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)

That is not true, read Pulla 2014 for starters. Semple and Smyth 2013 specifically list ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience. That was debated as a passing mention but it remains a fact that a reliable source specifically described ayurveda using the term pseudoscience. Paranjape 2009 discusses "others who would go so far as to reject ayurveda as a pseudo-science all together." and that "ayurveda projects itself as a knowledge system and not a belief system". How would you summarize and paraphrase Wanjek 2003's chapter on ayurveda? Shouldn't some of that information be included in the article? It was notable enough to warrant the discussion in JAMA. Williams 2013 an encyclopedia of pseudoscience has a listing for ayurveda and describes the 25 basic elements described by ayurveda including "even ur-matter and nonmatter" as example and explanation of the pseudoscience of ayurveda. The presentation and discussion of the current practice of ayurveda in Alter 2011 pretty clearly meets any basic criteria (not OR but assessing if a criteria defined by PAG applies, note that also evaluating if something meets the definition of a word is not OR either). Sarma and Swaminathan 2013 say, "The system known by that name, now practised by those who call themselves professors of ayurveda, is a perversion of the art that originally prevailed." It goes on. There is a difference between OR and reflecting what is in multiple sources concisely and with neutrality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting these citations same way you had done 6 months ago. Are you copying those same comments of yours without grasping the replies that were already made? Example, that "Williams 2013" has no where used the word 'pseudoscience' for Ayurveda. Take your original synthesis elsewhere. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that many of the sources do regard Ayurveda as pseudoscience. You don't need an explicit statement "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience"; as MrBill3 notes, Ayurveda is specifically included in discussions of pseudoscience in these sources. It's blatantly against NPOV not to include in the lead section the information that Ayurveda is regarded as a pseudoscience by many reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly unclear that how any of the citations are relevant or they describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience. You are only following up misinterpretation of citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Williams 2013 has ayurveda as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Semple and Smyth 2013 use the word pseudoscience, give the reason they consider certain practices pseudoscience and list ayurveda as an example. The argument that this is a passing mention doesn't negate the plain fact that a reliable source clearly and explicitly characterizes ayurveda as pseudoscience. The discussion six months ago and the previous RfC touched upon but did not clarify the distinction between ayurveda as historical versus ayurveda as a current practice. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The argument of synthesis and OR does not apply. Using the standards of the arbcom ruling and evaluating if ayurveda meets the standards for being characterized as pseudoscience is editorial practice, paraphrasing discussion that meets the definition of a term is neither OR nor Synth but paraphrasing and summarization. When multiple sources provide both explicit and explanatory information that meets the definition of a term the use of that term is appropriate per policy on WP. To claim it is unclear would seem to ignore the sources themselves and the specific content in them that meets the definition of pseudoscience in describing ayurveda, includes it in an encyclopedia on pseudoscience, states how ayurveda is considered pseudoscience and provides descriptions of the modern practice of ayurveda that satisfy both the arbcom standards and the dictionary definition of pseudoscience. How could that be unclear "how any of the citations are relevant or they describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"...so called research journals being published in the name of Ayurveda..." sounds like pseudoscience how else would you characterize "so called research journals"? "the problem is not primarily with Ayurveda research publication but the process of Ayurveda research itself" seems to point to a failure to actually perform science at the standards and level of what is considered science. Manohar 2013 goes on to cite Beall 2013, "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda." Seems like a reliable source citing another reliable source and stating explicitly, using the specific word that ayurveda is characterized as pseudoscience. Doesn't seem unclear how that's relevant or how they describe ayurveda as pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sujatha 2011 in the section "Integration without foundation" provides a definition of the basis for a scientific knowledge system, pointing to 4 core features. Sujatha goes on to state, "All the 4 features have to be mutually consistent and governed by a standard body of rules for all statements made, for them to be regarded as a valid body of knowledge. Lack of consistency in the objects analyzed, incompatible modes of verification and prevalence of multiple conceptual frameworks are markers of incoherence and lack of rigor. Such discourses may even be termed as pseudosciences because the criterion of science does not lie in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) per se, but the prevalence of internally consistent and rigorous rules of defining objects of study and methods of studying them among a community of experts. If we examine the situation of contemporary Ayurveda in terms of these features, we find that there is no disciplinary boundary or stability in its rules of verification. The objects of ayurvedic research are not always the doshas, dhatus, and mala, but biomedical disease categories." Note the explicit use of the term pseudoscience and the explanation that contemporary ayurveda fails to satisfy at least two of the 4 core features. How is it unclear that this is relevant and that it clearly, specifically and explicitly describes the current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience? The sources are multiple, they are high quality and they are not ambigious. I have not seen policy based arguments supported by reliable sources that in any way refute that contemporary ayurveda is pseudoscience or any justification for excluding that fact from the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not talking more than a one liner and they are certainly not claiming that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. That pseudohistorical revisionism was started from this talk page. You are just misinterpreting these citations for your original synthesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:00, 28 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)

I support making this edit for the same reasons. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose changes based on misinterpretation of irrelevant citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"The study is also an attempt to scientifically establish the efficacy of Ayurveda which is largely seen as pseudoscience."

References

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)

WP:0RR and WP:BITE commentary from a random user, clarification needed

Is this page under a WP:0RR discretionary sanction? Under what grounds? Imposed by what Admin? On the basis of what ArbCom ruling? Is User:AmritasyaPutra the admin responsible for sanctions on this page and why, when I reincluded a cited statement from a reliable source did I get a WP:BITE statement from the same? All this seems highly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Please persue the diff for understanding the discretionary sanction which I gave you on your talk page Or it is mentioned at the top of this talk page too Or it is in the section where the discussion for the edit you restored is going on too. The imposing admin is John. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the log, the 0RR restrictions was lifted last year on 19 November 2014. There was no consensus to continue with the restrictions that are incompatible with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok since the demand on my personal talk page to self-revert under 0RR refers to a 0RR that does not apparently exist I will not be self-reverting. I stand by my edit - I saw an improperly removed WP:RS supported statement with WP:DUE weight, in an appropriate category and restored it. Case closed. Simonm223 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And User:AmritasyaPutra should understand that is is not his or her place to impose discretionary sanctions on me, especially not after a single non-controversial edit. Especially since he or she is not an admin. Especially since I'm not violating any current edit restrictions for the page. Simonm223 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

See User_talk:Doc_James#Request. Several editors are being blocked. I got blocked even after self-reverting. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The page is in fact under "discretionary sanctions". (It falls, for instance, under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.) For the exact details you only need to read the edit notice that shows up at the top of the screen whenever you edit the article. For your convenience, I'll reproduce the template here as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions for this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source provides many examples, it is not clear if it is only talking about Ayurveda or having any focus on it. Noteswork (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information. Based on what you've provided I don't think my edit violated any of the actual sanctions on the page. I was not coordinating with User:QuackGuru even if my edit restored some content previously inserted by them, and a single edit can hardly be construed as editwarring by any stretch of the imagination. I may have felt some indignation at User:AmritasyaPutra teling me that I must self-revert my edit but I didn't do any name calling. And I'd hardly call the insertion of a single sentence toward the bottom of a long article a major change. With that in mind though, I'll be cautious. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bite. I am AmritasyaPutra not "random editor". I did not enforce any sanction. You reverted without seeing the back-and-forth regarding it? And after having read the sanction by your own admission still believe there is nothing objectionable with that edit. Doesn't the 4-5 sections of continued discussion regarding it indicate it is a non-trivial change. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What I see is a whole lot of editors who agree, and you, alone disagreeing. Consensus does not equal unanimity. As for referring to you as a random editor, we'd had no prior contact on anything when you went to my talk page and told that I must self-revert. It seemed rather random. That was the entirety of what I meant.Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have struck it now. You are willfully misrepresenting things if you missed the objections of Bladesmulti, నిజానికి, and Littleolive oil among others. Please read earlier RfC too. John, ididnthearthat is going too far here, the chant of there is concensus drowns discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is consensus among people that are using reliable sources. The only objections are coming from people that are quoting ayurvedic sources (or no sources at all), and those sources are irrelevant to the question of whether the modern application of ayurveda is pseudoscience (except, of course, that by adopting the language and appearance of science to discuss the topic, they provide fairly damning evidence that ayurveda is pseudoscience).—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. There is a good consensus that we should follow policy by including what RS say, and then there is a small group of whitewashers who raise non-policy objections and refuse to include what RS say. A minority opinion to not follow policy does not the change the consensus. Their IDHT behavior is obstructionist. That's wrong. User:John, discretionary sanctions should be applied to end this disruption. Maybe some topic blocks? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The so called RS is not discussing Ayurveda or specifically pointing it, that's why it is pity to use that source for a fringed label. VandVictory (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:VandVictory but that's straight up wrong. The source cited explicitly refers to Ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience. I just read it. It is VERY clear. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The source has no authority on Ayurveda and it is not even concerned if it is making a fringed claim. That claim would need more prevalence among scholarship. VandVictory (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"no authority on Ayurveda"??? What's that supposed to mean? We are required to document the sum total of human knowledge by using RS. This is a mainstream opinion about ayurveda found in a RS, so it's allowable content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of damage to article

The article was heavily damaged this morning by Wujastyk. I restored some of the worst sections to the state before his edit. As for efficacy, I restored the article to the state both before the damage that Wujastyk had caused and before the reintroduction of the pseudoscience material. Not because I disagree with the pseudoscience description, but because I didn't want to be accused of mischief. I suggest that others look over Wujastyk's edits and see which others could be classified as major changes made without discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I decided to take a safer route. I have reverted Wujastyk's edits: they clearly violated the restriction of "Any major changes to the article must be first agreed upon using the article talk page", and it is probably safest for me to not attempt to pick and choose among them.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You have violated 0RR.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

There is not a 0RR restriction in effect.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The log states 0RR restrictions was lifted last year back on 19 November 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to know ... I'll start right in edit warring then.... just kidding! (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• Rather than block a bunch more people I have protected the article indefinitely. I will probably post some suggestions later for next steps but obviously there needs to be a discussion here towards a compromise. If people need advice on how to do this I can maybe help, but there is no harm in starting immediately. I am happy to unprotect when there is broad (not necessary universal) agreement to respect a consensus here. I quite deliberately did not inspect the details of where the article was when I protected, so I guess this is the chance for whichever "side" feels disadvantaged to accuse me of protecting the m:wrong version. Once we have got past that, let's hear how folks propose to compromise. The "pseudoscience" language seems to be the main current focus for dispute, so maybe that's a good place to start. --John (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been discussing a careful and judicious use of the word for days, and, if one weighs the arguments, consensus has been achieved. If one counts noses, it has not and never will be. The latest revert was of a complete rewrite of the article that was undertaken with no discussion at all.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• It has been discussed that the source hasn't discussed Ayurveda or pointed towards Ayurveda for a fringed label. It has rather included it as one example but that is not an analysis. VandVictory (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kww. As an editor who is strongly in favour of one position over others you are probably not the most neutral person to decide if consensus has been reached. The addition of the content on pseudoscience is only one way of representing the word in the article; others have been discussed here. For example what about context and inline attribution. Further, the source used is weak per the information we want to include. However, before discussion was complete that content was added.

• Three issues (to summarize)

Is there consensus for adding pseudoscience

If there is what is the context for that addition.Should content be inline attributed, for example

And can we add good RSs for that content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

As an editor that only considers what respectable scientific sources say, I'm in a fairly good position. There's no weight in the opposition arguments, and much of the opposition seems to come from editors associated with TM and ayurveda.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww. No. You're language tells me you are not in a good position. "Opposition arguments" Opposition to what? - The right side (battleground)? Characterizing editors according to what you think their affiliations are. Connecting those affiliations to this article. And finally implied placement of me in the so called opposition camp when I have supported adding the word with caveat. Read the threads. We can leave the word in place perhaps ( I'm only one editor), but let's add better sources, context, and in line attribute.I will be out of town for several days but later may try to add some content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• @Kww, I'm a bit curious what the heavy damage was that warranted your wholesale revert. I haven't had a chance to review the edits in depth, but the editor seemed to be editing in good faith and was adding sources to citation needed tags. Also, it appears that this editor was specifically invited to edit here based on their academic expertise in the subject matter. [3] It seems to me that of all the people here, this is the kind of person we want editing the article. Just look at his user page and you'll see what I mean. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also thought the edits were very possible additions although I'd have to look more closely at sources. At the worst they could have been discussed here. I would like to support some new blood on this article, especially an expert in the field.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Short comment from a phone. History was removed, religious influences removed, ACS source misrepresented, all negative studies removed, heavy metal poisoning removed. What was left presented ayurveda as a form of medical science. Even if any of it was worth keeping, it broke the restrictions to do a major revamp.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The history seems to be there. The article now that I have time to read looks very good.... I haven'y looked at sources yet.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

Whether the changes were good or bad is rather immaterial. We edit collaboratively here. Subject experts are appreciated, if they can edit collaboratively. Solo editing is not collaborative editing, no matter how good. If this article weren't protected, we'd be able to calmly discuss, tweak, add, delete, use BRD, etc, to develop a version which enjoyed support from most editors. With the current protection, only discussed and uncontroversial preapproved edits can be made using "Semi-protected edit request"s. Anything else is seen as threatening, simply because other editors are excluded from making any edits. We are scared to touch the article.

Whether we like it or not, any edits not preapproved must be deleted and the article returned to its status quo version, as Kww did. Such a reversion is not disruptive because it is undoing an improper edit. The status quo version must be preserved until the protection is removed. Currently, in an attempt to protect Wikipedia, John owns the article. Until the article is unprotected, it appears that the only edits which can safely be made without risking sanctions are "Semi-protected edit request"s. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you've said. I will look at sources and of course as I would do anyway will discuss them and the content they support here.... The topic and subject area has become contentious so the restrictions on this page are just what should happen anyway. Discuss and get agreement; then add. We have an expert so we can afford to include them and even welcome them as we would any editor. Lots of editors flying solo before the edits today. What's good for the goose....quid pro quo and so on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

As a note to this discussion, this is the total difference. Note the overall shift in tone, with negative material removed from the lead and generally deemphasised or removed throughout the article, and its new focus on the "modernization and globalization of Ayurveda".—Kww(talk) 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&diff=653719324&oldid=653643152 I think this link is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree it should probably be removed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links don't have to meet the reliable source criteria. I haven't checked the link but in any case, you'd need another reason to exclude it.--TMCk (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to delete is that we'd be providing a back-door to unreliable information that might harm the overall encyclopaedic tone of the article. Like if we linked Reincarnation to an overtly pseudoscientific group claiming to research past-life regression. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to IAR here and voice my opinion, since this is spam. I won't touch the article though. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Please remove the questionable source. See discussion at Talk:Ayurveda#External links. The page got protected before it could be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree spam link with no useable content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree to removal. Not a good source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• agree with removal fails WP:EL its not at all a unique resource, there are hundreds of sites attempting to wrap Ayurveda nonsense in a white labcoat and pretending its science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree, spam links have no place here, or anywhere on WP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Failure to adhere to NPOV

Ayurveda is listed as pseudoscience in the official agenda of Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti (ANIS - Organization for the Eradication of Superstition, also known as Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti MANS, CBEF - Committee for Eradication of Blind Faith). While the positions of individual members of ANIS vary in regards to ayurveda, the fact is, it is the official position (viewpoint) of the organization. This is published in a reliable source, a scholarly book published by a reputable academic publisher (Oxford University Press). The significance of this viewpoint is established in the same source, as well as the sources in the above linked article. ANIS is the primary focus of the book, again a scholarly work, examining a subject (rationalism in India) deemed by the author and publisher as significant enough to warrant a book on the subject.

The opening sentence in the core policy WP:NPOV states all significant views published in reliable sources must be represented fairly and proportionately. It goes on to state that this policy is nonnegotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies, guidelines or editor consensus. The section on due weight states that significant viewpoints published in reliable sources should be represented in proportion to their prominence in published reliable sources. The policy Verifiability states articles should be based on reliable, third-party sources and that academic publications are usually the most reliable sources. Per NPOV and Verifiability a scholarly work published by an academic publisher of high repute bears significant weight.

This article fails to represent the significant viewpoint of ANIS as published in a reliable, third party source as due. This failure to adhere to a core nonnegotiable policy needs to be corrected. As stated in NPOV no other policy, guideline or consensus can supersede the NPOV policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Ayurvedic research is pseudoscience

Prominent critic of open access journals, Jeffrey Beall has published an article stating, "Ayurvedic medicine is an example of a bogus science that boasts an increasing number of pretend scholarly journals." Beall is a notable and prominent critic of open access publishing. His viewpoint is not represented in this article. The question of the due weight of his position warrants discussion. P. Ram Manohar has published a journal article analyzing the quality and nature of research into ayurveda. Manohar states, "It is important to realize that the problem is not primarily with Ayurveda research publication but the process of Ayurveda research itself." Both authors use the term pseudoscience and find it applicable to ayurveda. Another journal article by V. Sujatha also points to a failure of ayurveda research to meet the standards of science and uses the term pseudoscience.

Here we have three reliable sources of varying quality (another of very high quality is paywalled, Pulla 2014) that identify, describe and analyze issues with ayurveda research using the term pseudoscience. Many other sources clearly state the theoretical basis of ayurveda lacks scientific soundness, a clear and specific criteria for the distinction between scientific research and pseudoscientific research. Including ayurveda as among other nonsense based pseudosciences may be a passing mention, but it is representation of the mainstream scientific consensus on the subject. In depth analysis is not required for a statement of how ayurveda is considered by the scientific, academic community. As published reliable sources present the position that ayurveda research is pseudoscience this viewpoint should be presented proportionately and prominently as due. Some discussion of the basis of this viewpoint should be presented, but of primary importance, to adhere to policy the mainstream scientific consensus as published in reliable sources must be identified as such and presented clearly and prominently. There is probably room for balancing this viewpoint with others proportionately and as published in reliable sources.

This article fails NPOV by not including the viewpoint that ayurvedic research is pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

We need to know what citation says, not your original research that you've been copying from archives after finding them refuted. There is a need of academic consensus that you are frequently denying, we cannot accept your original synthesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)