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 you cannot be bold editing this article. It is under a number of editing restrictions per discretionary sanctions - you must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked.

The Article needs NPOV tagging

Hi folks. If there was no permanent block on editing the page, I would have placed an NPOV tag today. Why? Because of the swathes of text indicating that Ayu medicine, and thought come to that, is real, the "research" has merit, and even if the system of medicine that has sprung from this historical elephant has coverage in huge tracts of the less developed world, Modern science has shown that there is no basis to think that Ayurvedic medicine is anything other than nonsense. We don't say that, and we should, if we are being honest with WP:PAG.

Obviously, sanctions will not allow this, or any real improvement to the article. What should we do to deal with this? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• support the request meets the criteria for inserting the tag. the protection means that none of these issues will be able to be quickly or easily addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• support Myk (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious. All parties agree that the article fails WP:NPOV, although they do not agree in which mannar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article was just updated. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 April 2015

The changes to the lede are: "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15] Other researchers consider it a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.[16][17][18]"

The changes to the article are: "Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.[16][17][18]"

I propose the this change to summarise the body and expand the article a bit.

• Support, as proposer. QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, although this is a really stupid way to edit an article.Desoto10 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Is this a "major change"? If not, and it's not a revert, I wouldn't think this is in violation of sanctions. But I'm involved.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, yes, it is a stupid way to edit an article, particularly as the admin imposing those (much reviled) restrictions doesn't appear to even watch this page!! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Sorry, not sure what you are asking for. Could you update Draft:Ayurveda with the required changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Now  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 May 2015

I would like permission to make small, incremental edits to the Ayurveda page, following discussion on the Talk page. DomLaguna (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wujastyk: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, I want to correct the opening statement that ayurveda is "Hindu". But having to ask permission for every little change is too limiting and laborious to allow serious work to take place. I'll come back in a few years. Bye. DomLaguna (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

BYE. We'll be waiting ! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2015

I would like to submit a propsal to change the sentence "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15] Other researchers consider it a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead."

to

"Some researchers consider ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscientific while some other researchers consider it proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead."

I beleive the revised wording removes any bias which was present. naveen cherian 03:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is unsourced. I disagree with replacing sourced text with original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: As QuackGuru says, this proposal fails WP:V and WP:OR. Also, you need to gain a consensus for your edits before making protected edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

Now that accounts such as Bladesmulti, నిజానికి, Noteswork, and AmritasyaPutra have been blocked as sockpuppets of OccultZone, I think we have some cleanup to do. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Grief. How didn't I know about this. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is now bogus. See Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_9#Should_this_article_be_categorized_as_.22pseudoscience.22.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm angry, I shall be switching off my internetz in a moment. May I suggest that all sanctions over and above the arbcom pseudoscience thing be immediatly rescinded, so that GF editors can resume good faith editing. I could say much more. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

John's rules were a response to the disputes between socks and legitimate editors on this article. The rules were poorly thought out and quite counterproductive. Surely, now that some socks have been blocked, we can lift those rules and resume normal editing? If problematic content has been repeatedly added to the article by OccultZone socks, then removing it is perfectly OK by the usual wikipedia policies, but removing it is a blockable offence according to the rules imposed on this article.

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.

Is that rule lifted too, or will I get blocked for making honest statements about POV-pushing by sockpuppets? bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is a thing. QG and myself were blocked for exactly that. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You think John's rules were a response to the disputes on this article? I think you don't understand what really happened. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've requested the closing admin to reevaluate the RFC close.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• We don't need to waste more time with another RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

See Talk:Ayurveda#Cleanup for what was causing the main issues to this article. I propose adding the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Should [[Category: Pseudoscience]] be added to the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• support classic pseudoscience: the presentation of woo in a white labcoat to try and make it look respectable. The initiator and multiple commentors in the previous RfC being specifically identified as socks essentially nullifies any claim of "consensus" decision decision from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User TheRedPenOfDoom, questions for you: Is "woo" a word or an abbreviation? In either case, what does it mean in your use? Are you referring to the photo of a practitioner in a white shirt? Or are you being metaphorical? SageRad (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Woo second entry. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Labeling the entire article as pseudoscience. This is a traditional, health-care modality. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC))

i am not sure why you think that having a long history of pseudoscientific practices should somehow cancel the fact that it is pseudoscientific?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Adding a category does not "label the entire article as pseudoscience", but large portions of ayurveda most certainly are pseudoscience. Being 100% pseudoscience in all aspects is not our normal criteria for adding something to a category.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would see the "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" per WP categorization, in this case, the topic Ayurveda, as a traditional health care system not as pseudoscience. While we may view aspects of Ayurveda as pseudoscience I do not see that as an essential characteristic. I see trad health care systems with pseudoscience aspects. Others I realize see the reverse - pseudoscience with some trad. health care modalities. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Reliable sources disagree. For example, the WP:LEDE says "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a pseudohistorical nonsense (and a violation of core Wikipedia principles) to retroactively apply a category only rationally applicable to the modern era to a subject pre-dating anything that could remotely be described as 'science' by thousands of years. Find another forum for your revisionist quack 'history'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The tag is not about pseudoscience historically for ayurvedic. It applies to modern ayurvedic medicine not its origins. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In which case it is clearly misleading, and grossly inappropriate, to tag an article covering (depending on your sources) many thousand years of history based on a category that can only apply to the last century at most. Would you apply the same standards to Western medicine, and label it 'pseudoscience' on the grounds that evidence-based practice has only been the norm for the last few years - and is still not considered appropriate for many common forms of treatment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly pseudoscience,[1] and in many cases dangerous as well[2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. per everything I have said on this Talk page during the era of these socks. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Qualified Support - As explained below, I support the addition of the Category to the article. Ayurveda is not historically pseudoscience, because it predates modern science, but it is pseudoscience when scientific arguments are made about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. While ancient Ayurveda can't be accused of pseudoscience, modern Ayurveda makes claims of efficacy (which are scientifically measurable and falsifiable claims), so it is indeed pseudoscience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support descriptions of ayurveda as traditional medicine would be fine but claims of efficacy of the system today are pseudoscience. if there are any specific ayurvedic practices that have been proven to work, those practices (but not their theoretical basis) would not be pseudoscience. because there all kinds of claims today, the category is warranted. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support "The Ayur Veda", when considered as a quasi-historical cultural or religious text might not be pseudoscience, but the subject being taught in schools as a modern practice of "ayurvedic medicine" very clearly is. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Bloodletting and lead poisoning as medical treatment? Come on... Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The general topic of Ayurveda fits the category. An article about only the history of Ayurveda probably wouldn't fit within the category. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Cats are for navigation, not for blaming and shaming, and readers searching for pseudoscience are not going to expect to find large fields of traditional medicine in them. That cat is for things like Time Cube, not for non-Western traditional medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would expect to find non-scientific fields held up as "medicine" to be in this cat. Particularly "medicines" working under the premises of energy healing and containing heavy metals and arsenic as "cures". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, sufficient sources identify the pseudoscientific elements of this that to describe it merely as folk medicine would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support – If reliable sources say that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience then we should put Ayurveda in the pseudoscience category. Suggestions that Ayurveda is somehow immune to the pseudoscience category by virtue of some unwritten grandfather clause are wholly irrelevant in an encyclopedia driven by reliable sources. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• History - A previous RFC was written in November 2014. I closed the RFC in December 2014 with a conclusion that there was consensus against labeling Ayurveda as Pseudoscience, largely because it was originally a philosophy that preceded the concept of modern science by at least one millennium. My close was challenged, and a closure review in February 2015 resulted in no consensus, leaving the original close standing. I was now asked to review my original close again, this time based on sock-puppetry by an editor who was recently banned. I concur with the conclusion that the original RFC was invalid due to sock-puppetry, and have withdrawn my close. Since the comments of some valid registered editors concurred with the comments of the banned sock-puppets, the original RFC cannot be reclosed, and a new RFC is needed. I concur with the action by Kww in posting a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that this RFC is precisely worded as to asking whether to add the category of pseudoscience to the article, and not whether all of Ayurveda is pseudoscience. I will be providing a Qualified Support to the RFC, based on the understanding that Ayurveda is only pseudoscience when scientific claims are made for it, but that scientific claims made for it are not science and so are pseudoscience. This comment also applies to other systems of traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese medicine, and to associated forms of treatment, such as Acupuncture. They are pseudoscience when and only when they are advertised as science. (This argument does not apply to Homeopathy, which is pseudoscience from the start because it is of late-eighteenth-century European origin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)