is not non-controversial as it gives undue weight to minority viewpoints. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

safe intake of heavy metals by food standards, is anything linking to this topic found in a ref?

Safe intake should have its own section on this page above or bellow or even within the heavy metal section, "The Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives Secretariat recommends that a 70-kilogram, or 154-pound, person consume no more than 250 micrograms of lead, 50 micrograms of mercury and 150 micrograms of arsenic per day."

Would it be possible to use it as it gives rough guide to the safe daily dose which humans can safely intake?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/fashion/18skin.html?_r=092.236.96.38 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

It is not very possible to list every update. You can propose if you have any in your mind. నిజానికి (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We aren't prescribing or warning. Any content added must be supported by a source that includes a direct reference to Ayurveda. and must be MEDRS compliant and mainstream. Information that is not directly supported by such a source and which makes a implied connection to Ayurveda is Original Research and is outside the scope of our articles. I have heard that in the past some Ayurvedic products where shipped in drums that had been used for chemical pesticides and so were contaminated. No source for that just the word of an environmental lawyer and friend. That was apparently a long time ago-30 years or so; things have probably changed since then. Anyway no OR for us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC))_

LOO, did you read the proposed source? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope I didn't, and thanks for calling me on that. This is what comes of rushing around before leaving town! I took the cmt here at face value and it didn't say anything about Ayurvrda. My error. I don't think the source is MEDRS compliant though, although it may refer to sources that are. I don't have time to check. I guess I was implying above that there probably are compliant sources that indicate some products may be contaminated. Apologies all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

No problem. Since your comments weren't consistent with the article's text, I thought perhaps you had confused it with a different source. Safe travels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK references not valid?

"an ancient Indian system of medicine which began about 5,000 years ago. It is not just one treatment. It is a way of diagnosing illness and using a wide range of treatments and techniques. Some regards it as" this text was deleted from the article by User:Roxy the dog as per this. May I know why it is reverted eventhough I provided Cancer Research UK's reference? Please have a look at the reference and if you don't find text mentioned here on the reference page, revert it. If you find it, please justify your reason to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsvyas (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Before you make a major change like this[13], read Talk:Ayurveda#Update, if conclusion is that there is no scientific proof from the same citation, then you will just have to keep it on lead. Although I do agree with this change[14], and it is not really a major change, but only Roxy the dog has problem with it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that there is no scientific proof and hence have not removed it from the text. Please have a revised text read. If it is the same reference that suggests that some of it is useful, what is the reason for hiding that fact? Why can't both stay side by side?-- Dhaval^Talk 11:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, the one on which this discussion started, clearly states that it is an ancient Indian system of medicine, why is that not depicted on the page and the edit is reverted? I have even left the fact in next paragraph where it is referred to as complementary medicine. If source for one statement is considered valid, why is it not for the other? Roxy the dog has problem in calling it anything but complementary medicine, despite the reference from reliable source?-- Dhaval^Talk 11:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

About your wikilinks, yes there was clear agreement for keeping them. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 54#MEDRS verification, though no agreement for removing them. If you have agreed, that you will not change the lead(starting paragraphs) again, then it is alright. Again, we cannot claim any scientific benefits at least on lead about Ayurveda. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dsvyas, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, thanks. Also, as you are in violation of the sanctions in place on this page and the article page by violating 1RR twice, please could you self-revert your reverts of my two contributions to the article today. Thank you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

He knows how to sign, he may not have been aware of "0-revert" rule, however his other edit was not a major, just a partial recovery of content that was recently(october 2014) removed without any discussion or concord. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@John: please sort this out, thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would help things run smoothly if everyone were to agree that a revert is a revert, full stop. Otherwise there is potential for endless argument over which reverts "count". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the contentious edits made by Dsvyas. I do not think we can directly equate the terms as proposed. Yobol (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute is probably about psychiatry, although backed by reliable citations, but I would ask, you will prefer Exorcism or demonology or both of these two as replacement? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Others have explained why those lead edits require consensus. Dsvyas should not add anything about how old Ayurveda is, naming it as ancient or traditional is enough for the lead, if you need more information, then you can read rest of the page. నిజానికి (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

How about editors work on grammar problems without worrying about editing restrictions?

The grammar problems in the article are laughable. How about we put improving this article, where grammar is concerned, over the editing restrictions? Anyone object? --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't object, but please bear in mind that some editors here run off to report infarctions of restrictions at the drop of a hat, and John uses his mop and bucket like the Sword of Damocles and is very unpredictable, so be careful. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do I smell a violation of 1RR here?[15][16] The restrictions here are for a purpose. Any violation of them should be sanctioned. Nobody is interested in hearing endless rants about those. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Jay, it was the edit after those that violated the sanctions, the ones I made were quite acceptable. Cheers. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are walking on a thin ice, Roxy the Dog. I hope you are wearing your icepicks on your neck. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I can't see any problem with fixing the grammar issues. After all, that's not a revert on the substance. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added copyedit template. Cleanup template is mostly for spam. నిజానికి (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at the current version of the lede. Some of the grammar probems that I noticed in the lede earlier were a part of the content under dispute that is currently removed.

I tagged "medieval period" as needing clarification. Perhaps we trim the lede a bit and expand on the topic in the History section? I'm not seeing any definition within this article about what "medieval period" refers to at all, but I could be overlooking something.

I also considered tagging "Vedic tradition" as having similar problems. Maybe link it to Vedas? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Medieval probably meant for the section Ayurveda#Further development and spread, starts with "The field of Ayurveda flourished throughout the Indian Middle Ages". Vedic tradition means Vedic period. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

edit by Dsvyas

with regard to this edit, I think that Dsvyas is perhaps not aware of the editing restrictions on this page. I manually reverted in this dif. Dsvyas, please familiarize yourself with the editing restrictions on this article, and please also see the following section in the archives discussing exactly the sort of thing you did: Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_5#Unexplained_removal_of_terms_on_eight_components. Ironically, I believe it was edit warring over that very topic that led to the editing restrictions we have today. Dsvyas, please discuss and obtain consensus for your proposed changes before re-adding them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)