Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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 It goes on to state that this policy is nonnegotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies, guidelines or editor consensus.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

Protected edit request on 8 April 2015

Per the above please insert, "Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, an organisation dedicated to fighting superstition in India, considers ayurveda pseudoscience." at the end of the second paragraph in "Current status": "India". - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No other editors have commented, but I will leave another day or two before making this addition to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

[[WP:REDFLAG] actually, there is a need for sources indicating that Ayurveda is considered anything BUT hogwash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Direct quotation from two sources was provided in my original post. As was denoted by the WP:REDFLAG pointer to the Verifiability policy indicates, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The exceptional claims of ayurvedic research have been supported with what sources? It is the responsibility of editors to read the sources for verification. A previous post with specific quotes from each of the sources was suppressed as copyvio. To add to this discussion the third source in my first paragraph, 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. This is an detailed explanation of what is required for scientific research and an analysis that identifies how ayurveda research fails to meet that standard and explicitly characterizes the failure to do so as pseudoscience. The additional sources are quite clear and many are explicit.

Engler 2003 states, "ayurveda did not manifest the standard criteria of science (e.g. materialism, empirical observation, experimentation, falsification, quantification or a developed conception of proof)" Here are three high quality sources that explicitly state ayurveda research does not meet the standards of scientific research, two of them explicitly using the term pseudoscience, with Engler meeting the definition with clear explanation.

There is no synthesis but there is the same thing stated in four sources directly, clearly and explicitly. How exactly do you claim that these sources are refuted? To avoid copyvio and a wall of text (the requirement of repeatedly listing sources and providing quotes in an attempt to block consensus is disruptive editing John). Note that the consensus policy states, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Argument with policy basis has been presented backed by sources. The claim of original synthesis does not hold merit based on a reading of the sources. I am not going to repeat my quotation of the multiple listed sources, any editor reading the sources will find clear statements that the theoretical basis of ayurveda lacks scientific soundness. Even without the eight additional sources we have three high quality sources that present the viewpoint ayurveda research is pseudoscience (no refutation of these sources has been provided) and this article fails to adhere to the NPOV policy by not presenting that viewpoint as due. The failure of adherence to NPOV is a violation of a nonnegotiable policy and must be remedied. This policy cannot be superseded by consensus or any other policy or guideline. To allow discretionary sanctions to interfere with following the NPOV policy is a failure, this failure must be explained and corrected per core policy and policies governing discretionary sanctions, admin action and others. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Suggestion:

The version of the article which was reverted yesterday looks for the most part to be excellent. Its well written in an excellent encyclopedic style. I agree the tone has changed but It has been changed to be a very neutral tone. When the pejorative hits us over the head that's not neutral; its POV talking. I would revert to that version of the article. Once we've established that base line for the article as this version of the article does; we can add content. For example. Pseudoscience could be added with the above sources and perhaps inline attributed. NPOV in my opinion does not trump everything; it is one of the editing policies, while consensus is a behavioural policy; both are necessary We can't take policies in isolation from each other. Surces are not automatically RS but are reliable per the content they are expected to support. A source may be reliable for some text but not other content. NPOV is an opinion-based judgement policy not a definitive. So maybe link to the sources where above if that hasn't been done so all editors can scrutinize?

I think there may be research on ayurveda that is legitimately good research.The research is in its infancy so we may begin to see that soon if not now. Blasdesmulti. I think we have to include pseudoscience given the sources. Its also possible to add informatin about good research (MEDRS compliant) if there is any. By inline attributing we make sure the reader can see where the content came from- its sources. Anyway, some thought on how to approach this which satisfies all parties.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

When a pejorative overwhelmingly reflects the mainstream view of the subject, it is in fact absolutely counter to NPOV to whitewash because some people might have a brutal bump with reality . And we certainly dont whitewash in the hopes that maybe in the future some actual repeatable scientific might come forward.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

From the NPOV policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Numerous reliable sources have been provided substantiating that the majority scientific scientific consensus considers ayurveda research pseudoscience. The prevalence of this viewpoint in the reliable sources requires it's representation in due prominence and proportion. Also from the NPOV policy, "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." again note accurate and proportionate representation. We must follow the proportion represented in the reliable sources and reflect what is in those sources accurately. The opinion of WP editors regarding if a position is perjorative or if "there may be research on ayurveda that is legitimately good research" is irrelevant, it is what the sources say.

Also from the NPOV policy, "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly." That's pretty clear about how the mainstream scientific consensus should be presented in proportion to the views of proponents. This article not only fails NPOV in not presenting the viewpoint that ayurveda research is pseudoscience, it fails to present the scientific consensus on much of the material in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly want MrBill3 said is correct. Much of the debate coming from the three editors opposing insertion of discussion of Ayurveda's current pseudoscientific character seems to be driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of how fringe content is supposed to be handled on Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus must be based on our WP:PAGs and if editors are just trying to "keep the ball in the air" with mere assertions that there is no consensus, their views can be safely disregarded. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what this is in aid of. There is agreement to include pseudoscience is there not? Those who do not agree have legitimate concerns, but there is consensus. I think we can discuss the content with out labeling as in whitewashing, proponents, advocates. I note Quack Guru's sandbox version. I'm not sure why we needed another article except as a way to walk around the DS and John's restrictions. At any rate I was ready to walk away when we metaphorically turned away an expert and his knowledgeable contributions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

I am seeing objections to sourced and policy based content suggestions, but could you specify what the "legitimate" concerns are? without policy or sources, objections are not "legitimate", they are just tendentious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not presenting what the sources state clearly and unambigously ("not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community", "pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such") is whitewashing and a failure to adhere to NPOV. Proponents as used by myself and in policy means simply proponents of a particular theory, practice etc. My quotation and most of my usage would point to advocates and proponents in sources not editors. The next step would be to make certain that the information presented in the article reflects the mainstream scientific consensus, and where it does not but reflects pseudoscience, that the academic consensus is presented without obfuscation and that pseudoscientific theories are clearly described as such. For instance, "states that a balance of the doshas results in health, while imbalance results in disease", states clearly implies a statement of fact, not clearly describes a pseudoscientific theory as such. What is the mainstream view of the scientific community on imbalance of doshas resulting in disease? Where is it presented clearly in the article? Also "a holistic approach used during diagnosis and therapy" diagnosis and therapy have specific meanings and implications what is the scientific consensus on such diagnosis and therapy? What about "unhealthy channnels are thought to cause disease" and "Ayurveda has eight ways to diagnose illness" again the mainstream views of the scientific community are not presented on "channels" causing disease or about the eight ways to diagnose disease. These are rather exceptional claims "that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine" per NPOV they require exceptional sources or must be clearly presented as pseudoscience/fringe. This is especially true concerning biomedical information for which the WP:MEDRS guideline applies. MEDRS states, " biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I'm pretty sure imbalance of doshas, channels and ayurvedic diagnostic techniques do not represent current medical knowledge. PAG require that when presenting any biomedical information that the current medical knowledge is presented and any fringe ideas are clearly identified. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. I, at least, am not suggesting sources be presented in anyway but in the most accurate light possible. It is necessary to describe Ayurveda and what it is and supposedly does, and its history. If there are compliant sources that rebut aurvedic remedies I assume they can be discussed and considered here. I am not suggesting we use research on Ayurveda that is not MEDRS compliant; I am suggesting there may be more research in the future, but am not suggesting including anything that is not compliant now. I am clearly suggesting we missed the boat when we reverted work by an expert both because it was an unwelcoming response and because expertise should not be underestimated in this area or any area on WP. I do feel John has been harassed by editors working here which i don't like. All that said, I don't see a place for me here. I see and don't care to deal with innuendo concerning my efforts. And thank you MrBill3 for your careful explanations of what you mean. I don't always agree with everything you are saying but see that your cmts are thoughtful and carefully explained. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

MrBill3, the thing to do is to avoid nagging. That's what people that get upset with skepticism on Wikipedia get most upset about: things like "Using a scientifically discredited eight step method, ayurveda believes in pseudoscientific channels that in turn rely on energies that are rejected by most scientific journals ...". When describing ayurveda, there's no reason to stop every third word to insert a statement that the topic being described isn't scientifically valid. Let the description proceed smoothly so it makes logical sense with as few interjections as possible.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see nagging; I see someone trying to explain clearly. People tend not to read longer posts and computer users according to research tend to scan rather than read and usually to the left, so shorter is probably going to get better understanding and response.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

It was a cautionary note, brought about by his talk page post listing a large group of things he felt needed addressing. Yes, they need addressing, but addressing them shouldn't obfuscate a clear and readable description of what ayurveda beliefs are.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

as long as they are clearly 1) presented as "beliefs" 2) presented along with the mainstream view that there is no basis for the medical/scientific aspects of the "beliefs". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to be as concise as possible. As we all know, Ayurveda predates science by thousands of years. In that sense, we hardly can call it as "pseudoscience" since the science - as we know it today - didn't even exist. This argument some users have replied by stating the "ancient Ayurveda" was not pseudoscience, but the "modern Ayurveda" indeed is. I asked[1] quite justly, as far as I am concerned, if anyone knows a source that discusses these "ancient" and "modern" forms of Ayurveda. I think this could solve the puzzle; let's just source things up and distinguish between these these two forms if they indeed existed. But making any own classifications to Wikipedia, I don't think that will do.

The "doshas, dhatus, and mala that MrBill3 already mentioned, even though not arguing on the same thing, are simply the "believes" of Ayurveda that should be discussed as such in the article, in my opinion. After all Ayurveda is a system of believes, and whenever one is making a claim on the medical efficiency (e.g. how a herb mixture helps with constipation), a sound MEDRS source is needed. Our job is to paraphrase reliable sources, and that way the article we are having will reflect the scientific consensus according to our best efforts. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When thousands of year old traditions are today presented under a white labcoat as if they have actual scientific and medical applications and merit, they most certainly can be presented as "pseudoscience" . "Old flat earthism" of a thousand years ago is no less of a pseudoscience than "New flat earthism" of today.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with TRPoD except to be more precise, when thousands of year old traditions are the basis of a modern medical system and practice (as is clearly the case) the current scientific academic consensus on basing cause of disease, diagnosis and treatment and the current medical knowledge about such a system's theoretical basis of disease, diagnosis and treatment must be clearly and prominently presented. Much argument has been made about origins in prescientific times but ayurveda is not treated as a historical subject in this article it is treated as a currently practiced medicine. Of note two of the sources Manohar and Sujatha deal directly with current research in this current medical practice. I am working on getting the full text of Pulla. Most of the presentation of ayurveda as a thousands of year old tradition and how that is integrated/transposed into a current medical practice consists of editors opinions or OR. It would seem either two articles one "History of ayurveda" and another "Ayurveda" might be appropriate. Absent that this article deals with "Practice", "Diagnosis", "Treatment and prevention", "Substances used" and "Current practice" all of which refer to present day ayurveda and very clearly fall under MEDRS and require the scientific consensus and current medical knowledge to be presented prominently and clearly. The prescience argument does not negate the need for presenting current biomedical information and holds no weight when the article deals extensively with current medical practice. The article is about what ayurveda is not what it was, information on the historical development is relevant but not the subject of the article or any policy based support for presenting this historical basis without the mainstream academic evaluation of what has developed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note we also have (the awkwardly-titled) Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs, which is an article that probably isn't going anywhere much. Perhaps this could be re-titled and used as a more general article for ayurveda today (as opposed to ayurvda-as-a-historical-topic). Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, MrBill3. As you said:

Absent that this article deals with "Practice", "Diagnosis", "Treatment and prevention", "Substances used" and "Current practice" all of which refer to present day ayurveda and very clearly fall under MEDRS and require the scientific consensus and current medical knowledge to be presented prominently and clearly. The prescience argument does not negate the need for presenting current biomedical information and holds no weight when the article deals extensively with current medical practice.

Exactly. I have also been stressing out that whenever dealing with claims on medical efficiency, we should have some real sound MEDRS compliant material to back it up. What's bothering me, though, is this division between "ancient" and "modern" forms of Ayurveda. I have asked for a couple of times if any more enlightened editor knows some academic sources discussing this division. The worst outcome I can think of, is that we here in Wikipedia would make some division of our own that is not supported by the scientific literature. As I said, such a source would pretty much solve the puzzle here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the division is nothing more than a POV based OR attempt to invalidate or refute criticism of ayurveda. Ayurveda is a current medical practice with historic roots. As such it should be treated in WP as any other biomedical information without a special pleading that the ideas it is based on originated before the advent of science. The article should contain the mainstream scientific and academic view prominently and proportionately about what ayurveda is. What it was or how it developed while relevant is not the main subject of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that describing it as a "special pleading" is a bit extreme, but I will admit that it's an effort to accommodate the recent RFC that came to the conclusion that we could not categorize it as pseudoscience in its entirety. The logic is sound: if we went back to the 15th century, ayurveda was at least as valid of an attempt to scientifically describe medicine as anything else was. The problem is not with the efforts that ayurveda practitioners made to understand human health in the past, it's that they persist in using this model. Just as it would be inappropriate to describe the use of humorism in the fifteenth century as "pseudoscience", it's inappropriate to discuss the use of ayurveda in the fifteenth century as "pseudoscience". If someone were to begin advocating humorism today, I would advocate the same distinction in our articles: the fact that the Greeks made a valiant effort to describe the human body as best they could would not excuse a modern practitioner.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2015

Per policy and the above discussion please insert, "Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the research quality have criticized." at the end of the section, "Classification and efficacy": "Research". - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References

No further comments on this in 3 weeks so  Added. I reworded slightly (think there is a word "been" missing). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 April 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Article needs NPOV tagging

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 3 May 2015

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 20 May 2015

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

to

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

Trash talk from any editor on whichever "side" (and the idea that there are "sides" is one of the main problems here, in my opinion) will result in a block, whether it is directed at a particular editor or against the other "side" in general.

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

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

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

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

• We don't need to waste more time with another RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• The sockpuppets caused more problems than just categorisation; let's not overlook the article's broader problems. bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a lot edits to review. I can't fix anything with the article protection and restrictions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • While Bladesmulti had edited earlier, the edits seem pretty innocuous. This [2] appears to be the last version before the socks start making problematic edits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
      • There has also been recent improvements such as this change after the problems began. This is a big mess to merge the old version with the new version. I fixed a huge mess on another article last year. It took me a long time. Who going to let an editor to make any significant changes to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I requested unprotection. bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See also link

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&type=revision&diff=666787501&oldid=666485924 What is this about? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

About 80 cases of poisoning by Ayurveda drugs in 30 years with no reported fatalities v/s 10000 cases of side-effects regarding one drug with 50 % fatality and severe life restricting deformity for the rest in 5-10 years. Puts things in perspective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted per disclaimer on talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the disclaimer, the adding of such off-topic material to articles on no grounds other than a contributors personal opinion that it 'puts things in perspective' is entirely contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't our edits about what we feel is relevant to the subject? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. They are about what reliable sources have to say on the subject - which I would have hoped was obvious to anyone who has been editing Wikipedia for as long as you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, but what to choose, to determine whether a particular RS is relevant, that is a subjective act. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See this source discusses comments on Ayurveda with reference to the thalidomide disaster.[3] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And the Indian Academy of Sciences too.[4] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two sources mentioning thalidomide in passing - not a 'discussion' in any meaningful sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"The return of interest to traditional systems was aided in no small measure by the thalidomide tragedy and the increasing aversion towards chemically sythesised drugs, especially in Europe." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd call that a mention in passing - it contains no further details. And perhaps more to the point, what exactly would a link to the thalidomide article achieve anyway? It makes no mention of Ayurveda, and accordingly will leave the reader wondering what the heck it has to do with initial subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For now I did the self-revert. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The applicable policy is the prohibition on synthesis of published material. One cannot juxtapose fact A with fact B to make a new conclusion (or to "put things in perspective") unless reliable sources already have done so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no synthesis, RS connect the resurgence of traditional systems to the thalidomide tragedy. Perhaps the thalidomide article could mention this, then we could "See also" the article here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Verbatim quotation sought

The lead uses three sources that call Ayurveda a pseudo-science. (1) Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. (2) The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition and (3) Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. The second source states that Ayurveda can withstand the rigour of science and accommodate the methodologies, that it is based on the proposition that knowledge is experimental. So it actually contradicts the statement that it is supposed to support. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Our article states in the "Research" sub-section - "Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized" and one of the sources used is What could 'integrative' medicine mean? Social science perspectives on contemporary Ayurveda I checked up the source it says - "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. There is no doubt that the training in biomedical sciences as part of their curriculum enables ayurvedic physicians to see measurable parameters of the doshas or of the physiology of drug action. A physician could learn another system of medicine and it is like learning more than one language; in the sense that one could be bilingual. For instance, the pharmacologist researcher Dahanukar commissioned a study to understand the concept of rasayana. Her question was, “how was it possible for one plant, with its usual array of photochemicals, to produce such a variety of effects like delaying ageing, improving mental functions and giving freedom from several diseases including those caused by infection?” So she carried out a study to clarify the principles behind the multiple actions of a single herb in rasayana therapy; the herbal preparations based on the texts were examined on animal and human subjects under controlled laboratory conditions. The procedure and results were noted in terms of both ayurvedic and biomedical parameters. The report reads like this: “The outcome of these experiments was that we could demonstrate that rasayanas increase nonspecific resistance against stressors by activating RES and the other components of the immune system nonspecifically; we could also document that those rasayanas which have madhura vipaka were immunostimulants, those having katu vipaka were not”. Besides the resultant drug preparation, was found to be effective in reducing the mortality rates and the incidence of infections for tuberculosis and obstructive jaundice during clinical evaluation. In Dahanukar's view, this kind of bilingualism and the use of controlled trials endorse and explain what is already stated in classical ayurvedic texts." Elsewhere as I understand it, the said actually seems to criticise attempts to discredit Ayurveda as pseudo-science. Strange sourcing!! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that repeatedly following up your own posts (as you have done here, and in the previous thread) is not "discussion." It is helpful to give others a chance to express their views as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Primary source

This change possibly uses a primary source for the text. The source is the Indian Academy of Sciences. This could be a weight violation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that constitutes a primary source (Valiathan 2015), as it's summarizing other primary sources (WP:RS). By a quick search, I couldn't verify that Indian Academy of Sciences would be an Ayurveda advocacy group. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous text

This change suggests it is insurance companies in general when it is only in India. "Insurance companies cover expenses for Ayurvedic treatments in case of conditions such as spinal cord disorders, bone disorder, arthritis and cancer." This could be changed to "Insurance companies in India cover..." QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is in the India sub-section and so it is implicit that it refers to India. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the previous comment. Moreover, the previous sentence says that (emphasis added): "An Indian Academy of Sciences document [...] informs that India had 4,32,625 registered medical practitioners..." We shouldn't repeat the very noun in every sentence, especially when the sub-section deals with India exclusively. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

How many Ayurvedic practitioners does it say there are? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

4,32,625. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

4,32,625 Ayurvedic Practitioners. Really? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 01:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. In 2003-04. As per source quoted. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the source? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 16:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pl see page 26.[5] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be an excess comma in the source. According to https://data.gov.in/ (2013), the number of registered practitioners is 453 661, i.e. pretty much the same scale. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not excess: 4 lakh, 32 thousand, 625. Pretty common in Indian English. Indian numbering system may help.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kww, just under four and half lakh. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection downgraded

Following a request from User:Robert McClenon at my talk page, I have downgraded the protection to semi. All previous injunctions remain; no edit-warring, however mild, no major edits without prior consensus here, and no name-calling. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't what is required, John. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is required. You are expected to behave like responsible Wikipedia editors rather than being locked out like children and required to work through administrators as parents. Any editor who engages in edit-warring, however mild, major edits without prior discussion, name-calling, or uncivil edit summaries will be blocked, either by an administrator directly, or by arbitration enforcement, and I will have no sympathy for their blocks. Behave like responsible Wikipedia editors, or be prevented from editing. That is what is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. Incidentally, it would be a good idea to get a formal close to any RfCs so there can be no dispute about any further edits. I strongly suggest getting a neutral closer. I recommend asking at WP:AN. --John (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree as to formal closure by neutral closers via AN:RFC. (I tried being the neutral closer earlier, but that RFC was corrupted by sock-puppetry, and now I am involved.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem, Robert McClenon, is that this is one of the articles under constant attack by advocates: note the sockpuppet farm that spent considerable time destroying the article and corrupting consensus. We've seen the "no name-calling" injunction abused to block editors for pointing this out. It sounds wonderful in theory, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a better idea? I agree that the current situation is very imperfect. Do you really think that placing the article under indefinite page protection is a better idea? The usual reason for full page protection is to work out issues so as to avoid blocking the edit-warriors so that they can be forced to work things out. If we have truly stubborn edit-warriors who absolutely won't work things out, why should we lock the article just to keep from blocking them? What exactly do you suggest? I know that nothing in particular has worked out well, but do you think that anything else will work better? Do you really want the article permanently locked in the approved version? By the way, that is a common request at the Help Desk for a highly promotional version of a BLP, and it is of course always denied. But do you really mean that the article should be in permanent lock-down because of fighting, or do you agree that sometimes the fighters should be blocked? (I probably sound hostile, but I really want to know whether you think that a very-long-term lockdown really is what is needed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have always felt like vigorous enforcement of our pseudoscience decision should be enough: editors that attempt to portray pseudoscience as fact should be warned against doing so and quickly blocked for repeated offenses. If we rapidly and efficiently removed editors that were not here to help us build an encyclopedia, most of the behavioural problems on the pseudoscience articles would quickly diminish to a manageable level.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that we should "rapidly and efficiently remove... editors that [are] not here to help us build an encyclopedia" and I will continue to assist with this. If anyone reading this is here to promote a point of view which they feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, they should definitely reconsider whether they are best suited to editing here. Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem. --John (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words Kww, "I am right, and everyone who disagrees with me should be blocked immediately and the problems would be solved"? With due all respect, I don't think the future of our encyclopedia depends on you. Wikipedia is a project build on collaboration, and everyone who cannot collaborate with his/her editor colleagues will be blocked. It's just a matter of time when that will happen. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never said or implied that. There's a big difference between "disagreeing with Kww" and "promoting pseudoscience". The prohibitions against portraying pseudoscience as factual are a portion of WP policy, and that did not occur as a result of my personal opinion.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The very fact that you used a phrase here on this page, for which you yourself blocked me from editing here when I used it astonishingly similar to one I used, and you blocked me for leads me to suggest that you should, following your disastrous stewardship of this page, recuse yourself from any further involvement. That will help us build this part of the encyclopaedia far far easier than anything else. There are admins aplenty to help in your civility crusade - your help is not required. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the above passage in the light of pressure from John at my talk page. The section above in italics was added at the time of this edit. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What are you folks doing here, if not promoting a point of view that you feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, and talking about banning people from Wikipedia for being "stubborn edit warriors" and the like? I think there's a cultural thing going on here, promoting "skepticism" and the need to stick a "pseudoscience" label on things. From a sociological point of view, i see a relative picture of this thing, and i hear sharpening of knives. "Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem." SageRad (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All these subtle arguments, meta-arguments and raisings of the righteousness stakes are all very nice, but the way things work around here should be according to our WP:PAGs, and if there is pseudoscience here then a policy applies: "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." Alexbrn (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Alex, and any administrator, including John, that would protect editors that are attempting to portray pseudoscience as fact is derelict in his duties. We have many editors that believe that portraying false medical treatments as such is one of those "great wrongs" they so glibly talk about, and portraying the editors that would protect the encyclopedia from this distortion as the problem is wrong on multiple levels. Portraying ayurveda as scientifically sound is not much different from portraying the age of the earth as being 6000 years old: the editor that inserts it might be a nice guy, might sincerely and fervently hold that belief, and might be capable of editing properly on articles where that belief doesn't get in the way, but we don't treat that view as a legitimate one to present as fact.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So, John. Now that you are happy with the phrasing of my request, are you liable to respond at any time? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, because, you know, one would expect an admin imposing behavioural rules that aren't really needed, to be watching the page, perhaps responding when asked, sort of thing? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Roxy. I'm sure that if you phrase your concerns clearly aa a question, in a way that suggests you are serious, ( you do have a sense of humour, and it can be hard to determine what is serious and what is snark) you will get a reply. However, I believe John made it clear on his talk page that he has discussed the restrictions on the article enough.

Kww. I'd suggest that pseudoscience is not a fact as you suggest but is a way of categorizing information, and where the boundaries are placed in terms of that categorization is what must be discussed. There is no right or wrong position but only an agreed-upon position. Sure it takes longer to edit when you have to consider a group but that's WP.

I just don't understand why those restriction are causing such a big problem. They are the kind of boundaries we should all place on ourselves on a contentious article.

And my own position and one reason I left this article is that there is a commonly held sense that science is the master and medicine its servant when in fact the opposite seems true; the healer is the master and science her servant. That said, not all medicine, that is, treatment for disease, has science behind it, and not all medicine is successful as a healing modality. Some western medicine doesn't work all the time. That doesn't mean we ignore MEDRS, it just means that a more open attitude than chop off their heads might be necessary. Physicians in both human and vet medicine do not look at the science behind everything they do or prescribe. Again, that doesn't mean we ignore MEDRS in adding content to any WP article, on the contrary, and I have been a strong advocate for MEDRS content. A WP article is not a physician's office. And what a physician prescribes and knows will heal may not have MEDRS compliant sources behind it. Our articles have to protect the general public, thus MEDRS, but maybe multiple views on what heals is to be expected. Those views, seems, have to be put aside in editing. In a work place all are our colleagues, and In academia for example, people consistently hold differing views. Where views come together to create content is what a talk page is about, and our policies aid all to set aside their views to create that content. Suggesting some editors have the definitive position while others do not is just going to create problems. Sorry if this is preachy. Watching this ongoing complaint and it seems a waste of time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC))

There certainly are some fuzzy boundaries, Littleolive oil, but very little of alternative medicine is anywhere near one of the boundaries. Acupuncture's an example: studies come up with slight evidence of an effect for needling, so the effects of needling are on the boundary, but qi, meridians, and the rest are unambiguously nonsense. Similarly, for ayurveda, some of the herbal medicines undoubtedly have therapeutic effects, so I would oppose any blanket statements that would make it appear that all of them are useless, but that doesn't mean that we should permit people to present the theory of doshas as credible or to imply that because an individual herb has an effect that ayurveda itself has any scientific validity.

As for the notion that science is not the master: not here, not inside an encyclopedia. "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work."—Kww(talk) 14:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I very clearly stated that science is not the master for the physician. The error is in thinking that WP is the world or that our WP pseudoscience position is held by physicians or exists outside of this encyclopedia. I am suggesting that science is not the master in a physicians office, but an important tool. I am suggesting that as editors we all come to artIcles with, in some cases, clearly articulated positions and that those positions have to be tempered by the policies and guidelines, and possibly even put aside. I am also suggesting that in no way is one opinion worth more than another and that the contentions in these articles may arise because some do think their opinions matter more than others, or the policies. And I am not pointing to any one here. I support John 100% because editors have taken their positions to be infallible, and have blurred the lines between WP and the real world and real people with complex positions, opinions, ideas, and have pigeonholed people based on assumptive ideas. Then, have allowed themselves to speak in a way both about the health modalities and other people in ways that point to a lack of objectivity. I could care less in acupuncture works or not. I do care both about the environment I work in and the sources and policies. I am relieved actually to find an admin who will not be pushed around, is honest, and treats all positions the same. I endured a block on my clean record in aid of that and I would again to have an admin with the guts to do what John has. I'm sure my position will make me unpopular but I care very little about that either.

Again, only some aspects of Ayurveda or Acupuncture fall under "science" and therefore pseudoscience. Science is not the master here either. but a tool to describe a traditional healing modality in terms of modern science. Only part of this article falls under "respected scientific thought".(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC))

science is not the master for the charlatan or witch doctor, either. But that is neither here nor there. We are discussing how WIKIPEDIA presents it and how mainstream science academics present it. What happens in the witch doctor's office is pretty irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you said, neither here nor there, and no one said anything about what happens in the "witch doctor's office". I did however refer to physicians, a term used here and generally, to refer to Western medicine. And further I clearly refer to MEDRS. However, as I and others have noted only some of Ayurveda falls under modern science. Part of is what at issue here is how this is discussed. For example, I don't anyone likes having their comments reframed, or mis represented. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC))

We do "live" in the Wikipedia modality and we do not treat all positions equally. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You do need to give Littleolive's argument a bit more credit than that. We have a local cancer center that emphasises the availability of religious counselors, and I'm not going to argue that we should fault them for that: a religious person facing major trauma almost certainly benefits from the ministrations of someone that he believes is a conduit to benevolent and powerful beings, so the cancer center is completely reasonable in doing so. However, and this is where Little olive's argument falls apart, that would not justify us modifying the Wikipedia articles about the various faiths involved to indicate that they were effective in the battle against cancer.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference KWW between your local cancer centre offering a bit of counselling from a religious person, that may help the faithful in their ordeal, and pretending that Ayurveda is a real effective system of medicine, which its supporters appear to want to do. It has never been clear why they do this, as no evidence is ever offered to support that. So we are left with an outdated and admittedly ancient belief system which wants to be a medical system. Our PAG specifically requires us that Wikipedia's voice should be that of the mainstream scientific pov. (This very subject, the portrayal of Ayurvedic medicine as an equivalent to real medicine, was causal in the arrival of John and his much criticised stewardship.) -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Swarna Bhasma in cancer: A prospective clinical study [6] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

a 40 person study in the Journal of Ayurvedic Medicine whose conclusion is "Randomized control trials with large sample size is required to establish this statement." published 3 years ago for which there is no evidence of any follow up study, particularly any double blind study, has been conducted let alone providing any confirmation . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The United States National Library of Medicine considered it good enough to carry it. For what ever it is worth. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not much. Libraries' jobs are to collect lots and lots of books and written works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that isn't so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for non inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What does "Did not mean minimum subject guidelines" mean? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence-Based Validation of Herbal Medicine: Farm to Pharma, published by Elsevier.[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Insurance companies pay for Ayurvedic treatment.[8] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The body could be expanded with more details about the pseudoscience claims

Sources which support characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience.

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned by me above, there should be verbatim sharing of quotations on which the pseudo-science qualifier is applied, I discussed problems with sources above that actually contradict, are silent or are offline so cannot be verified. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

There's nothing wrong with a source being offline, and the one that you quoted large blocks of doesn't contradict the categorisation as psuedoscience.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(1.0) IMO We are in the act of building an encyclopaedia and so shouldn't be put off by the need to sift through text in large or small quantities. (1.1) The text I cited does disagree with the categorisation that Ayurveda is a pseudo-science, as I read it. Will you please Kww, from the text quoted show how the text indicates that Ayurveda is a pseudo-science. (2) I didn't say offline sources is a problem, I said, we don't know what they say, and I would be obliged if the text that is used to support the statement "Ayurveda is pseudo-science" be kindly shared with us. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For example Ayurvedic analysis entry number six in QuackGuru's list above actually demonstrates how Ayurvedic treatment works for anemmia in common case of pregnant women who cannot benefit from "western medicine" based treatment because they cannot stand iron sulphate. In closing the writer remarks, "Perhaps it is time modern science took a closer look at the multitude of alternative remedies that sit under the Ayurvedic umbrella. Ancient herbal remedies evolved from folk knowledge and a huge proportion of modern drugs are based on such remedies, 40% of them, or thereabouts. Instead of instantly assuming isolation of an active ingredient is the optimal approach, perhaps science should consider the holistic approach to drug discovery with a view to coping with the side effects and improving efficacy overall." Well, the quoted source sounds critical of the way "modern science" approaches healing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for such info. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ronz this is a source used by QuackGuru (in his 23 source list) to support the statement that Ayurveda is pseudo-science. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the list. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it is still there, additionally, number 2 is the opinion of a librarian who is critical of open access publishing, numbers 10, 15 and 20 are skeptic's opinions, not quite neutral, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are off line, we need quotations to see what they actually say. 19 is a veterinarian writing in "Veterinary Times". 3 is actually critical of the position taken by 2 and disapproves the one size fits all approach of those who denounce Ayurveda. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

your "being skeptic = non neutral " as a reason for non inclusion is wrong on 2 parts. 1) being a skeptic is not being non neutral, its merely being skeptic, 2) if you dont want to include skeptic sources for being "non neutral" , then we need to eliminate all the alt med sources as being non neutral as well as they are FAR more guilty of the crime. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

also, good old fashioned paper sources are perfectly acceptable. WP:PAYWALL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Veterinary Times" is not talking about "Veterinary Medicine" - it is talking about "medical practice" and while the specifics about "veterinary medical practice" will be different than the specifics about "human medical practice" ( a cat's normative temperature is different than a human's normative temperature, a dog reacts differently to aspirin than a human does, the specific influenza virus that affect pigs are (generally!) different than the influenza viruses that affect humans ) the scientific framework behind the two medical practices are the same: treatment protocols are based on reproducible doubleblind studies.

And both historically [9] and contemporary [10] ayurvedic modalities have been used on animals, so even if the article was purely about veterinary scope, it is applicable for identifying as psuedoscientific ayurvedic veterinary modalities. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(1)The very source TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has quoted discusses the positive efficacy of ayurvedic medication on animals and various protocols.[11] (2) I don't say offline sources are not bad, but for a controversial and exceptional claim such as the one under discussion, we need a quotation on which the claim is based. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no exception to the policy that off line reliable sources are perfectly acceptable for ALL claims whether or not you would rather be able to personally read them online. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I request an excerpt/scan per Wikipedia:Offline sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

illegal to prescribe real drug

Apparently it is illegal but pretty common for ayurvedic practitioners in India to prescribe real drugs. [12]. Seems like an important fact we might want to work in somewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unani and ayurvedic doctors can prescribe allopathic drugs in Maharashtra, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.[13] According to a central government clarification it is legal to do so, if any state recognises them as RMPs or authorises them to do so.[14] Those with PG degrees are authorised to perform surgeries such as for cataract, hydrocele, appendix, vasectomy, hysterectomy.[15] Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Just to clarify, what are "allopathic" drugs? Are these a specific type of ayurvedic medication? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, evidence-based medicine, or modern medicine". [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Then we should use one of those terms, because I suspect "allopathic" will be unfamiliar to the vast majority of readers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The title of this sub-section is inappropriate. It discusses cross-practice, a doctor of one system using medication of another. Allopathic doctors have been known to indulge in cross-practice. A study of allopathic doctors indicated that 67 percent prescribed ayurvedic medicines without training in ayurveda.[17] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is either illegal or it isn't. And the source cited says it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, you are citing a study carried out at a single hospital in Mumbai. Extrapolating beyond that might be open to question, as the paper itself makes quite clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I did say it was "a" study, one study, also it is apparently illegal for them to do so.[18] as they aren't trained in ayurveda.[19] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So we are agreed then that some sources at least suggest that cross-practice is illegal in India? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

India has a federal structure, and states have differing laws. The study is based in Maharashtra, the article quotes the dean of an Ayurvedic college thus: " “As per the Maharashtra government’s notification, while Ayurvedic doctors can practise allopathy as it’s part of their syllabus, an allopath cannot practise Ayurveda as it’s not included in their syllabus..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The source cited by TheRedPenOfDoom refers to Goa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

True, a tiny state with a population of about a milllion. Legal in Maharashtra a state with a population of 112 million. Uttar Pradesh 200 million, Harayana 25 million. Also the said article says there is a "loop-hole" which means it isn't illegal, even in Goa. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit suggested

The following text is sought to be added in sub-section India:

Text of edit: "In the Indian state of Maharashtra 25 percent of post for doctors in government hospitals and clinics are reserved for ayurvedic doctors."[20] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The source cited doesn't actually make it entirely clear whether this has been enacted, or is just a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the source quite clear, quote "25 per cent of posts of medical officers in the public health department are reserved for ayurveda doctors..." unquote. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops - evidently I'd misread the source. Though if this included, we should probably also mention the controversy over the decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any controversy mentioned over the reservation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume there are no further objections. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How many states are there? Is it just that state, or are there others? Is this a little WP:UNDUE? What does public opinion in Maharashtra think about the fact that 25% of their Government docs are not medically qualified? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 11:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A fact that relates to 114 million people, about 9 % of the country, concerning over 2200 posts in the Public Health system, how is it undue? Also it is a comment on main-streaming of Ayurveda in Maharashtra an Indian state with reference to its health care system. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How many states are there? Is it just that state, or are there others? What does public opinion in Maharashtra think about the fact that 25% of their Government docs are not medically qualified? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) It is your opinion that they aren't medically qualified. Wikipedia isn't about wp:OR or opinion of its editors. (2) As I said the present edit is about one state; 9 percent of the country. Which is significant. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the mainstream view (probably, even restricted to India) that they aren't medically qualified. Public opinion would be interesting, but probably not appropriate for the article, even if this factoid is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The perception isn't mainstream; there is no negative perception about Ayurveda as a healing system, in the Indian context, as demonstrated by the reservations for government medical officer. Reservations mean 25 % posts have to be filled by Ayurvedic doctors. There are about 450,000 registered Ayurvedic practitioners legally practising medicine in India. With over 200 teaching institutions. Insurance companies pay for ayurvedic treatment. Moreover this sub-section is about inclusion of a properly sourced unambiguous, statement of fact. Please allow inclusion or please present reasons why it should't be included in the article. Ayurveda actually has a great deal of respect. See "The ayurveda tag helps it sells big everywhere it goes."[21] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other objections? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see anything close to consensus to include as phrased. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I see objections raised and I see no replies to my clarifications. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a proposal for an edit, and no consensus. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

True there is no consensus, but there has to be a reason beyond I just don't like it which isn't coming. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The information is being taken out of context in violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is controversy in the source per AndyTheGrump, that information should be included with this presently disputed content in a section on Ayurveda and India. Conjecture as to whether Ayurveda is considered "medically qualified", unless in the source, is not pertinent to this particular content if added in a section on Ayurveda in India, and points to POV and seems an attempt to dominate the discussion and article with a POV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil I don't follow you, will you please rephrase? Ronz how is it out of context? The article discusses cross-pathy and then there is the statement about 25%? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Close for Psuedoscience categorization

I have reverted the close and requested a review at ANI: WP:ANI#RFC Close for Ayurveda. —Kww(talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO the lede shouldn't be written that way (i.e. calling something pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice), given the disagreement between sources and the polemical slant of the single source cited. It's fine to use that source, but it should be with in-text attribution. Doing otherwise needs something like WP:RS/AC, which hasn't been supplied there. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a pseudohistorical nonsense (and a violation of core Wikipedia principles) to retroactively apply a category only rationally applicable to the modern era to a subject pre-dating anything that could remotely be described as 'science' by thousands of years. Find another forum for your revisionist quack 'history'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's like saying Flat Earth should be considered scientific. Just because it has a history spanning hundreds of years doesn't mean it is valid. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The tag is not about pseudoscience historically for ayurvedic. It applies to modern ayurvedic medicine not its origins. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

• Support. Clearly pseudoscience,[22] and in many cases dangerous as well[23][24] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. per everything I have said on this Talk page during the era of these socks. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Qualified Support - As explained below, I support the addition of the Category to the article. Ayurveda is not historically pseudoscience, because it predates modern science, but it is pseudoscience when scientific arguments are made about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. While ancient Ayurveda can't be accused of pseudoscience, modern Ayurveda makes claims of efficacy (which are scientifically measurable and falsifiable claims), so it is indeed pseudoscience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support descriptions of ayurveda as traditional medicine would be fine but claims of efficacy of the system today are pseudoscience. if there are any specific ayurvedic practices that have been proven to work, those practices (but not their theoretical basis) would not be pseudoscience. because there all kinds of claims today, the category is warranted. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support "The Ayur Veda", when considered as a quasi-historical cultural or religious text might not be pseudoscience, but the subject being taught in schools as a modern practice of "ayurvedic medicine" very clearly is. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Bloodletting and lead poisoning as medical treatment? Come on... Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The general topic of Ayurveda fits the category. An article about only the history of Ayurveda probably wouldn't fit within the category. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Cats are for navigation, not for blaming and shaming, and readers searching for pseudoscience are not going to expect to find large fields of traditional medicine in them. That cat is for things like Time Cube, not for non-Western traditional medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would expect to find non-scientific fields held up as "medicine" to be in this cat. Particularly "medicines" working under the premises of energy healing and dispensing concoctions containing heavy metals and arsenic as "cures". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, sufficient sources identify the pseudoscientific elements of this that to describe it merely as folk medicine would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support – If reliable sources say that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience then we should put Ayurveda in the pseudoscience category. Suggestions that Ayurveda is somehow immune to the pseudoscience category by virtue of some unwritten grandfather clause are wholly irrelevant in an encyclopedia driven by reliable sources. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Reliable sources describe this topic as pseudoscience in its "modern" usages. Pre-modern times ayurveda was pre-scientifical but the article has a substantial coverage of the modern aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a form of traditional medicine based on prescientific theories. The label pseudoscience is a pejorative, and does not meaningfully add anything to the article.Herbxue (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

again, having no scientific basis for a long period of time does not make one immune from being pseudoscience when one continues the nonscientific basis but is presented as if there is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Although it predates modern medicine, it is still described by reliable sources as pseudoscience, and it is still being practiced (lead poisoning as medicine?). Esquivalience ^t 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Reliable sources say that ayurveda is pseudoscience; so the categorisation is appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Depends on RS - I don't know, but WP:FRINGE/PS addresses this. Criteria: (A) Is it "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community (here I would qualify, per adequate RS)? (B) Is there still a "reasonable amount of debate" on whether it's pseudoscience? If A = yes and B = no, use the category. If A = maybe but B = yes, then don't. The grey area is when A = maybe and B = maybe or no. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is some sources. See Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9#Sources which support characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Indifferent but... I am neutral as to whether the category is added to the page, but just like User:Robert McClenon below, I want to emphasize that the outcome of this RfC should not be used to add blanket statements of the form "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" in the article lead or main body, since the actual situation is more subtle and complex. See my proposal from 7 months (!) back for details and sources. Abecedare (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That wording was too complicated. I simplified it. See "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15] Other researchers consider it a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.[16][17][18]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support pseudoscience category. To answer some of the arguments for oppose:

• Adding a category to an article does not imply that "the entire article" falls under that category. This should be self-evident, but take for instance the Health in India category to which the article also belongs: the entire article isn't about health in India.
• There is no doubt that much of Ayurveda as currently practiced today falls under pseudoscience, as shown in the sources mentioned by QG. This designation is not invalidated by Ayurveda's historical origins, or by the aspects of Ayurveda that are orthogonal to evidential claims.
• It is a common misconception that the pseudoscience label is for "naming and shaming" or intended merely as "pejorative". No, the label carries information that readers deserve to know, namely where the topic is located in relation to the demarcation problem.

Manul ~ talk 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support the modern practice is pseudoscience. The article is the primary article for the modern practice Ergo the article is in the pseudoscience category QED.
• Support Reliable sources describe the modern practice of Ayurveda as pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support There are enough aspects of this subject which are pseudoscientific to include this article in such a category. Note that just because an article is categorized does not mean that every single encyclopedic perspective on the subject must be so categorizable. There are certainly historical aspects of ayurveda that are not "pseudoscience", but the fact that today there are pseudoscientific applications of ayurveda means that it is totally appropriate for one of the categories on this page to be pseudoscience. jps (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Indeed the modern practice is pseudoscience. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support but here are some good reasons for opposing this.

1. As said above by WhatamIdoing, this category carries some shame and is not appropriate for labeling a culture.
2. The Western bias in this article defines Ayurveda as "health care in India, minus Western scientific medicine". The better definition is that Ayurveda is "health care in India". In this context it is not correct to label the culture's practices as pseudoscience.
3. Western medicine is a pseudoscience. Wikipedians often say otherwise, but the concept of "evidence based medicine" is recent and does not apply to most health care practice. In medicine like any other profession, right and wrong is decided by the consensus of doctors and not by a rule book. Because almost all medicine is pseudoscience, we should not single out only this kind of medicine.
4. Criticism can be placed on anyone's medicine. People in the west look at Ayurveda and say it is a bit religious, and people in India look at Western medicine and say that it advances the commercial interests of pharma companies in preference to medical science whenever the two conflict. Both are correct. It would be best on all sides to omit controversy labels when they do not advance understanding.
5. The "pseudoscience" category can go up the hierarchy. Put it on "alternative medicine" which includes Ayurveda, so that the point is not so specific to this article but the distinction is made between all science and all nonscience.
6. If there are particular practices in Ayurveda which have their own Wikipedia articles, and are pseudoscience, then those can get the pseudoscience category. Ayurveda as a whole is more of a culture than a science.

In the longer term I think that the cultural and parts of this Ayurveda article should stay here, and information about various treatments should WP:FORK into another article. When that happens, this article should not be labeled "pseudoscience", but the forked article on the treatments should be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a MEDRS article, and therefore we should not categorize the article by MEDRS terms. Moreover, Ayurveda predates the modern science by thousands of years, and therefore can by no means be considered as science nor pseudoscience. The previous attempt to make the article fall under MEDRS failed, and therefore labellng an article - one that is mostly about the historical origins and reporting ancient believes - as pseudoscience is rather absurd. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

psuedoscience is not a "MEDRES term" whatever that may mean. Also, by my reckoning, something close to half of the article is of the "modern aspects".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Small clarification: I meant that in order to be pseudoscience, the Ayurveda should try to make scientific claims about medical efficiency. And if Ayurveda was to make scientific claims about medical efficiency, the article should fall under MEDRS. However, Ayurveda is not a MEDRS article. When we are speaking about, let's say, doshas, we are dealing with ancient believes, not modern-day scientific claims. Those ancient believes predate modern science; therefore, not pseudoscience. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is not a "grandfather clause" that says unsupportable claims that started long ago and are continued to be presented as factual today can only be judged by criteria from the time they were created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The International Journal of Ayurveda Research certainly makes scientific claims based on ayurveda.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If Ayurveda would be pseudoscience, it'd fall under MEDRS. This was tried earlier[25], with no success. Now, if Ayurveda cannot even be classified as "pseudoscience", how can you label it under pseudoscience category? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - That citation is to an old version of a talk page, and does not show the complete history. There was an RFC, and I indeed closed the RFC saying that there was a rough consensus against labeling Ayurveda as pseudo-science. However, that RFC was corrupted by sock-puppetry. Multiple statements in support of Ayurveda were found to have been made by illegitimate alternate accounts of User:OccultZone, who was then banned by the ArbCom. I was then asked (a second time) to review my closure. I agreed to review my closure, and in the most current version of the archive, I struck my closure and the statements of the sockpuppets. It isn't historically accurate to say that an RFC went against labeling Ayurveda as pseudoscience; that consensus was voided. Please don't confuse the history by citing an RFC that had to be set aside due to sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Robert McClenon. I updated my recent post[26] per your last comment. Anyway, even after the sock puppets's been removed from the numbers, there still seems to be sixteen editors giving a vote (compared to the current four). I wonder if anyone commenting the previous RfC over the very same subject has been notified that there's been launched a new RfC? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. "Modern Ayurveda makes claims of efficacy (which are scientifically measurable and falsifiable claims), so it is indeed pseudoscience.". JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Blue Rasberry. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support To be frank, I am confused about it. It is not totally pseudoscience for sure (as compared to Homeopathy) in my opinion. But some of the concepts are being practiced without having any proof for it so it may qualify as psudo science. Many of the medicines described in Ayurveda have became basis for modern medicines. Sarpagandha is an example which is basis for extraction of Resparine. One can read the article by Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya (most probably in BMJ) about it. He has given a list of such medicines. Now one can think in the logical conclusion that there is possibility that we may find more such medicines in future, in that view labeling it as psudo science altogether in hurry is not a good decision in my opinion. However I also agree that one feels that there is lot of mambo jumbo when they speak about vata, pitta and kahpa. So there is pseudoscience at philosophical level in my opinion and hence my vote is for support. We must ensure at the same time that good efforts to find out good medicines from it are not discouraged. I am afraid that labeling it pseudoscience altogether may do that. But then what is the way out? Can we label it as half pseudoscience? Is there is thing as half or partial pseudoscience? I can understand the concern of you all who are supporting the category that you want people to be better informed. I think that there is nothing known as partial pseudoscience. It is either pseudoscience or it is real science. And every pseudoscience looks like science or there may be trace amount of science in it but still it will be called as pseudoscience because the so called scientists there are not taking enough efforts on it. So if someone is feeling bad that it is being called as pseudoscience in spite of record of scientific contribution, they should understand that though what they are thinking is true, they are probably blinded by love for it. If someone really feels bad about it, the thing they should do is to work hard on it and remove the mambo jumbo out of it. I am sure all science lovers will remove the label then, but till that time it must have the category / label as pseudo science. I understand that the punishment seem a little too harsh to lovers of this domain, but there is no way I can see to stop happening it. Actually we should learn from it and should at least try to improve henceforth in the future so that these shameful things will not happen. But for now there is no other right way than putting it in the category of pseudoscience. At least may be after putting it in that category, people sleeping about its scientific validity will wake up and will try to do 'something' about it than just speaking mambo jumbo. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a motivational tool. Do we have evidence to term Ayurveda as practised contemporarily as pseudo-science? The answer would be to find RS that call it pseudo-science or otherwise. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Ayurveda is a recognized field by Indian government and practiced in many western nations. US government agency National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health also recognizes Ayurveda.[27]. It may have some kind of "mistakes", but each field do has some kind of drawbacks. Many people call Darwin's Evolution theory as "Pseudoscience". We can't categorize this entire article as "Pseudoscience". --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 14:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm really quite surprised at the overwhelming agreement to apply the pseudoscience label. I would have thought that a wider reach of editors would have resulted in a more mature viewpoint than to tack a pejorative term to an ancient form of health care that is still used by millions of people around the world. I guess that this is just one more sign of the U.S. ethnocentric viewpoint that I've been seeing more and more of recently. Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearly pseudoscience. It doesn't matter how old it is, or how many believe it. It's still pseudoscience (and potentially dangerous pseudoscience at that). It being eastern based doesn't make it not pseudoscience (although wanting to keep eastern traditions alive and keep the real medicine away sounds truly horrible and condescending). Other sources have been detailed by others: Talk:Ayurveda#The_body_could_be_expanded_with_more_details_about_the_pseudoscience_claims. New age types don't like calling eastern nonsense as nonsense, but that's not an argument that aligns with policy. By the way, by Human3015's logic, astrology wouldn't be pseudoscience (Astrology is treated as science by the Indian government). We all know astrology is pseudoscience (well, you never know with some wikipedians ...), so therefore his point is invalid; the Indian government has a poor reputation for recognising science from pseudoscience. Second Quantization (talk)

Threaded Discussion

• History - A previous RFC was written in November 2014. I closed the RFC in December 2014 with a conclusion that there was consensus against labeling Ayurveda as Pseudoscience, largely because it was originally a philosophy that preceded the concept of modern science by at least one millennium. My close was challenged, and a closure review in February 2015 resulted in no consensus, leaving the original close standing. I was now asked to review my original close again, this time based on sock-puppetry by an editor who was recently banned. I concur with the conclusion that the original RFC was invalid due to sock-puppetry, and have withdrawn my close. Since the comments of some valid registered editors concurred with the comments of the banned sock-puppets, the original RFC cannot be reclosed, and a new RFC is needed. I concur with the action by Kww in posting a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment left me wondering, Robert, so for anybody else like me, the old RfC is here and the retraction of the close and deletion of the sock !votes can be seen in this dif. The SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive. I'm adding a note to the archive explaining this, as what is there makes no sense on the face of it. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that this RFC is precisely worded as to asking whether to add the category of pseudoscience to the article, and not whether all of Ayurveda is pseudoscience. I will be providing a Qualified Support to the RFC, based on the understanding that Ayurveda is only pseudoscience when scientific claims are made for it, but that scientific claims made for it are not science and so are pseudoscience. This comment also applies to other systems of traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese medicine, and to associated forms of treatment, such as Acupuncture. They are pseudoscience when and only when they are advertised as science. (This argument does not apply to Homeopathy, which is pseudoscience from the start because it is of late-eighteenth-century European origin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Unless I'm overlooking something, we've basically two arguements against the category (Feel free to add others if I've missed something): --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  1) Pseudoscience does not apply to the history of Ayurveda, but only the modern practice. Since this article is not limited to the history, this argument doesn't apply to this article. More importantly, Ayurveda is most notable for modern applications, where the category most definitely applies. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  2) The category is offensive when applied here. Editors say it is "blaming and shaming" and "is a pejorative". Some may feel that way, but Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so.. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, it actually doesn't affect the article yet as the study on this science is not complete. And there will be major changes in this article as new things get uncovered in the ongoing study of Yajurveda and Atharvaveda.Prymshbmg (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  So you want to exclude information because of your personal opinion on what may come in the future? That would violate NOT, OR, NPOV, V, probably other policies as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  You probably meant WP:CRYSTAL. HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • If I had to bet, I am pretty sure that the things coming out of the ongoing study of Yajurveda and Atharvaveda will be more along the lines of "yeah, giving people concoctions laced with heavy metals are not good for their health" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• snow close of RfC is now required. Overwhelming support is clear. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: About 200 colleges in India teaching pseudo-science?[28] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Drugs are regulated.[29] Also the article talks about 80 poisoning cases in 30 years, Thalidomide caused 10000 deformities in 5-10 years. That is the effect of just one drug and one such case. There are numerous other cases of various degrees of side-effects of allopathy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda and preventive cardiology.[30][31][32] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Presentation at World Congress of Cardiology - "Improving The Quality of Life of Chronic Heart Failure Patients: Role of 'Sampurna Hridaya Shuddhikaran': An Ayurveda-Based intervention Model - Result: Mean age of the participants was 54.00_10.3 years. The mean BMI of the participants was 24.7_3.9 (Kg/m2). The preintervention mean SMWT and Stress Test was 451_101 metres and 322.99_138 seconds, respectively. The post-intervention mean SMWT was 526_87 metres and 431_138 seconds,respectively. The improvement in the results of SMWT and ST after intervention was found to be highly significant at p_0.001. Conclusion: The Ayurveda-based Sampurna Hridaya Shuddhikaran (SHS) model seems very effective in improving the quality of life of patients with chronic heart failure." [omicsonline.org/2155-9880/2155-9880.S1.024-047.pdf][33][34] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Same in the British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research. This is work of just one centre.[35]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See the statistics for Ayurveda in India: Registered medical practitioners 4,32,625, Dispensaries 13,925, Hospitals 2,253, Bed Strength 43,803. Bed Strength 43,803. Pseudo science or a health care system? [pp 26]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that ayurveda is a mythological view of the human body dating back to the stone age, all you are doing is solidifying the argument that it's a currently a pseudoscience. If practitioners didn't present their beliefs as science, I'd be more receptive to the arguments that Wikipedia should classify it only as a religion or philosophy.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you read that from the mentions I've made of "Sampurna Hridaya Shuddhikaran" (BJMMR), World Congress of Cardiology) and fact that there are 43803 beds in Ayurveda based hospitals etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

A little arithmetic, 43803 beds is 1,59,88,095 patient days a year. That is over 1.33 percent of the population of India Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A little less arithmetic than is meaningful, since you seem to be assuming that each patient only occupies the bed for a day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No I don't assume anything, it is a statistical device I've used, like "man days". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you arguing that your sources portray ayurveda as science, Yogesh Khandke? If that's not what you're arguing, I would like you to be a bit more explicit.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have shared one Ayurveda based treatment for non-invasive management of cardiac disease that has been presented at international fora. I have shared a five year trial conducted on the efficacy of Ayurvedic treatment of various cancers. I have shared statistics that in India Ayurveda is mainstream health care system. I have shared the fact that insurance companies in India cover Ayurvedic treatments for various ailments including cancer. I also have used the same source that this article uses (from my understanding of it) that the said source calls blanket criticism of Ayurveda an act of pseudo-science.[36] My reading of the sources is that they disagree to the categorisation of Ayurveda as pseudo-science. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The source you reference above defends a particular herb, having examined its properties using conventional science and explaining its effects using conventional science. It does not use ayurveda to explain its results. No one should be trying to claim that every herb used in ayurvedic preparations is ineffective or harmful. The mythology of doshas and lack of explanatory of power of gunas doesn't keep an herb from being legitimate medicine. Conversely, the effectiveness of an individual herb doesn't make doshas and gunas legitimate science.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) There is another below, "Evidence-Based Validation of Herbal Medicine" Numerous plant based medicines. (1.1) Sampurna Hridaya Shuddhikaran[37] isn't one herb, it is a "therapeutic procedure (that) consists of four stages (Snehan, Swedan, Hrid Dhara, Basti) and takes 90 minutes. Procedure is carried out twice in a day for all consecutive six days by trained & skilled staff." (not allopathy as you claim) (2) It would be good to read the source that this article quotes " What could 'integrative' medicine mean? Social science perspectives on contemporary Ayurveda" for answer to your comment regarding "guna" and "dosha". (3) Ayurveda became mainstream in India when insurance companies cover its treatments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick side note: the journal for the Sampurna Hridaya Shuddhikaran paper is published by David Publishing, one of the many sham/scam publishers in the area. Abecedare (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been presented at World Congress of Cardiology Beijing, 2010,[38][39], then in European Journal of Heart Failure [pp 8], also World Congress of Cardiology, Dubai, 2012,[pp 8], World Carrediology Conference, Melbourne, 2014.[40]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was undecided, until I read the pdf cited above. I encourage other undecided participants to read it. In my view, papers like that are exactly what qualifies Ayurveda as pseudoscience. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The last paragraph of the lead says it clearly, well supported by sources. “WarKosign” 03:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint

To show an old version of this talk page in which I had closed a previous RFC saying that there was a rough consensus against labeling Ayurveda as pseudoscience is, to assume good faith, unintentionally misleading. As the above discussion notes, after an editor was banned for sockpuppetry, I was asked to review my closure, and I cancelled my closure because of the sock-puppetry. Please don't confuse the discussion by citing a closure that I made in good faith and then found it necessary to reverse because of misconduct. That RFC is void because of the sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, Robert McClenon. I updated my recent post[41] per your last comment. Anyway, even after the sock puppets's been removed from the numbers, there still seems to be sixteen editors giving a vote (compared to the current four). I wonder if anyone commenting the previous RfC over the very same subject has been notified that there's been launched a new RfC? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Have the editors commenting the old RfC been informed?

In the old RfC[42], there was 20 editors (16 without Bladesmulti, నిజానికి, Noteswork, and AmritasyaPutra) giving an oppose or support vote. 13 (9) editors voted for oppose, whereas 7 editors voted for support. In the current RfC, however, we've got only 4 votes; 2 for support, 2 for oppose. I don't think appealing to "sock puppetry" as a reason good enough to abolish the overwhelming consensus by the previous RfC. Striking the sock puppets' votes would be enough. I wonder if the voters in the last RfC have even been informed about the new one we're having here. Certainly, I was not but I am watching this page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are you counting, Jayaguru-Shishya? A quick peek at the discussion appears to show 34 people indicating "Support" or "Oppose".—Kww(talk) 23:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss that ping, Jayaguru-Shishya?—Kww(talk) 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

Please provide evidence to support that ayurveda belonged to 5000 BCE in history section. 115.97.42.213 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If by "belonged to" you mean existed, then I agree with you, the two sources cited do not say 5,000 BCE, but 3,000 BCE instead. Have changed accordingly. Cannolis (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)