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.

NPOV Page Watchers please fix

Are there any people interested in restoring the article to its proper state? Very very poor jobs page watchers are doing, they should be ashamed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proper state, which one? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As an acknowledged advocate of Ayurveda, I don't expect you to take any action Blades, but if you can't see the issue, which is plainly obvious, don't worry about it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We could also mention that the Aryuvedic text in the Sushruta Samhita contains an early description of cataract surgery as well as the earliest known description of the pedicled flaps, per PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. -A1candidate 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the inclusion of these sources? -A1candidate 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For? --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For coverage of aryuvedic texts. -A1candidate 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be best to propose what content you want to add/change, but at a glance they look to have information that should be covered in this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost treasure found in the archives

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. 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 professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigorous 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. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead.

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.

Quackwatch states "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 found a real gem. Wow! QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is this from and how is it relevant to current editing? --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, we are already over that pseudohistorical revisionism. You know it better than I do. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What does pseudohistorical revisionism mean Blades? Could you explain it to me please? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the previous Rfc and was wondering whether the paragraph above could be included in the Current Status section (not necessarily all of it). I understand that labelling whole of Ayurveda as pseudoscience in the lead has no consensus and is perhaps unfair to the discipline. But a section discussing where Ayurvedic theory stands with regards to Modern Science would not necessarily be undue. Right? Amitrochates (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ronz, if I remember correctly, User:MrBill3 previously wrote most of the text. I added some text and also tweaked some of the text. Most of the text is relevant to the Current Status section. There is a notable pseudoscience debate among researchers. This is definitely relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So this was content or proposed content at some time? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It appears editors had made vague objections such it is "pseudohistorical revisionism". But there is clearly a debate among researchers that is noteworthy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybosy know what "pseudohistorical revisionism" actually means. I asked Blades above, but he either hasn't seen my question, or hasn't answered. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

I would like to add some content to this page from some sources that I am currently reading. The below content can be added after the first sentence in the current article. The source is cited.

Ayurveda (Sanskrit: [ Āyurveda आयुर्वेद] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine native to the Indian subcontinent. The word Ayurveda comprises of two segments or parts: 'Ayu' meaning life, and 'Veda' meaning knowledge or science.

Profitmaker123 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

'Life-knowledge' works better and it is there. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverting against consensus

Please get new consensus to add pseudoscience to article especially lead per [1]. I'd add that given the RfC and extensive discussion, opening discussion with out some new sources, and adding content without agreement for inclusion might seem tendentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, but there was no consensus, and none related to applying the term to current practice. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any agreement even now? I see at least 4 users disagreeing to it. It looks like a pseudohistorical revisionism anyway, held by only one author who don't even describe more than a flying mention. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as only one user. While Ayurveda certainly predates science, that doesn't prevent its current use from being a form of pseudoscience. When I look over the previous RFC, I see that distinction brought forth several times and not addressed in the closing.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of people in agreement or disagreement doesn't matter, as consensus is not a vote. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote but it indicates the tendencies in a discussion. In a good collaborative situation, editors might hold off on pushing clearly contentious content into an article and rely on discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)at

This is hair splitting, but no problem. The intent to get this article superficially labelled on way or another rather than rely on good old fashioned explanation and content, is clear. I'd add that the syntax on the efficacy section might be tidied up. While westerners might label Ayurveda as pseudoscience many non westerners would not so this blanket statement is not accurate, is western centric, and does not honour other cultures. But again I doubt that matters when editors are determined to label. I won't play revert games with this content. The way to deal with clearly contentious content is to discuss and get agreement not to edit war it into an article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Please don't focus on the westerners vs. non-westerners canard. We are an encyclopedia, based on science and fact. Ayurveda is clearly not based in fact, and the question as to how to label that is legitimate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww I had said one author, not one user. There should be some basic agreement within the scientific community, then only we may consider. Right now it is just far. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't denigrate the value of an RFC conclusion: painful as it is, abiding by them is a necessary part of making this project stable. The best move would be to start a new RFC focused precisely on the distinction: pseudoscience in history vs. pseudoscience as currently practiced, and then abide by that result.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not painful at all to me at least, to include content that is both sourced and shows the agreement of the editors involved nor is anyone denigrating anything. Further, accuracy per a world population and adding content that is comprehensive and accurate is the job of a world encyclopedia. I agree another RfC with its discussion is useful and my comments above suggest further discussion prior to adding controversial content, but lets not narrow the scope to an already determined position. Ayurveda "as currently practiced" is wide open and carries implied bias. Truth is I don't care what this article says about Ayurveda, but I do care about the manner in which articles are labelled and I do care about accuracy and explanation over those simplistic labels. As I said I will not edit war over this, and again, prefer discussion to determine what is added when that content is so clearly contentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Check the indentation level: my reply was to Ronz. Perhaps if you reread it in that light, you may interpret it differently.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Must admit I was on the fence when this whole ayurveda/pseudoscience fracas started (last year sometime). But on investigation the sources seem pretty solid in favour of so categorizing it, like the source I just came across and added (an OUP textbook) which goes so far as to detail why it's a pseudoscience. This is what the sources say *shrug* not sure why some folk seem to want to deny the article this information. (Add: BTW, demanding "consensus" be confirmed before making an edit is a symptom of ownership, not good. Better for editors to be bold and improve the article.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Asking for discussion and agreement for content that was the subject matter in an an RfC and is highly contentious given the numerous discussions on that word is not ownership. It is an implied request for collaboration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

The RfC was about the category not about the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's why I qualified my statement with "subject matter"and "highly contentious". The bottom line is that I asked for discussion on a highly contentious topic and suggested that a bold edit and edit war is not the best way to approach that. I also clarified my position which is that I prefer explanation in content rather than labels which tell the reader almost nothing about the subject matter. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

So you'll be cool with the way we explain why ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscience in the article body, and merely mention it in the WP:LEDE as we should. This is not contentious at all, it's all perfectly straightforward. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing highly contentious about the topic. There is nothing contentious about explaining what reliable sources say. If you want more details see Talk:Ayurveda#Lost_treasure_found_in_the_archives. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are referring an unreliable source as a reliable source. That's where the story ends before it would even begin. నిజానికి (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What source might that be? Is there consensus it is unreliable, or just the position of a few (perhaps only yourself)? --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Modern" vs. "today"

John, the lead currently states "and today ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific." I propose using the word "modern", rather than "today". This eliminates the possibility of thinking that ancient ayurveda might have been considered pseudoscientific, and makes it clear that it is only the modern context which legitimizes such terminology. Can I make this edit, or do I have to make an edit request? I am not used to working under 0RR restrictions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove it under a few hours because there will never be any consensus to call an Iron-Age medical system a pseudoscience. Bringing an unreliable source for making such big claims is righting a great wrong. నిజానికి (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:నిజానికి, you fail to understand this thread. No one is accusing ancient ayurveda of being pseudoscience. It is the modern version which is so accused, and rightly so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no modern or older version of Ayurveda. Avoid OR. నిజానికి (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As an Iron Age medical system, practiced in the Iron Age, you have a point. Someone comes up and wants to inflict it upon you today, it's quite likely that their explanation as to why it works would be classed as "pseudoscientific".—Kww(talk) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What source is నిజానికి questioning the reliability? --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That one of Oxford. It is written by someone who has no expertise in Alternative medicines. నిజానికి (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Expertise in medicine and science is what we look for in a source. Expertise in alternative medicine typically indicates that the source is unreliable.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We look for expertise. We cannot use a off-field source where you require credible source. And this source look like a nonamer to me. Can you prove if they have any credibility in this subject? నిజానికి (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that Oxford University isn't a reliable source would take some pretty strong evidence. That Ayurveda has no foundation in reality is well established, so the categorization as being pseudoscientific doesn't require a very strong source: it's not a startling or surprising claim. That some of its proponents attempt to mislabel it as a form of science would reinforce that. I'm not seeing any reasonable challenge to the reliability of the source here.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot right a great wrong and stick to original research only because you say. You speak for that unreliable source(in this area) than it has done itself. And just don't repeat yourself again if you cannot prove the credibility of the source. నిజానికి (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reported your violation of the restrictions to User:John, నిజానికి.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that is is unreliable is a waste of time, but take it to WP:RSN if you like. Until someone does so and gets consensus that it is unreliable, let's not waste any more time here with it. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chaper 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

నిజానికి, in what way is the source unreliable according to MEDRS? It is in independent high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw you just copied and pasted the source that I had already analyzed once. I had asked for its credibility, not about the publisher. Now don't re-store it until you gain the consensus or find many other reliable sources for this kind of knowledge. నిజానికి (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After 5 months we are still arguing about this wiki-made discovery? QuackGuru, please read WP:STICK. Your book reference is not "discussing" Ayurveda. VandVictory (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I see it mentioned in the reference as an example. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be mentioned only as an example where the examples of pseudoscience have been pointed. Now as it is just a view of a person, see Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, third point. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply, Bladesmulti: that Ayurveda isn't a legitimate form of medicine represents the scientific consensus on the the topic, and there's no reason to believe that only a "tiny minority" would think it met the technical qualifications of being pseudoscience. As I understand your argument, the only reason you oppose the pseudoscience label is because Ayurveda "predates science". So what's your alternative? How would you concisely state in the lead that Ayurveda is founded on nonsense, provides no hope of effective treatment, and runs a substantial risk of injuring its "patients"?—Kww(talk) 12:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you are struggling to decide whether this material should be included, you should perhaps seek outside input. I see WP:RSN was mentioned and that is not a bad suggestion. Consider also whether the recent RfC applies to this question. Finally, is there a compromise both "sides" could live with? By the nature of compromises, it is likely not to please anyone but it might allow us to move on here. Certainly reverting back and forth isn't the answer. --John (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I redacted an unhelpful comment here. I remind all editing here that, as per the restrictions and the editnotice, there should be "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." --John (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reboot

I may not have much time to give to this over the weekend as I am busy in real life. A couple of thoughts;

• As I said above, if you are struggling to decide whether material should be included, you should perhaps seek outside input. I see WP:RSN was mentioned and that is not a bad suggestion. Consider also whether the recent RfC applies to this question. Finally, is there a compromise both "sides" could live with? By the nature of compromises, it is likely not to please anyone but it might allow us to move on here. Certainly reverting back and forth isn't the answer. Neither is name-calling. Finally, we have passed the point where WP:BOLD edits are optimal. However boring and frustrating it may be, editors of different views will have to knuckle down, talk to each other honestly, listen to each other openly, and be prepared to compromise.

• Here are the restrictions we are using to facilitate this process, in case anyone has forgotten them:

• No edit-warring, broadly construed. This includes team edit wars where A adds something, B removes, C restores and D re-removes.

• 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.

--John (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The best way forward would be to address all the following points at the same time:

1. The insights of core aryuvedic texts: For example, the Sushruta Samhita contains an early description of cataract surgery as well as the earliest known description of the pedicled flaps, according to PMID 1093567 and PMID 16023925. Does anyone know more of such discoveries?
2. The current state of evidence: For example, the aryurvedic compound "Rumalaya" has large, unbiased effects beyond placebo, according to PMID 25062981. How much weight should we give to these claims?
3. The compatibility of aryuveda with modern medicine: What are the main tenets and practices of aryuveda? Are they compatible with modern medical theories? If these theories are incompatible, do their proponents disguise them as a form of science?
4. Related practices: Are yoga and meditation therapies intrinsically part of aryurveda? Since these practices clearly have a solid scientific basis [2], how should we classify them?

-A1candidate 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

3 is really the only debated topic. 2 is irrelevant, because if Rumalaya has any large, unbiased effects beyond placebo, it will be explicable using science, not ayurveda. Similarly for 4. As for 1, no one is arguing that in ancient times, ayurveda represented a valid effort to explain things.

3, however, is the core of this argument: ayurveda is based on a misunderstanding of physiology, false beliefs about heavy metal, and rank superstition. To present ayurveda in a positive light as a modern practice is to promote pseudoscience.

I can't emphasise this point enough: there is no reliable scientific source that speaks to a viable and meaningful theoretical underpinning for ayurveda. As a field of historical study, it's a protoscience, and worthy of respect. As a modern practice, the only argument is whether it's religion, superstition, pseudoscience, or fraud.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Kww. The current practice of ayurveda lacks credible theoretical basis or explanation mechanisms of action and as studied scientifically the compounds are effective or not based on chemistry and physiology, ayurveda contributes no substantiated explanation or theory. As a historical subject ayurveda is an important protoscience that deserves serious consideration. However ayurveda is not an iron age medical system it is currently practiced, the current practice is and should be clearly described as pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that could be implemented the way they used to be about over 3500 years ago. Wheel is still round, even if it is made up of rubber, it is not a pseudoscience. నిజానికి (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on a quick read of the comments above, I would summarize them as:

• Ayurveda as a field of historical study: protoscience
• Ayurveda as a theoretical framework: pseudoscience
• Ayurveda as a modern practice: religion, superstition, pseudoscience, and/or fraud

Have I accurately represented both of your positions? If so, we could proceed to expand on each of these bulleted points. If not, do clarify. -A1candidate 01:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this different from the last RfC that ran for a month and saw good participation? Unless there is new evidence there is no reason to change a long drawn concensus. Is there new published study in last two months? --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The RFC made no distinction between history and current practice. The recent controversial edits limited the description as pseudoscience to modern practice, but it was reverted without regard to the distinction.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That deleted distinction needs to be restored. The editor is even blocked, but the article is in the wrong version, and I don't dare touch it. Maybe this should be done as an edit request. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit is major and contentious. The editor was long unblocked even before the comment was made. Please open RfC or discuss. Editors have responded before too and they are probably tired of this WP:REHASH. If you self declare it is right and continue the edit war it may not help. If there is nothing new from previous RfC please drop the stick. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from declaring the potential edit contentious the above comment contributes little to the discussion of the proposed content. There is indeed something which diverges from the previous RfC to whit there is a clear distinction between ayurveda as a historical subject and as a current practice. PAG based rationale with RS behind it clearly supports the unambiguous recognition that ayurveda as currently promoted/practiced is pseudoscience. It is promoted as scientific in multiple sources and has been evaluated and analyzed as lacking scientifically sound theoretical foundations or plausible mechanisms of action these are the three elements which define pseudoscience. Is there any PAG based rationale and RS that contends otherwise? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you say it is not contentious -- then why edit-warr`ing and three blocks? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The content is not contentious. The drama here is. We don't stop improving articles because of editors behavior or personal opinions, rather the opposite - WP:IAR. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are so clear there is no contention then join the edit war -- at your own risk -- Or WP:FOC. Is Vasant Lad pseudo-academician? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have echoed my position reasonably well. There may be some details that are contentious (especially in terms of an exact definition of "protoscience"), but you have the broad strokes.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda Is a very old and extant health care system that developed out of a specific philosophical system different than the systems out of which western medicine developed. Applying a western term to Ayurveda or any other traditional form of health care or medicine is simplistic and does not give a particularly accurate view of those health care systems. Ayurveda is not fraud although there may be instances of fraudulent practice. Of course, we could note an enormous amount of fraud in the allopathic health care system. Ayurveda is not a religion although It may have religious elements. Is Ayurveda based on superstition, or more accurately a philosophical ground that is not western or Aristotelian in nature? My point is that when dealing with a non western form of health care, if we are going to use western terminology we need also to provide context. Ayurveda is in its infancy in terms of research. A blanket statement noting the research is poor, and I haven' looked in depth enough to know if that is true or not, (although I would think there may be weaknesses because its still early days in terms of western research) is not an accurate view. What is accurate is context, for example per western research Ayurvedic research needs more time and development before usefulness or not can be established. To slap the pseudoscience badge of dishonour on this or any health care system seems simplistic as I've said, but if we go that way then the article must provide contextual information because we are actually comparing apple and oranges.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

"Applying a western term to" Sorry, but your personal opinions to censor this article violate multiple policies and the goals of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinions? Is this a discussion page? Is this discussion based on opinion of the editors here as to what should be included. Is pseudoscience a western term? Are we applying that term to a health care system that is not western. What about that is an opinion? Further I am asking for context for content. That's the bottom line in my comment. What about that is a concern. If we don't look at content we are "cherry picking". And please withdraw your cmt which attributes to me violation of multiple policies and guidelines - an unwarranted personal attack and an assumption of bad faith.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, the standards of whether something has a sound scientific and medical basis does not depend on the cultural with which it originated, and such discussion only serves to obfuscate the issue. Ayurveda is based on a primitive misunderstanding of physiology: it doesn't take a lot of research to demonstrate that srotas simply do not exist, doshas are imaginary, etc. That these may be originally based in religion doesn't make them exempt from being falsified.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Littleolive oil, drop the stick and stop asking us to censor the article because of your personal beliefs. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither off you has directly addressed anything I said. Flinging around accusations doesn't really help anything nor does it advance a discussion. No worries. Thing is guys, I don't have the kind of vested interest in this article you seem to. I'd like to see the topic dealt with in a neutral way showing context and history, exploring the research but I can't at least at this point be bothered to fight you for it. And the piling on of accusations is frankly pretty lame. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

Yes, I did, I'll be blunter if it helps: your statement "My point is that when dealing with a non western form of health care, if we are going to use western terminology we need also to provide context." is nonsense, as being "western" or "non-western" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether something is scientifically and medically sound.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kww. I am aware of your position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I concur with Kww and believe his position clearly reflects WP PAG. I suspect @BullRangifer: and @Ronz: also agree. Is there any PAG based rationale supported by RS that contradicts the contention that the pseudoscientific nature of health care schemas is evaluated based on the RS evaluations of their scientific and medical soundness? I look forward to input from @A1candidate:. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's get back to the basics, and that's what RS say. If RS say something, we include it. It's just a matter of how.

The next point is whether we attribute the key wording or we use Wikipedia's voice. If we have multiple good sources showing that there is no doubt the mainstream opinion is that ayurveda is pseudoscientific, we can say it in Wikipedia's voice, while of course providing those sources as references. If we only have a few sources, it's probably safest to attribute the wording. My motto is "When in doubt, attribute."

One thing that is not open for discussion is whether or not we include it. The RS say it, so we must include it. Let's just settle on the exact wording and do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• BullR, drop the stick. There is no such consensus. There is little discussion here and more personal attacks. My question is also unanswered. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is based on PAG and RS supported rationale. There is strong RS and clear policy support establishing the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscientific. The only argument to the counter has been the proposal that "non-western" health care should be evaluated using different (unspecified) terminology or "western" terminology should be placed in some (unspecified) "context". This has been clearly refuted as WP does not use "western" terminology but all biomedical information (and content in general) is held to the same standards as delineated in PAG. There has been no RS provided that challenges the fact that the current practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Substantial RS has been provided that documents this fact. There has been no PAG based rationale for the exclusion of this fact from the article. As has been said, the facts are there, the RS is there, phrasing and attribution are the only questions remaining (the question of whether this is contentious is irrelevant given clear RS). - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You ignore my question. You ignore previous RfC. You ignore the comment at John's page concerning this dispute. There is overwhelming state of denial and repeated self-declaration: "This is the consensus" when there isn't. Wikilawyering and discussion about editors is the focus instead of content. It is not going anywhere so far. Stop the grand unilateral declaration that there is an established consensus ignoring all other editor's remarks. And I am going to be really blunt: if there is consensus go ahead and edit. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your question of how this differs from the RfC has been answered. The RfC did not deal with the distinction between ayurveda as a historical medical practice and the current practice of ayurveda. Again RS has been provided clearly supporting the description of the current practice of ayurveda a pseudoscience this is not a unilateral declaration this is a fact. Policy clearly supports including such a description if it is present in RS which is another fact not a declaration. Consensus is built upon policy and RS thus I feel comfortable in declaring there is a substantial consensus for describing the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience. Consensus is not invalidated by objections lacking policy based rationale supported by RS. Your question of whether the proposed content is contentious has been addressed by the provision of rationale, the pointers to policy and the provision of substantial reliable sources. "I don't like it" is not a rationale or even an argument. The only significant objection, a proposed different standard for assessing "non-western" medical claims by some alternative standard does not comply with WP's PAG. A number of editors have been extremely patient in attempting to work out the question of how to phrase and whether to attribute the inclusion of the fact that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. I look forward to an edit soon to include this fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You just repeated yourself. If you are resolutely convinced that there is a firm consensus then I really don't understand why are we discussing and why is there a edit-war and four blocks? Is M. S. Valiathan, and Vasant Lad pseudo-academician? నిజానికి and Littleolive oil have also raised questions. You are wrongly re-interpreting the earlier RfC, please re-read. The RfC had run for more than one month: here appears to be no consensus as to whether academic claims for the effectiveness of Ayurveda as pseudoscience. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The modern application of ayurveda does count as a pseudoscience, and yes, I would classify Vasant Lad as practicing psuedoscience wholeheartedly and without reservation. As for why we are having a discussion, it was for editors that have the intent of building an encyclopedia based on scientific principles to discuss the precise details of a legitimate distinction between ayurveda as an early attempt to develop a field of medicine and its current practice as a psuedoscience. The recent RFC got sidetracked and muddled between the issue of treating the entire topic as pseudoscience and not. As for treating the current application of ayurveda as legitimate science, I think that's clearly out of the question. It doesn't have a scientific basis or explanation, yet its practitioners dress up their beliefs in the guise of science. That's the classic definition of a pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 11:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww, give WP:RS for "I would classify Vasant Lad as practicing psuedoscience wholeheartedly and without reservation" -- you are aware of WP:BLP. If you are not giving a reliable source for your opinion nor challenging the RfC closure with closing admin you may also stop challenging it here repeatedly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous sources discussing ayurveda as a pseudoscience, and I'm not challenging the RFC closure as such: this is a fresh discussion of a related issue. As for BLP issues, I'm confident that I have not committed one: so long as someone publishes work such as Marma Points of Ayurveda: The Energy Pathways for Healing Body, Mind, and Consciousness with a Comparison to Traditional Chinese Medicine, the description is obviously applicable. The current application of ayurveda comes under our definition of "obvious pseudoscience" while the historical practice did not. Hence, this discussion. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion as to how to distinguish the modern psuedoscientific application from the historical application?—Kww(talk) 12:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of pseudoscience within the article as far as I know. That said, I realize my position has been misunderstood. With enough mainstream reliable sourcing that is MEDRS compliant the word could be included. I am suggesting as Bull Rangifer is implying that there be context. In line attribution supplies one kind of context. Content that indicates that in India there is research, possibly reviews on Ayurveda, and that Ayurveda is still a viable and important health care/ medical system is another possible way of adding context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

MEDRS sources don't generally publish much on pseudoscience and are not the standard for establishing the fact that the mainstream scientific community considers the modern practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience (you won't find MEDRS quality sources on phrenology, bloodletting etc. However Pulla 2014 meets MEDRS). Here are references which support characterization of the modern practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience.

References

This is a substantial list of RS of a variety of quality (see also some additional refs in this section above). The research on ayurveda which you mention is a clear indicator that ayurveda is presented as scientific. With this level of RS stating a fact, policy supports including it. What policy and RS would support excluding this fact from the article? I don't have a problem with attribution, the viability of ayurveda as a health care system would need support and clarification. What does viable health care system mean? What RS counters or would balance (or provide context) the above stating that there is a scientifically valid or medically sound basis for the current practice of ayurveda? Without the presentation of policy based rationale supported by reliable sources argumentation here seems a tendentious abuse of some extreme and somewhat arbitrary editing rules for this page. To impede consensus without a basis in policy or sources is a form of disruptive editing. An admin enforcing an extreme set of rules should certainly be aware of the effects of those rules. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my above comment. I am refering to a pattern of impeding consensus by a number of editors that is made possible by the administrator imposed editing rules on the article and talk page, not specifically to one individual editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those citations have discussed or claimed Ayurveda as pseudoscience, you have copied this all from archive and it was already debated too. Only one citation has cited as an example. Even if you believe that there are 1/2 more, still Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view(3rd). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

I would like to restore the improperly deleted content, but with one word changed:

• "and today modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific."

BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done 1. The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user including you. 2. "Edit request" is not an alternative to gaining consensus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that already the lead mentions that it is not scientifically prooven and pseudoscientific means that some one has to claim this is science first, and then to call it a pseudo later. I see no point in adding mis guiding words in the begining Shrikanthv (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinions do not trump references. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If it claims to be effective, that claim is a scientific claim, ergo modern ayurveda is pseudoscientific, and we have RS which say so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I support making this edit based on reliable sources and the discussion above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Weekly drive-by visit to page

Hi folks. As you may know, I have unwatched this page because the over restrictive restrictions imposed make it impossible to edit or comment without exposing oneself to unfair admin interference. I tried to pin John down into helping for a change, but he wont. See his talk page for details. The "science" related areas of the article are shockingly bad btw, but I understand that there is little that can be done atm.

How do you impeach an Admin anyway? Does anybody know? I'll be back in a week or so. Best wishes, -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I don't dare make any edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwatching, no longer involved for at least a month

I don't see any solution to the problems here. Given the disputes and current article content, the article certainly needs to be tagged to inform readers and editors. I've unwatched the article and am taking a break from it for at least a month. I'll probably just join the check-in's with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)