Talk:Ayurveda

If you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article

Please note the notice at the top of the page when you edit it:

"Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect."

Please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before posting here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1] [2] [3] [4]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines .
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What did i just read 950CMR (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted that question because a Wikipedia Talk page is not a forum, but someone reverted the deletion with the comment "It's a fair question".

Alright. So, you want people to guess what you have just read? Was it War and Peace? And how is it relevant to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it because this article is already being used a talk page. The above manifesto, other than perhaps medicine vs homoeopathy, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. No one is trying to insert references to Lysenko or Holocaust denial into this article. It's pretty weird. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC);

The pseudoscience and mercury ones are very relevant to this artice, and you could argue that the alchemy one is too. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The context is that tons of new users have turned up in the last months and wanted to turn this page into a quackery fest, whining that the article is "biased". Guy explained to them that Wikipedia is biased in favor of science. Even if that were wrong, even if his explanation were out of place here, you cannot use it as an excuse to add forum posts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The references to Lysenko, Holocaust denial, and laundry balls are what makes the argument effective. Simply saying that Wikipedia is biased against Ayurveda wouldn't persuade anyone; that's what they came here to complain about. What makes it persuasive is that the proponent of a particular pseudoscience, having just bitterly complained about how unfair it is that Wikipedia is biased against their favorite pseudoscience, sees a list of Wikipedia being biased against other kinds of pseudoscience that they agree are wrong.

It's a finely tuned argument, and has been shown to be persuasive when fans of pseudoscience read it. If anyone thinks they can create a more persuasive argument, go ahead. show me how it is done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please specify exactly

@Hipal: If you wish to revert an edit for a policy reason e.g. Fringe, please state exactly which part of the policy you are referring to and how it relates to the edit in question so the problem can be addressed accurately. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal:I note you reverted my revert, again, moments after I made it without providing any information on the talk page as to what your revert is about. I further note you asked me to discuss it on the talk page, which I had done, without replying on the talk page yourself. Please provide information here as I can see no reason for your reverts. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, somebody else reverted it. You've now been reverted by two separate editors - what you need to do is make the case for that addition here and get consensus for its inclusion. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

My mistake it was indeed @Crossroads:. @Hipal: reverted it claiming FRINGE and Crossroads claimed GVAL. Neither have explained how these might apply. How can it be fringe when the source is the Indian Medical Association? How can it be GVAL when my edit did not add another source but only clarified an existing source which was cited in a way that didn't tell the whole story? Would you two please clarify?

I contend that it would be WP:CHERRYPICKING to not include the "significant qualifying information" I added from the already existing source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a long, drawn-ought discussion with Morgan Leigh because such a discussion was tried and failed at User talk:Morgan Leigh#Yes. We are biased.

The following edit[5] was reverted for good reasons. Morgan Leigh claimed

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery because persons qualified to practice Ayurvedic medicine are not qualified to practice Western allopathic medicine." (Words in bold added by Morgan Leigh).

But the source cited[6] does not say that. Not even close. What they say is:

"Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under:

• Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
• Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
• Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

It's as if you started with a source that says

We here at keep your eyes peeled fruit store sell three kinds of citrus fruit:

Lemons, identifiable by their yellow color.

Limes, identifiable by their green color.

Oranges, identifiable by their orange color.

So, would the above source support the following claim in a Wikipedia article?

"The keep your eyes peeled fruit store characterises limes as fruit"

Yes. it would.

Would the above source support the following modified claim?

"The keep your eyes peeled fruit store characterises limes as fruit because fruit is colored green".

No. The source does not support the claim. Likewise the AMA source does not support the claim made by Morgan Leigh.

As an aside, I am keeping a close eye on User talk:Morgan Leigh#Possible COI?. They of course are not required to answer, but if they do choose to answer I have my suspicions about what the answer will be. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for including the exact quote from the IMA site which I was referring to. "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." I am however at a loss to understand how this is not supporting what I added to the article. i.e. it says clearly that the IMA considers quackery to be the actions of those who are practicing modern medicine when they are not qualified to do so. If the words I added are not included the article would give the erroneous impression that the IMA considers Ayurvedic medicine to be quackery for some other reason.

Moreover the page goes on, at great length to explain the different systems of medicine in India, "Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine " and how their concern is the "non-entitlement of practitioners of Indian Medicine who are practicing Modern Medicine". The page even cites court judgements that find that "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment...", all of which support the edit I made. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond all of Guy Macon's very good points, how is using "allopathic" not FRINGE? --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"Allopathic medicine" is a term used by quacks to describe what everyone else calls "medicine". This is a lot like the terms "pro-life", "pro-choice" "piracy" and "freedom fighter"; terms that attempt to frame the discussion. One side speaks of "allopathic medicine" and "traditional medicine", trying to get you to assume that both are valid. The other side speaks of "medicine" and "quackery", trying to get you to assume the exact opposite. The IMA tends to use "Modern Medicine (allopathy)" simply because their audience may only know the "allopathy" term, but the word "quackery" is never far away. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I used allopathic because it is the term used in the source. Unlike Guy, I am not privy to the IMA's motivation for using this term. However they use allopathic as a descriptor for modern medicine, indeed it seems the appropriate Act for regulating modern medicine uses this term in it's definitions "Modern Medicine (Allopathic)". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should not be used. --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And adding a quote to the lede is inappropriate, in pretty much any circumstance. It's even more inappropriate to the first paragraph of the lede. In an attempt to restore content already removed twice, it's sanctionable. Please work to gain consensus for a change, or leave it be to avoid sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You previously claimed it was fringe due to the use of the word Allopathic, but then said "Fair enough" when I pointed out it is a direct quote from the source. Why are you asserting it is fringe now?

See WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which says "direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" so clearly it is not inappropriate to include a quotation in the lead. I used a quotation because of complaints that I was misusing the source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the direct quote is grossly inappropriate and sanctionable, right? --Hipal (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You did make this claim but failed to say why and didn't reply to my pointing out that WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section clearly mentions having quotes in leads. Do you have a reply other than a simple reassertion that you don't like it?Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, the term "allopathic" was invented by Samuel Hahnemann, the man who plucked homeopathy from his arse one day. It refers to what is now termed "heroic medicine", and is irrelevant in modern usage, but it has been adopted by quacks and charlatans as a pejorative for anything that is reality-based.

No, it should not be used. Ever. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you are uncomfortable with this term, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the term the Indian Medical Association uses to describe modern medicine and therefore it is proper to use it in this case i.e. a direct quote from the source cited. Please explain exactly why it shouldn't be used in a direct quote from a reliable source?

You seem to be suggesting that the IMA must be quacks and charlatans for using this term. If this is the case then perhaps we should remove the citation by them from the article?

Guy Macon, excellent analysis, and patiently explained. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon already made this point, but the problem basically is that the edit is a classic WP:SYNTH. There is no reason that quackery is indicated because of legal liability. That just is not what the source indicates and it is almost certainly not true. jps (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

jps, how lovely to see you pop up again. I am obviously not synthesizing as the article clearly defines quacks as "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." This is exactly what it says in its definition of quacks, which Guy so kindly quoted above earlier. The quote I inserted is from a section on the same anti quackery page, which is an exegesis of exactly why they use this definition of quacks and a description of legal cases against quacks and legal remedies against quacks. Please explain exactly how you think I am synthesizing when I am simply including a direct quote from the anti quackery page of the IMA. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't WP:SYNTH, but redundancy: you keep repeating the same stuff in a single line of text. It's time to acknowledge that even regardless of what IMA stated, Ayurveda is quackery according to WP:PSCI, which is administratively binding upon all editors of English Wikipedia, according to the Terms of Use. The Wikipedic fate of Ayurveda has been sealed since WP:ARBPS, unless you have that arbitration decision overturned, there can be no mercy for Ayurveda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tgeorgescu, I was wondering when you would be along. I do believe you are mistaken as redundancy is saying the same thing over again. What I am doing is clarifying a statement in order to avoid a mischaracterization. If the sentence simply said "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery", as it does now, one would gain the impression that the IMA considered Ayurvedic medicine to be quackery per se, however that is misleading, as the IMA considers it quackery when a doctor with qualifications in Ayurvedic medicine practices modern medicine. Please explain how you feel this clarifying information is an example of redundancy.

It is important to note that I am not trying to insert text to say that Ayurvedic medicine is not quackery, I am indeed adding to a statement supporting that it is quackery by adding the grounds on which the IMA defines it as such. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Grounds which are already stated in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"our article"? Perhaps you should refresh yourself with WP:OWN

If you feel the grounds are already stated in the article then clearly we two have a consensus about this point. If the grounds are already mentioned in the article surely that is a great reason to include this information in the lead.

While I don't see this info in the article body, perhaps you are referring to the footnote where it says "The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine." This really isn't clear and perhaps this is why the other editors have argued that the article doesn't say that the IMA's concerns about quackery are about appropriate qualifications? Surely a direct quote from the article which clarifies that the IMA finds a doctor is liable for quackery when "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment..." would clarify things.Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we're going to reach consensus for inclusion on this. I'm stretched to see this as a good faith effort to improve this article following our policies. Make a new and far better case, or I'm afraid you're just wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Enough

Morgan Leigh, you are WP:BLUDGEONING this talk page, and not a single person has been convinced to support the material you wish to have in this article. Enough. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. No, you can't have a pony. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You guys have thrown out a whole bunch of inconsistent, contradictory things that you claim are wrong with my edit, including just plain not liking a word that you have decided is a bad word. You can't even agree with each other. Then there is (once again) an allegation of COI and the posting a bunch of notices on my talk page, all over one little edit that is consistent with a reliable source, (that was not even added by me but was already in the page) but contrary to your ideology. I have patiently and politely responded to you all. You know how bad it looks and so now you have given up any pretense of responding to my valid points and are just trying to shout me down. This is a classic case that illustrates why Wikipedia is losing editors at a rapid rate. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to make allowance for their doubting too. I readily admit losing disputes when others show that I was wrong, but I do not like losing disputes wherein others do not convince me that I was wrong. Anyway, editing Wikipedia is a collective/cooperative process, so you and me have to accept the collective decision, even if we do not like it.

About losing editors: editing Wikipedia has become a highly technical skill, we are volunteers, but we behave as if we were professionally editing it. So, we don't need everybody as an editor, but only those who apply the guiding principles of editing Wikipedia and have the right mindset.

I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mostly align my opinions to the mainstream academia, except for abortion and health effects of salt. But I do not push my own POV in those articles, so the fact that I have non-mainstream opinions thereupon is moot.

Also, I believe in Spinoza's God, which is the faith of a tiny minority, but since I do not seek to promote this opinion, the point that it is non-mainstream is moot.

The gist: I know which of my opinions are wanted and which are unwanted, and I edit accordingly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice deflection instead of commenting on actual edits and sources.Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a deflection: at a certain point you have to accept the collective decision and drop the stick. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

In page ayurveda in last paragraph of the introduction there is a line stating that"There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease." But the reference of citation says that ayurveda medicines are not good in treating cancer so please the words "any disease" to "cancer" as it is creating negative image. 2401:4900:5AF9:33EC:0:0:1229:5660 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done If you read further down the page you will see that it says "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease.". Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok but in another website(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041382/) under head line why ayurved system of medicine lagging behind there it is given that"Undoubtedly, in comparison to allopathic treatment, Ayurvedic treatment is more effective in most of the chronic diseases. " so can you please consider edit Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Fails WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Means a foundation website is more reliable than government website Many and any no difference Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

First wikipedia says they have neutral point of view and they present a article in such a twisted way that it is more like a biased no matter how many reputable sources you bring but you guys will never accept the edit and force your thinking and ideology Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)