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.

Wiki at the top of every search term on google, it is Important that you give a fair write up of both possitive and negative in the section bellow

"There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease.Concerns have been raised about Ayurvedic products; U.S. studies showed that up to 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through internet contained toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic."f

The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page of the product used in the american studies, they wish to know what you mean by "Ayurvedic products" as this is too vague. Was it about herbal tea? massage oils? Medicine? natrual Food diet? If you do not have the details of products In the ref then please remove it and replace it with a more detailed information.

Avurveda is a blanket term for a wide variety of treatments, Thank you http://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/wellness/scientists-find-potential-medicine-for-treating-arthritis/article1-1275762.aspx92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Hi. The sentence you quoted is supported by two references; the specific information you're looking for can be found at the cited sources. The lede shouldn't have too much detail, as it's meant to summarize the the article, but more detail can also be found in the Use of toxic metals section near the end of the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dawn, The refs seem to point out that the use of toxic metals is only used and found in (Rasa Shastra) treatments. Ayurveda has two different ways of treatment..

1. (strict use of Herbs and non metals) 2. (The use of metals with herbs), known as (Rasa Shastra)

The summary should at least give account of the main points such as the type of Ayurveda that blends metals with herbs in the first place, I feel it is very misleading to give a negative summary of Ayurveda without giving the information of Rasa Shastra being the test study of the toxins, please edit the following as a example to the summary.

"Concerns have been raised about The use of Ayurvedic Products containing rasa shastra teatments; U.S. studies showed that up to 20% of Ayurvedic rasa Shastra Medicines From U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through internet had contained toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, this is not to be confused with The Strict herbal and non metal treatments of Ayurveda[9][10]" cheers92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

No. The problem is not confined to Rasa Shastra, as is made clear in the body of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rasa shastra is the use of mixing metals with herbs/plants, the test found toxic metals mixed with herbs as one of the refs pointed out, the body of the ref talks about the toxics used and gives details on mercury,lead which is from Rasa Shastra as the Rasa Shastra wikipedia page states.

Well i will be placing (Rasa Shastra) in the summary this week, like it or lump i dont really care as the case of metals and herbs in Ayurveda is stated as (Rasa Shastra).

I will not add the following "this is not to be confused with The Strict herbal and non metal" but i am going to add (Rasa Shastra)Thank you and good day92.236.96.38 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

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

Unexplained removal of terms on eight components

Roxy the dog, can you inform that how official guidelines disallow you to wikilink the technical terms at least once on the section? Also what's the reason behind removing the terms like Toxicology, Psychiatry, etc.[3] When they are clearly supported by the reliable citations and there's clear consensus to include them. I am doubtful that why you are telling me to follow BRD, when I am already doing with this longstanding content.
Claiming that they are not equivalent is just part of your OR and ultimately because you don't like it. Are you saying that no one has written anything during 1000 BCE because writing of that time wasn't equivalent to current times? It's simply nonsensical, just like you have been told on wikiproject medicine.[4][5] Will you consider providing a policy backed rationale? Bladesmulti (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

fwiw, i support the removal of those wikilinks. ayurveda is prescientific traditional medicine and what it may consider to be "toxicology" is unrelated to contemporary toxicology. the link in the article to a history section in the ophthalmology is appropriate; if there were history sections in toxicology, etc then links to those would be appropriate as well. i don't believe there is a policy that governs this one way or the other; it is just something editors working on the article, need to reason their way to a WP:CONSENSUS on. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog Every article must adhere to basic policies, and none of the wikilinking policy would support the removal. Consensus has been already established for this longstanding content. Everything differs from each other, no subject is 100% identical to other. Every single reliable citation that has been to the article provides those exact terms and meanings.

So you are saying that if they have history section then only it would be appropriate? Sounds resolute, hopefully if you agree with so, I can create for each, ofcourse with the balance and recognition of every other origin. Knowing that very of those categorized articles are short, tag bombed and some of them looks like a list. It maybe easy to expand (e.g. toxicology, read [6] or [7](Ayurvedic origins), [8](ancient Greece), pediatrics[9]).

For now, can you link surgical(#3) to History of surgery#India? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote above, as far as i can see there is no policy that is definitive on having these specific wikilinks or not having them. If you believe there is a policy or guideline that makes it clear that the wikilinks should be there, please provide it. if you cannot provide one, please acknowledge that this is a discussion about preferences, or perhaps, our best judgement, and stop waving policy around. That would make the discussion more straightforward. btw, is there some reason you are asking me to create the wikilink, instead of doing it yourself? Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is, no page for specific medical terms though. I thought I am about to cross 3rr as I have been reverted 2 times for that pointed content. I shall wait for few hours, by then I will probably discover other history sections. Bladesmulti (talk)

hmm, are you saying that the average reader doesn't know what "surgery" is? Linking to the main "surgery" article seems rather like WP:OVERLINK to me. Do you see what i mean? linking to History_of_surgery#India makes a bunch more sense, with respect to providing a link to related information elsewhere, per UNDERLINK. does that make sense? i'll implement that one. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How about we remove the edition of the word 'medicine' from this article because this medicine is not equivalent to many of the modern medicines, and some other traditional medicines that came later. Forgetting that they played pioneering role along with other ancient civilizations that directly influenced the modern medical specialties. VandVictory (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Equivalents in applicable history or alternative medicine should apply, as with History_of_surgery#India. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

worldwide spread

In this dif, i removed the content: "In last few decades Ayurveda has spread around the world" which was sourced from:

1. Healing Your Life: Lessons on the Path of Ayurveda. 2012. p. 7. Written by Marc Halpern, Published by Lotus Press, year 2012 [10] and
2. "Textbook of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry", Written by Biren Shah, page 455, published by Elsevier, year 2009, [11]

The sentence is nonencylopedic (last decades from what date?) and pretty promotional too. For that kind of claim we need independent sources - something like the WHO. Both sources provided are within the tradition and not the kind of thing we should rely on for a strong claim like this. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's puffery without clearly independent and reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well put Jytdog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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: [12] (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 [[13]] 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: [14] (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.[15] 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)

Close to source

Yobol. I think this is one of those times where its hard to not be too close to the source given since we're dealing with only a few words. However, I'd agree the wording was close. I'm not sure the wording in place now is quite accurate to the source but its fine with me, at least, since the meaning is close to accurate. And thanks for a painless back and forth as we searched for the right words.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

Agreed. :) Yobol (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FTN notice

As the original poster failed to notify, I am informing that the subject is being discussed on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda, have your comment. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that your encyclopedic knowledge of WP Policy and guideline doesn't include anything much about the use of FTN. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have I confused pre-science with pseudoscience? Like you do. You could have made a discussion here first. But I know what you are pointing to, I am not sure why it would hurt any, but suggesting about general sanctions(e.g. topic ban) is just an idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural medical substances used- further additions

Have made further additions in Opium and Alchol with new sources included. Request editors to review and advice if any concerns. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

cannabis now included. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Paper from UT-Anderson Cancer Center

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

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

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

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

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

Description of use of Madya

I removed the following as a FRINGE and MEDRS violation. I tried to rewrite it, but the source is so poorly written that I couldn't find a solution that would meed FRINGE and MEDRS while not being considered a partial revert in some manner. A better source would greatly help, but maybe someone else can figure out a better solution. Remember, we shouldn't be describing any medical effects or properties. Instead we should just describe their use.

"Used judiciously as a medicine, the various alcholic beverages, causes purgation, improve digestion and taste, creates dryness, non-viscid, quick in action, enters into minute pores of the body and cleaning them, spreads quickly and produces looseness of joints."

The source says:

Madya are of various kinds like sura, sukta, sidhu, etc. Ira, madira, hala and balavallabha are synonyms of Madya. All kinds of Madya are hot in potency, slightly sweet, bitter and pungent in taste, slightly astringent, sour at the end of digestion. It aggravates pitta, mitigates vata and kapha, causes purgation, digests quickly, creates dryness, non-viscid, kindles digestive fire, helps taste, quick in action, enters into minute pores of the body and cleaning them, spreads quickly and produces looseness of joints5. They are beneficial to those having loss of sleep or excess sleep of both lean and stout persons. All of these properties are conferred, if they are used judiciously considering them as medicines. They cause intoxication and act like poisons if they are used otherwise6.

Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that there is older sentence with no citations, which states alcohol is used as a narcotic, for which I could not find any source. This is the reason I had included this to to indicate use of alcohol in Ayurveda. Will now remove the word "medicine", rewrite and post. Please check after posting Prodigyhk (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The English is poor in the source, and in the article. I don't think we made any progress at all, so I've tagged it as violating MEDRS.

We need a better source, or maybe just remove any attempt to try to describe the uses for madya as a whole given how diverse they are. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It just present what purpose madya is used for in Ayurveda. The source is sufficient for this purpose. Do understand NO claims are being made that is accepted as medical science. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of ASSERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's one [16] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources added

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

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

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

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

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

[17] a flying mention, [18] unavailable, requires quotation for confirmation. "with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore" is undue, and explained in the sub-pages that have been wikilinked. Quackwatch starts with the lectures of Deepak Chopra and ends with the reports about risks. Clearly undue and article should had been more about Ayurveda rather than the biography of Chopra, or that if the author is expert on Ayurveda, but he is clearly not even close to it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"?

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.[19] 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.[20] 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)

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)

Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body

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

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

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

It seems that editors haven't noticed the discussions above concerning how mention of pseudoscience should be added to the article body. To repeat, these are reliable sources being presented with proper context and due weight. [21]:

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

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

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

References

I have already analyzed those above, per Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL. :[22] a flying mention, [23] unavailable, requires quotation for confirmation. "with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore" is undue, unless a whole section can be provided to philosophy and it was explained in the sub-pages that have been wikilinked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we have only one source[24], a flying mention, and nothing else that would exactly support such revisionism. There would be no reason to add. As for policy read Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, esp the 3rd point. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can include a sentence about the on-going scientific research into ingredients used in Ayurveda to identify key agents and create scientifically validated medicines. [One source from University of Texas - M. D. Anderson Cancer Center ]

References

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.[25] 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)

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.[26]-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)

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.[27] 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. Later, during the Gupta period, these collections were gathered and about 120 chapters were added 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)

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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 12 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)